Talk:The Epoch Times

Hello there, looking harder at this page, I think it makes sense to improve the summary section by saying that The Epoch Times is "variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right." It has obviously been credibly described by WP:RS as "far-right," but the same is true for "conservative" and "right-wing"—both descriptors used by reliable sources over and over again. The page for Newsmax, another right-wing newspaper, is a useful example: "It has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right..."

The sources below are all based on a quick Google search, and they’re almost all centrist to center-left. They paint a much fuller picture of the newspaper’s media description without removing any current text (sources listed from least to most recent):

"Conservative"

• The Telegraph: "US conservative media outlet's ties to Chinese spiritual movement put in spotlight"

• The Wrap: "Facebook Bans Ads From Pro-Trump Conservative Site Epoch Times"

• The Washington Post: "The dubious claims were spun from citations to the Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet recently blocked from advertising on Facebook..."

• Reuters: "Trump allies such as attorney Rudy Guiliani and the president's son Eric Trump also joined the platform, as did conservative media such as Epoch Times and Breitbart News..."

• Forbes: "Clare told reporters Dominion will likely be naming media companies and personalities as future defendants, and the company has sent letters to conservative news outlets Newsmax, One America News, Fox News and the Epoch Times..."

• NPR: "Others have echoed that view, and conservative and pro-Trump media, like Breitbart, The Epoch Times and the Washington Examiner, have seized on the congressional testimony of FBI Assistant Director Jill Sanborn..."

• Columbia Journalism Review: "Almost everyone relied at least somewhat, and most relied heavily, on what we would describe as conservative sources, including Fox News, but also Newsmax, One America News Network, Epoch Times, Ben Shapiro, and Steven Crowder..."

• The New York Times: "They are also more likely than Republican voters overall to get their news from non-Fox conservative media sources like Newsmax or The Epoch Times..."

• NBC News: "Today, The Epoch Times is one of the country’s most successful and influential conservative news organizations..."

"Right-wing"

• Columbia Journalism Review: "In an updated global ranking of the top 50 English-language news sites prepared for the magazine, pro-Trump right-wing title The Epoch Times made it into the ranking for the first time after seeing 421 percent growth since December of 2019 – more than any other site in the top 50..."

• The New Republic: "Over the course of the Trump presidency, The Epoch Times has grown from being a newsprint giveaway to a multiplatform right-wing media juggernaut..."

• The Tampa Bay Times: "The governor’s reopening plan is being lionized in an 'exclusive documentary,' produced by the Epoch Times, a right-wing outlet published by the Falun Gong religious movement, titled 'DeSantis: Florida vs. Lockdowns...'"

• AP: "Records prepared for state regulators also showed Elder received income from advertising for a health supplement and work for the right-wing Epoch Times newspaper..."

• Politico: "They include Salem Media, the broadcasting network that airs his radio show, as well as Epoch Times, a right-wing newspaper with ties to the Falun Gong movement in China..."

• The New Yorker: "She said that she gets most of her news from WhatsApp chat groups, along with right-wing newspapers and sites such as the Epoch Times, the Daily Wire, and PragerU, an online platform founded by the conservative talk-show host Dennis Prager..." Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello again, I saw that @Binksternet reverted my added “conservative” and “right-wing” descriptors (alongside "far-right") to improve the summary section, apparently based on WP:WEIGHT.

The addition of nine reliable sources for "conservative" and six for "right-wing" should clearly constitute enough weight, according to a wide range of mainstream media publications. Still, given their concerns, I searched even more and found nearly 20 additional WP:RS out there, including 10 more for "conservative" and eight more for "right-wing." Some are from the same publications as above, but different articles by different journalists on different topics, so they are marked as "second example" and so forth.

With dozens of reliable sources in total now, there should be more than enough weight to justify a summary improvement in this case. I could probably find even more, but it might qualify as WP:OVERCITE at that point. Always open to feedback, but we should be all set now...

