Talk:The Epoch Times/History section attempt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comments

We can use this space for comments, eh? Well, this is just a start. I hope it is clear why the form of "Dafa refers to..." is not quite appropriate for this. We can work through that more if it is not clear why we are against that. I cited the "Identity" part from the Style Manual. I guess that is something we could haggle endlessly about, but I hope it is enough if the relevant content is included in any case. At the moment I just did this briefly to indicate that I am working on this. This is kind of involved. I am sure we will come up with something we can all agree to. Have you got any thoughts or comments on what is below? Note this is just provisional, for now.--Asdfg12345 00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Okay I spent longer on this now, Tomananda, and welcome discussion or sharing of ideas. I want to apologise that I did not come up with anything earlier, and I note this, so will try to be more responsive to other concerns you have in the future, and I will endeavour to address them sooner and with greater consideration. This is how I propose discussing the relationship between the paper and Dafa, let me know your thoughts.--Asdfg12345 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg: I don't mind your additions, but do mind your deletions. However, I've tried to pare down my edit to the bare miniumum, so I hope we can agree to that as a compromise. --Tomananda 01:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, interesting, I will try to have a closer look later and get back to you. I feel that it is important, and that we should try to strike a balance between clearly communicating the key ideas and avoiding making sweeping definitions or generalisations of complicated metaphysical propositions. I mean, saying "Dafa is XYZ", that seems somewhat lacking. There are numerous, numerous things one could fill in for "XYZ", and they would also be correct: "short for Falun Dafa", "Zhen-Shan-Ren", etc. etc. -- if we have these key terms linked centrally, all important definitions can be included and explained, and that would resolve many of these problems. One more thing I notice, for example, is that you did not choose the word sequence "saving all beings". I bet if we did a big search through all of Li Hongzhi's books we'd find the word sequence "saving all beings" 100 times more than "judging all beings" -- so I wonder why you chose judging? Those are just a few quick thoughts I had upon noticing your helpful and welcome additions. I have got to go now, I will get back about this soonish.--Asdfg12345 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to quickly point out one more thing. This article is about The Epoch Times. It is of course important to situate and contextualise the issues associated with the paper and Dafa, and it would be remiss of any good wikipedia editor not to mention things such as the remarks Li Hongzhi has made about the role and purpose of the paper, especially the reasons it were founded, who runs it, and why they are doing so. However, there is no question that the article is about the paper itself -- so we need to get our emphasis right. It may be beneficial to employ the use of expanded footnotes for content that is related and explanatory, but for which in the body of the article appears extraneous, not strictly the key concern, and which overall requires more attention to be meaningful.--Asdfg12345 02:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to expanding the sentence to read: "The Dafa, which offers universal salvation, is judging all beings according to the principles of Truthfullness, Benevolence and Forebearance" or something like that. Judgment is an essential concept, and it has relevance to Li's teaching about the cosmic battle that is going on between good and evil, with the CCP representing absolute evil. Yes, I understand that one could write a lot more about the mechanism for the Fa-recrification itself using concepts such as "disintegration" and the returning of worthy beings to their original states at the higher realms. These ideas can and should be expounded on in the Teachings section. But for the Epoch Times, a one sentence explanation for the Dafa should suffice, with a link for further study. What I object to is just putting the words Dafa and Fa-rectification in without those explanations, or trying to obscure the obvious (for those who are familiar with Li's teachings) connection between the Fa-rectification and what Li says will be the eventual fate of the CCP. --Tomananda 08:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ps: Here's another forumulation: Li states that "Once the current time period is over, the first large-scale process of weeding out sentient beings will begin." [1] According to Li, among the first to be weeded out will be the evil and wicked Chinese Communist Party and all who have a hand in helping them. --Tomananda 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Here's a rather long quote that might be pared down for this edit as well. It covers all the basic points, and makes the necessary connection between the elimination of the CCP and the Fa-rectificatioin. Note that Li clearly says the CCP must be "fully eliminated" in order to end the persectution.