"Conservative" (least to most recent)

• The Washington Post (second example): “The Epoch Times, a conservative publication that has become a key promoter of President Trump and been criticized for spreading conspiracy theories, has been barred from advertising on Facebook…”

• The New York Times (second example): “Facebook has banned advertising from The Epoch Times, the Falun Gong-related publication and conservative news outlet, as the social network struggles to implement a consistent political advertising policy…”

• The New York Times (third example): “The company’s ties to more than a dozen sites illustrate how conservative media companies are branching out after Facebook and Twitter began stiffer policing of false information…”

• The Times Herald-Record: “Epoch Times newspaper, rising force in conservative media, buys Middletown office building”

• The Los Angeles Times: “DePape followed a number of conservative creators online, including Tim Pool, Glenn Beck, DailyWire+ and the Epoch Times…”

• The Wrap (second example): “FoxNews.com draws about 10 times more visitors than the next most popular site, the Epoch Times, which was one of just two of the top 20 conservative sites The Righting tracked to report a traffic increase, with a 13% gain to 7.4 million visitors…”

• KCCI: “He’s been trying for 19 months to persuade the library to carry two conservative publications, the Epoch Times newspaper, and the American Rifleman magazine…”

• AP (second example): “The chief financial officer of The Epoch Times, a conservative multinational media company, is accused of taking part in a multi-year scheme to launder tens of millions of dollars…”

• NBC News (second example): “In recent years, The Epoch Times has amassed a large audience as a publisher of right-wing news articles and peddler of baseless election conspiracies. This summer, the conservative media company is hoping to conquer new territory: Hollywood…”

• Poynter: “That same year, the DOJ accused Bill Guan, the then-chief financial officer of conservative newspaper The Epoch Times, of participating in a $67 million money laundering scheme…”

"Right-wing" (least to most recent)

• Columbia Journalism Review (third example): “Facebook banned The Epoch Times, another right-wing outlet with an outsized social-media following, from advertising on its platform, after NBC raised questions about the Epoch Times making massive ad buys in support of Trump…”

• Yahoo News: “…a post of the video on the official Instagram account for the Border Patrol Chief of the El Centro sector also tagged a handful of right-wing media outlets, such as Breitbart, the Daily Caller, the Blaze and the Epoch Times”

• The Guardian: “To back up these false claims, the resolution cited links to rightwing websites, including the Epoch Times, a pro-Trump outlet that has frequently published rightwing misinformation…”

• Press Gazette: “Surge in traffic to Epoch Times and other right-wing sites”

• The Washington Post (third example): “There’s a citation for that claim: an article from the right-wing outlet the Epoch Times…”

• USA Today: “Peters proclaimed in a series of tweets that the presidential race was swayed by ‘sophisticated election crime,’ often citing The Epoch Times, a powerhouse in right-wing media, in his social media posts…”

• NPR (second example): “A once-small newspaper founded by Chinese dissidents that became a prominent right-wing media outlet…”

• HuffPost: “National security reporter Andrew Thornebrooke resigned from The Epoch Times because the right-wing newspaper…” Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It is common practice in the media to describe far-right and right-wing organizations as conservative. That practice doesn't redefine them. It doesn't mean they aren't far-right or right-wing groups. You would need to bring sources analyzing the newspaper's political and social stances and concluding that they are NOT far right. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. If there are any sources that explain why they are not any one or two of the three, then we have something to discuss that might justify changes. --Hipal (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Binksternet. If it is “common practice in the media” for publications like The Epoch Times to be described as “conservative,” “right-wing,” and “far-right,” then that reality should be reflected in the summary—just like such descriptors are reflected in the dozens of reliable sources that I shared (and others out there).

I am obviously advocating to retain “far-right” because plenty of RS use that description, making it WP:DUE. But since when do editors have to prove a negative (e.g. that The Epoch Times is not “far-right”) as opposed to restating what is reported? That is, the bigger picture?

Only using that one descriptor, while omitting others that are used just as frequently if not more, risks violating WP:NPOV. It clearly gives off only one connotation when the picture that the reliable sources paint is more nuanced. Plus, interpreting “conservative” and “right-wing” descriptors only as wrappers of “far-right” essentially amounts to WP:OR, since they are not precise synonyms. We should WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE—in this case, dozens of them.

Using all three descriptors is very much DUE, as these 33 different RS prove. From an encyclopedic rather than editorial standpoint, this is pretty straightforward. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you trim the potential sources at least to those that describe the political leanings in some detail, specifically to the subject? Otherwise this could be a POV violation if even the briefest and indirect mentions are being used to obscure what the best sources have to say. --Hipal (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I checked the 7 references for the far-right descriptor in the article just now and only the first one is explicitly about Epoch. Nearly all the other sources had only a brief mention of Epoch. Frankserafini87 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed with most of the "far-right" sources only mentioning the Epoch Times in passing, so we can't apply some double standard for "conservative" or "right-wing." That being said, "far-right" should be included. This is a key point, @Binksternet: I'm not saying that the Epoch Times isn't "far-right" (nor does the reliable sourcing have to say that); I'm saying it may very well be "far-right" according to the sources, but the same goes for "conservative" or "right-wing"—because, well, it is described as both of those over and over again.