"We have basically made it through the wicked, cruel persecution, [and I can say that] since during this Fa-rectification the wicked CCP’s factors are being drastically and rapidly destroyed in great numbers. Just like I said, they are wicked, malicious, and bad. As long as they exist they will keep doing bad things. So in China, even though the restraint on people there from the wicked Communist Party’s evil factors is, as with many other people around the world, being eliminated, slowed down, and lessened, and it is no longer that effective really, the persecution against Dafa disciples is still being sustained. [That will continue] unless they are fully eliminated, and at that point the persecution will end. Those evil factors of the wicked CCP will definitely be cleared away by gods in the Fa-rectification!" (Enthusiastic applause) Teaching the Fa at the 2005 Canada Fa Conference (May 22, 2005) http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/jw_125.htm

Why don't we just put the whole quote in? Then all the other quotes you have dug up about the CCP being eliminated, the evil specters being eliminated, and everything that mentions weeding out and judgment? While we're at it, why don't we throw in some references to the teaching on homosexualality, mixed race children, and also mention that stuff about the aliens?

I am being sarcastic... I know you want a real spicy exposé on all this Tomananda, but the fact is that it does not belong on this page. I have absolutely no problem at all thrashing all this out in its appropriate place, none whatsoever. But this is The Epoch Times page. Had you forgotten that? It is rather important to mention that the paper was initiated by Falun Dafa students, it is being run by them, and that the purpose of it is to expose the persecution, clarify the truth, and save sentient beings -- but why do you so insist on the above content? By that logic we too should have a short explanation of the persecution, saying that it started in 1999, is really really evil, that there is live organ harvesting, lots of cruel torture, beatings, electric shock and rape. Would you object to me adding in a few sentences about that? What about a few sentences about Dafa, that it teaches people to give up attachments, to always look inward when encountering conflicts, to try to be kind to other people and elevate xinxing? Clarifying the truth: that it means telling people about the persecution, that it is based on lies and communist paranoia, and that Falun Dafa is really simple and good? I hope you see what point I am making. All those things too are extremely relevant, but it would not be fitting to include all that.

Please let me emphasise that this should all be reported. But it should be reported in its right place. I just gave you a like example to (hopefully) demonstrate the inappropriateness of what you are suggesting. I hope you can look at this more objectively. If this is the point where we stall then indeed we could use a mediator. I suggested the use of footnotes for some of these quotes and informations, eh? What do you reckon? To some extent there is always the element of haggling, negotiation and compromise in this, and I am proposing the use of short footnotes to quickly explain some of these things, and embedded links for proper explanations. I wish you would realise that we need to compromise and cooperate to make this work, and digging your heels in in these cases for the benefit of your crusade on wikipedia will add a lot of unnecessary hassle.. Anyone reading it is going to read the footnotes, be sure of that, so they will not actually miss out on any of this stuff. Right now it is a question of what is appropriate for the encyclopedia. I would like to hear what blowfish or others have to say, not from the perspective of Dafa but from the perspective of wikipedia. Is there a way we can get other people to look at this who have no idea about these things and give their opinions not based on the content, Dafa, and The Epoch Times specifically, but just on how it reads, looks, and hangs together in terms of relevance, balance and appropriateness, from the perspective of an encyclopedia? That may be useful...? We should discuss this more I think. --Asdfg12345 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Li demands that his Epoch Times disciple/editors work to destroy the CCP

Asdfg: Do I need to remind you that we are supposed to assume "good faith" and that if you really think my editing is merely to provide a "spicy expose" of the FG, then there's a bigger problem here than this particular edit? Actually, our positions should be reversed: as a FG practitioner who is charged with "validating the Fa" and assimilating the characteristics of "Truthfullness, Benevolence and Foreberarance" you should be the one insisting that Wikipedia honestly report the motivation of Li's disciples who run the Epoch Times. How can you possibly suggest that this information is not relevant to an understanding of the Epoch Times? Let me just give you one example to illustrate that relevance. In the CCP Renunciations section on this page, it states that:

At their Chinese language renunciation website [2], it was stated that "the evils of the Communist Cult will be punished by God at Judgment Day", "The CPC will be destroyed in 2005", and called on members of the CPC to burn Communist memorabilia. [3]

This suggests that there is a spiritual/religious motivation for the Epoch Times’ campaign against the CCP, does it not? And where do you think that motivation came from? Why from Li Hongzhi, of course, who says this about the CCP:

As long as they exist they will keep doing bad things. So in China, even though the restraint on people there from the wicked Communist Party’s evil factors is, as with many other people around the world, being eliminated, slowed down, and lessened, and it is no longer that effective really, the persecution against Dafa disciples is still being sustained. [That will continue] unless they are fully eliminated, and at that point the persecution will end. Those evil factors of the wicked CCP will definitely be cleared away by gods in the Fa-rectification!" (Enthusiastic applause) Teaching the Fa at the 2005 Canada Fa Conference (May 22, 2005) [4]

Here we have a clear and unambiguous statement from Li Hongzhi himself concerning the ultimate destruction of the CCP by the Gods in his Fa-rectification process. That statement provides the necessary context for anyone to understand why the Epoch Times would state that: "the evils of the Communist Cult will be punished by God at Judgment Day", "The CPC will be destroyed in 2005". To report this information on the Epoch Times page does not constitute a “spicey expose” of the Epoch Times, but rather an accurate and relevant reporting of the motivation for Li’s disciples who run the Epoch Times. If you deny this obvious connection, I will have to once again accuse you of concealing the truth.

All the other stuff you mention, the teachings on homosexuality, mixed races, existence of aliens and the like, truly is irrelevant to an understanding of the Epoch Times. If I were pushing for that material to be inserted on this page you would have every justification to challenge my motivations.

The Epoch Times does more than report on the suppression of Falun Gong practitioners in China; it actively promotes the overthrow of the current Chinese government and it does so in explicitly spiritual terms. To not report this information on the Wikipedia Epoch Times page would amount to censorship of information, and that is not acceptable.

I understand that when you "validate the Fa" you do not include information about the ultimate destruction of the CCP by Li's Fa-rectification. In fact, Falun Gong practioners generally don't even mention the Fa-rectification when they "clarify the truth" to "ordinary people." Certainly you and all of Li's disciples can continue this practice of only telling part of the story on your own websites. But having said that, you must recognize that in a Wikipedia article, the standards for inclusion of information are different. If a person like Li Hongzhi comes to the United States both to preach salvation to his followers and at the same time connect their salvation to the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party, I believe any reasonble and impartial Wikipdedia administrator would conclude that that information is notable and worthy of being reported in an edit. And further, if that same Li Honzhi has stated that the Epoch Times was founded by his disciples for the purpose of "validating the Fa" and that an essential part of that validation is that these disciples work to destroy the CCP, then that information, too, is relevant.

Frankly, unless you are willing to compromise and allow this information to appear in the Epoch Times page in some form, I think the only resolution for our impase is to ask Armedblowfish to intervene. --Tomananda 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tomananda, I suggested footnotes. Why don't we give a slightly more expanded explanation in footnotes?--Asdfg12345 01:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to add the reason I have a problem with this is that you are taking so much of this out of context and in doing so stripping it of its original meaning and appending to it a new one. Basically I am demanding that the teachings be taken in context, that you not pick out one part and present it in a certain light to create a specific impression. For this I proposed embedded links to the terms which can then be fully explained. I want to draw your attention to a comment you made on on 11 May 2006:

"Excessive quoting of Li..such as the three paragraphs Dilip introduced later in the discussion...will make for a very undreadable article. The goal should be to summarize the essence of an argument with the shortest quote possible, and then direct the reader to the complete text if they want to read further. Don't you agree?"

which is precisely what I am calling for here. The last thing, just for an example, if you were to insist, what we would have to end up doing, rather than a biased and inaccurate portrayal of the teachings, is to add a few paragraphs to explain Fa-rectification, mention that it was the old forces in the cosmos' resistance to Fa-rectification which caused the CCP to persecute Falun Gong, and that the Fa-rectification is complete mercy and salvation to all beings of the disintegrating old cosmos, with the only condition that they do not reject their own salvation by opposing the Fa-rectification (as it manifests in this dimension supporting the CCP), such that the purpose of what practitioners are doing during this period of time is to save beings by having them recognise the wicked persecution. (please, this is not the Fa. That is just what I say quickly now) You are suggesting picking one small part of the whole story and painting as the whole thing. I am really opposed to this, and I am saying why. It would be a completely skewed and inaccurate portrayal of the teachings on the role of Dafa disciples and the media during this period. I also hope you realise adding several paragraphs to explain the Fa-rectification in the middle of the Epoch Times article, you realise that too is not a very good idea. See WP:TOPIC:

"The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (or only loosely relevant!) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it."