Many of the 33 RS that I provided describe the Epoch Times and its political leanings explicitly, not just implicitly. As quoted, NBC News is a prime example of that, in addition to the New York Times, NPR, USA Today, etc. The other two descriptors are blatantly used to contextualize this specific newspaper's general politics, and those are the ones that I plan on using for the summary section. Per the feedback here, it makes sense to prioritize the sources where the description is explicitly Epoch politics-related. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Please specifically identify sources. Maybe just one that discussed The Epoch Times in detail. --Hipal (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I oppose the changes in Special:Diff/1334267750, as it removes the far-right descriptor from the first sentence. As per Talk:One America News Network/Archive 2 § RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor, the far-right descriptor is used when there is sufficient sourcing to support that descriptor even when sources also describe the source as conservative or right-wing, because far-right politics is a subset of right-wing politics and of conservative politics. The phrasing you cite from the Newsmax article was originally added in Special:Diff/1149306604 by the recently blocked sockpuppet FMSky (talk · contribs), which puts the validity of their edit in question.

There used to be many more sources cited for the far-right descriptor in this article (e.g. in Special:Permalink/1244806678 § cite note-far-right-1) until they were removed for being too many, leaving only the academic sources. As there is a critical mass of reliable sources that support the far-right descriptor and little to no sourcing that opposes it, The Epoch Times should be described solely as far-right in the first sentence. I have no objection to also describing The Epoch Times as conservative or right-wing later in the article body when it is warranted.

Also, the following in-depth academic source, Nguyen (2025), has a large amount of information pertaining to The Epoch Times that should be incorporated into this article:

— Newslinger talk 09:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing Nguyen's paper. I agree it should be added to the article where appropriate.

I would note, however, that academic discussions of The Epoch Times’ role in Asian communities, particularly in the Chinese diaspora, vary among scholars. As I mentioned on this talk page in April 2024 (see Talk:The_Epoch_Times/Archive_5), sociologist Andrew Junker characterizes the outlet  as playing "progressive role" in the Chinese diaspora in his book "Becoming Activists in Global China" (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Here is the relevant passage (p. 186):

“The Chinese edition of The Epoch Times, which is often free and easily available in many major cities, stands out among overseas Chinese-language newspapers for its commitment to publishing watchdog, critical news from mainland China. For example, it claims to have been the first media source to report the SARS cover-up in China in 2003. Over the years, the incentives of being supported through advertising and increasing readership have pushed the newspaper toward greater professionalization and to increasingly orient itself toward the needs and interests of its widest readership. Simply by increasing the plurality of voices in the diaspora Chinese-language public sphere, The Epoch Times is playing a progressive role, even though the community’s pariah status limits its impact. It is also conceivable that an organization like The Epoch Times could evolve into a more mainstream publication while retaining its critical independence and moral watchdog mission.”

Similarly, scholar Ji Chen argued that Epoch Times provides a multilingual platform for pro-democracy dissidents in the 2014 paper "The Overseas Chinese Democracy Movement after Thirty Years" (Asian Survey, Vol. 54, No. 3 (May/June 2014), pp. 445-470).

"Forced into exile in 1999, the spiritual movement initially resisted any contact with the OCDM [Overseas Chinese Democracy Movement], which was treated as one of the five overseas poisons,’ the others being independence campaigns for Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia, respectively. This attitude changed over the past decade, when Falun Gong’s campaigns evolved from defending the human rights of its practitioners to a wholesale crusade against the Chinese communist regime, operating its own dense web of media outlets. Dissidents have thus capitalized on these multilingual programs of New Tang Dynasty Television and Epoch Times and various radio programs to boost the publicity of their activities and views."

Also, a 2025 paper, "Testing the bidirectional causation among media attention and the protest scale: the case of Hong Kong" (Chinese Journal of Communication 2025, Vol. 18, no. 1, 39–56), categorized Epoch Times as a "pro-democracy media" for the purposes of analyzing media attention and protest dynamics.

This diversity of scholarly perspectives is relevant when considering attribution and proportionality in the lead. It also allows for more detailed, sometimes divergent, academic analyses to be developed in the body of the article. Thanks for the discussion. Path2space (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict between Nguyen (2025) and the excerpts you quoted, as they describe the impact of The Epoch Times in different regions. As a far-right organization, The Epoch Times advocates for a rightward shift in areas governed by the Chinese Communist Party, and the effect of that advocacy could indeed be described as progressive in the context of mainland Chinese politics or pro-democracy in the context of Hong Kong politics. The Epoch Times's far-right advocacy in American politics, on the other hand, "perpetuates exclusionary and divisive racial hierarchies" and "strategically attracts Asian American communities into far-right extremism", as described in Nguyen (2025). — Newslinger talk 10:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your nuanced input, @Newslinger. Let me reiterate: The "far-right" descriptor should NOT be removed from the summary, and I'm all for it being part of the first sentence if the other two descriptors are also part of the first sentence. "Far-right" is clearly WP:DUE, but it is not the only due descriptor. Using all three captures the entire picture of a notable, encyclopedic description for the Epoch Times based on dozens of reliable sources.