I have suggested a very condensed summary of it with embedded links for expanded explanation, and footnotes for quick, less expanded explanation. I am not sure if you know what I am getting at. I would support a footnote or two which, with strict reference to Li Hongzhi's words, explained that it is inevitable that for persecuting the Buddha Fa the CCP will fall, and that during this period of time the goal of Dafa disciples is to save people from it. Actually the embedded links would already do this, but I offer this compromise to state this -- still very out of context -- piece of information. (By the way, that stuff from the Chinese websites is rather inadmissible for a source (being Chinese), even more so if it is taken from the comments section of people who have quit, not from the actual epochtimes.com page) --Asdfg12345 02:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I've made the case for relevance above and you've totally ignored that. Instead you cite my comment to Dilip about excessive quotes from Li. That comment was in response to multiple paragraphs (3 to 4) of Li's quotes being presented as stand-alone text in the Teachings section. We do not need a great many words to get across the basic idea here, as I've indicated. And again, I am open to either a direct quote or an indirect quote. Burying this essential information by linking to some other page is not acceptable. If need be, I will change my strategy and propose an entire new section on the Epoch Times page called "Connection between Li Hongzhi and the Epoch Times" in which all of this information, and more, will fit.

One more thing, since you have launched an attack against Samuel by requesting arbitration against him for behavior that you yourself have indulged in repeatedly, I ask that you refrain from any more discussion about this particular issue until the arbitration case is disposed with. --Tomananda 19:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a mutual discussion where we share ideas and figure out the best way to look at the issue. I have not, in fact, touched the highly disputed material on the article. It has been removed and contested by several editors, and instead of continuing in this way I initiated this dialogue. Please let me ask you: why should your version of this take precedence? Aren't we supposed to discuss things and reach a consensus? What I am saying is that you are taking this particular part of the teachings out of context for a previously stated goal of advocacy, and I am voicing my opposition to that. I stopped removing the content so we could discuss this. In truth, it should not be on there until we agree on how to do this. There are many other ways to explain what Li Hongzhi has said about this issue, yet you keep saying the way that you have devised is the best, most truthful, and what no one should object to. I have spelled out my objections and come up with compromises, but you have either rejected or not responded to them. In any case, they remain. I think this will have to go on hold until the arbcom is done anyway, because blowfish should offer some advice. The important thing I cited was WP:TOPIC, which very explicitly states that this kind of information should be put in other articles -- yet you ignore that. I suggested footnotes for a slightly bigger explanation...? Tomananda, please consider that right now you may be engaging in tendentious editing. Let me cite from the page:

Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased, skewed—in other words, it does not conform to the neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.

...

You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts”.

This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution. If the information you want to add is self-evidently valid and important to the subject, it should be trivial to provide multiple citations from reliable sources which agree that it is both true and significant. Take this evidence to the Talk page in the first instance.

You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.

Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited critical material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. One defamation case could bankrupt the Foundation and see us shut down.

Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.

The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses of other sources.

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.

If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones.

Finally,

[edit] How to pull back from the brink

First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you might have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits?

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia—a tertiary source. If what you want to say is genuinely verifiable, then it should be possible to find at least one reputable and respected authority who says the same thing in pretty much the same words. It’s fine to précis the arguments of other authorities, but it’s not acceptable to editorialise or interpret them. If only one authority says something then to include it might constitute undue weight, or it might be acceptable by agreement with other editors to state the opinion duly attributed to the named authority.

A good way to find out what people find problematic about your edits is to ask, in an open and non-confrontational way. If an edit is rejected, try something along the lines of:

According to {citation of source}, the following is the case: {statement from source}. You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should state this fact?

It may become clear that the problem is simply one of ambiguity of phrasing. Or it may be that you have a hill to climb, and will need to work with other editors to find a compromise. Once you have done that, however, the compromise text will be defended by all parties and is far less likely to be skewed by future edits.

I think that if you want to show that you are committed to playing above board, proactively assuming good faith, and in accordance with the spirit of cooperation we should all embody -- I am trying to do it this way -- you would remove the contested material until after the arbitration, steady work on the articles recommences, and we get more editors', as well as blowfish's opinion about how to go about this. I won't remove it, but only appeal that you respond to my arguments above. --Asdfg12345 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said I am open to alternative wording, using direct or indirect quotes (I prefer indirect because they can be more focused and leave out extraneous information). I'm all for an edit which is simple, short and to the point, which nevertheless reports what Li thinks his disciples who run the Epoch Times should accept as their goals during this Fa-rectification period. You say you have suggested alternatives, but you really haven't suggested anything for the Epoch Times page which does this, have you? Or did I miss something?

Let me be clear, I am perfectly ok with an edit which begins with "According to...." etc. But specfically, what I am proposing is that we report "According to Li Hongzhi, ....." etc.

The question that needs to be answered in this edit is what does it mean "to validate the Fa" for the Epoch Times managers according to Li Hongzhi. If there's a lack of good faith here, I believe it rests with you for not working cooperatively to come to agreement on some wording. If you prefer, I can present a series of alternatives, and some very simple ones at that, which would accomplish this goal. Since you don't seem comfortable with proposing any language here, would you prefer that I do that? I'd be happy to propose yet more alternatives, even nice short ones, if you agree. It's just that I still think we must wait until the resolution of the arbitration case. --Tomananda 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"The question that needs to be answered in this edit is what does it mean "to validate the Fa" for the Epoch Times managers according to Li Hongzhi."

Sincerely, I tell you:

Li has spoken about the role and purpose of the media run by Falun Dafa students,^[1] in terms of its role in the salvation of sentient beings and clarifying the truth in the Fa-rectification period, but also notably about its role in ending (what he refers to as) the persecution of Falun Gong: "Dafa disciples are doing things to clarify the truth to, for one, save all beings, and secondly, to restrain the persecution, to expose the persecution, and oppose it..."

Really, the only problem I have is with your claim that it is the goal of Li Hongzhi to destroy the CCP, the goal of Dafa disciples to work for the destruction of the CCP, the goal of the media to destroy the CCP. Actually, I do not have a problem with you thinking that, but I have a problem with it going on wikipedia. Always, always, it is saving sentient beings and clarifying the truth. (Those can be embedded linked to full definitions). Several instances just off the top of my head come to mind where Li Hongzhi has specifically stated that our goal is not in destroying the CCP:

“It is for the purpose of saving all beings and saving the people in the world today that we help people to see the wicked CCP for what it is. Of course, no matter how the CCP tries to hide the evil face of its wicked gangster regime, once the world’s people come to know it for what it is, they will realize that it is evil, and they will not cooperate with it anymore, choosing instead to withdraw from the Party. And that is when it ceases to exist. But that is not what we are trying to do—our goal is to save sentient beings.” Teaching the Fa in the City of Chicago

This idea is repeated many times, and I could find numerous quotes which echo it. If you wanted an addendum, maybe after that sentence we could add (we will need to find a good, direct quote, maybe you could help me with this) "Furthermore, Li Hongzhi has predicted that one of the inevitable(?) outcomes of the operations of The Epoch Times will be an end to the persecution of Falun Gong and the fall of the Chinese Communist Party" We could slot this sentence (or one like it, awaiting your input) directly after the last one in the above quote. So it might read something like:

Li has spoken about the role and purpose of the media run by Falun Dafa students,^[2] in terms of its role in the salvation of sentient beings and clarifying the truth in the Fa-rectification period, but also notably about its role in ending (what he refers to as) the persecution of Falun Gong: "Dafa disciples are doing things to clarify the truth to, for one, save all beings, and secondly, to restrain the persecution, to expose the persecution, and oppose it..." Furthermore, Li Hongzhi has predicted that one of the inevitable(?) outcomes of the operations of The Epoch Times will be an end to the persecution of Falun Gong and the fall of the Chinese Communist Party.^{[citation needed]} Li has spoken about the reasons behind the founding of the media outlets: "Many of the media outlets in mainstream society have business relationships with China, and some of the managers and editors have even been bought off by China’s wicked band of gangsters. In this day and age, such a severe persecution is taking place—such a significant thing—yet the international community turns a blind eye to it. Isn’t that odd? Is that acceptable? It’s a crime!"

Just an idea, could be better than that I reckon. Await your advice.--Asdfg12345 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The "(?)" is just in case there is no direct quote with that.--Asdfg12345 02:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Asdfg, although I truly appreciate that you have proposed some language above which I find interesting, I don't think it's appropriate for us to continue this conversation while there is an active arbitration case in which we may have to assume adversarial positions. After we know a bit more about where this arbitration case is heading, I plan to return to this page and offer some modifications to your language which, I would hope, you will accept, albeit reluctantly. The bottom line for me is that we must report, accurately and fairly, what Li has said concerning the destruction of the CCP as a necessary condition for ending the persecution. You are correct that Li has also said the opposite, so that can be reported, too. There are many different ways this material can be presented, and I do think you've taken a positive step in suggesting some language as a starting point. But I also think we need to hold off just a bit to see what comes of the Arbitration case, then get back to this discussion. Do you have any problems with that? --Tomananda 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah no probs about putting on hold. About what you said: it can be put that he has stated that it is an inevitable consequence of having persecuted Falun Gong, we could also add that he has directly said it would not have happened if it (the party) had not persecuted, other relevant, directly pertinent (to the paper), and able to be found exactly in the words of Li Hongzhi, material -- again though, this is the page on the EET. I think it is easy to forget the context, and sometimes I have forgotten that important detail too. I am certain that we will agree to something, with both of us making some kind of compromise through slightly gritted teeth. I agree holding it off until the end of the ArbCom. I want to suggest though that the ArbCom case is strictly business, and none of these exchanges should involve any personal hard-feelings. Of course, it is quite obvious that at this point any prospect of friendship between the two of us is a lost cause, but it would be beneficial to the progress of the articles if we could maintain at least this level of civility. Or maybe one of us could up the ante once in a while and get hyper-civil. Okay, I agree that we should chat more about this later, also noting the conspicuous absence of other possibly very useful contributors to this strange little debate.--Asdfg12345 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, am I to understand that you refuse to remove the content?--Asdfg12345 04:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Protest against the Communist Party of China and its purported control over Chinese society, organized by various associations including Falun Gong. Paris, Place d'Italie, February 26, 2006, near noon. The Epoch Times is cited by the protesters.

According to the newspaper itself, The Epoch Times was founded in New York in May 2000, following the arrest of a small circle of journalists in China in 2000. ^[3] As stated by Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong (also known as Falun Dafa), the Epoch Times "was established by Dafa disciples for validating the Fa." ^[4]

According to Li, the Epoch Times is one of “three major media groups”—the Sound of Hope and New Tang Dynasty TV are the other two—which most concern the Chinese Communist Party. Because the Epoch Times has become “the platform and facilitator for the Nine Commentaries,” a practitioner asked Li in 2005 about how it should be run. Li responded:

Just as I said earlier, if you want to do better, you need to cooperate and coordinate well, carry out each task responsibly and attentively, and through your collective effort make that media outlet stand out. If all of you do well, the media outlet is bound to do well, and it will have a greater effect in saving sentient beings. However many people it saves, you have a share in that because it is your collective mouth, the mouthpiece of everyone involved in running the newspaper.^[5]

Li has spoken about the role and purpose of the media run by Falun Dafa students,^[6] in terms of its role in the salvation of sentient beings and clarifying the truth in, as well as its role in ending the suppression of Falun Gong in mainland China: "Dafa disciples are doing things to clarify the truth to, for one, save all beings, and secondly, to restrain the persecution, to expose the persecution, and oppose it..." Li has spoken about the reasons behind the founding of the media outlets: "Many of the media outlets in mainstream society have business relationships with China, and some of the managers and editors have even been bought off by China’s wicked band of gangsters. In this day and age, such a severe persecution is taking place—such a significant thing—yet the international community turns a blind eye to it. Isn’t that odd? Is that acceptable? It’s a crime!", also stating that "Nobody is reporting on the persecution we’re being subjected to, so with no other recourse, Dafa disciples have worked together to do these things."^[7] Though Li has at the same time made clear that the actions of practitioners are not the actions of Falun Dafa itself: "...it’s Dafa disciples who are initiating things themselves and organizing to do it, and it’s not Dafa itself that’s doing that."^[8]

From the paper's perspective, Chinese journalists relay stories overseas of alleged human rights abuses, infringements on civil liberties, and corruption in the Communist Party of China (CPC), among others. ^[9]

Blocked from entering China, the Chinese version of Epoch Times is mainly being distributed in overseas Chinese communities for free. It claims to have a weekly distribution of over one million copies in 30 countries worldwide. The paper has associated media services, including the television station New Tang Dynasty TV, the radio station, Sound of Hope, which together with the Epoch Times form the Epoch media group. Minghui (Clear Wisdom) and Reminbao (People's Paper) are two other news sources used by few if any other media, and that help contribute stories from a Falun Gong perspective. ^[10]

In August 2004, an English language edition of the Epoch Times was launched in Manhattan. English editions are distributed in Australia, Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina and Ottawa), Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Houston, Atlanta). German and French editions were launched in late 2004, and more recently Russian, Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Ukrainian, Dutch and Hebrew editions have started up in print.

In May 2005, Die Neue Epoche (German edition of the Epoch Times) received a special media prize from the International Society for Human Rights (IGFM) for "extensive and regular reporting about violations of human rights in China." ^[11] In August 2005, the English version of the paper was awarded the top award by the Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) for the category "Asian American Issues - Online." ^[12] In September 2005, the English version of the paper was recognized during the National Ethnomedia Week 2005 in Canada as a "strong defender of human rights and free democratic values." ^[13]

As of April 2006, The Epoch Times has 10 languages in print, and 17 languages on the web. ^[14]