The logical extension of your argument is to then just use "right-wing" as the more general, all-encompassing description (and specify "far-right" later in the page), which I didn’t even propose. By that logic, the most "sufficient" description would be to lean on "right-wing" as a catch-all per the infobox of the "Far-right politics" page. But again, that's where your argument leads, not mine.

Side note: I had no idea about the Newsmax sockpuppet, but it isn’t really relevant to the substance of this conversation. That "variously described" phrasing is still part of the Newsmax summary for good reason—because Newsmax should be described as all three per the RS, like the Epoch Times in this case. As for One America News, the Epoch Times is a different media platform with different language editions and so forth. It's an interesting comparison, but a contrived precedent. From what I can tell, the Epoch Times is more commonly described as something other than "far-right," in part because it is covered more often than OAN by mainstream news outlets that bestow the "conservative" or "right-wing" label.” Looking at the OAN RFC, a couple of editors offered a few sources that described it as "conservative" and "right-wing," but there are now DOZENS of RS listed here. The amount of due weight in these two cases is night and day.

For the sake of WP:NPOV, let’s WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. There is absolutely no downside to using all three descriptors per the RS, whereas there is an obvious downside to using one descriptor that paints a very narrow picture DESPITE the RS. Forget what I think because it doesn't matter; it's what the reliable sources say again and again. And below are 17 additional sources that use "conservative" or "right-wing," including academic and media examples. The three academic papers (at the bottom) suggest the Epoch Times' reporting is similar to other mainstream conservative publications in Germany.

And yes, there were about 20 RS cited for "far-right" in the past, but I have now provided more than double that with roughly 50 RS for "conservative" and "right-wing" to this talk page discussion (took too long, but oh well), so I really don’t know what else you could possibly need in good faith...

^Conservative

^{The New York Times (fourth example): "Throughout his political career, Mr. DeSantis has relied heavily on conservative media, slipping well-timed scoops to outlets such as Breitbart News and The Epoch Times and frequently appearing on prime-time shows on Fox News…"}

^{HuffPost (second example): "Some reporters who've acceded to Hegseth’s policy are from conservative media outlets like The Federalist, The Epoch Times and One America News Network, the Post reports…"}

^{Changing Models for Journalism (Taylor & Francis, 2023): "The 51st company listed is the Epoch Times, which has a warning label attached to it because the conservative news organization's funding is unclear…"}

^{The Art of Editing (Taylor & Francis, 2022): "Newspapers: Liberal — The New York Times, the Washington Post; Conservative — The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner, Epoch Times"}

^{A Friendship in Twilight (Columbia University Press, 2022): "Interestingly, it was preceded by a very long commercial for the conservative paper Epoch Times…"}

^{Ethical Journalism (Taylor & Francis, 2021): "As most news organizations were fixated on the wildfires raging in the West during September, and Trump's denial that climate change was exacerbating them, another determinedly conservative newspaper, The Epoch Times, chose to feature an offbeat Trump-friendly story…"}

^{Revisiting Revisionist History (Xlibris US, 2019): "Conservative journals and newspapers such as Commentary, The New Criterion, The Claremont Review of Books, The Epoch Times and The Washington Times have led the way…"}

^Right-Wing

^{The New York Times (fifth example): "A top executive at The Epoch Times, a right-wing media company, has been arrested and charged with laundering at least $67 million…"}

^{The New York Times (sixth example): "A national security reporter at the right-wing Epoch Times newspaper has resigned after the publication signed on to rules restricting news gathering within the Pentagon…"}

^{The Washington Post (fourth example): "CFO of right-wing Epoch Times accused of $67M money laundering scheme"}

^{Al Jazeera: "Weidong Guan is accused of involvement in 'sprawling' scheme to launder money to benefit himself and the right-wing outlet…"}

^{Cambridge News: "Controversial right-wing Epoch Times sent to homes in Cambridge"}

^{Media Bias: Examining the Facts (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2025): "Ultimately, traditional big-name newspapers tend to have a reputation for being left of center, although some of the newer, smaller ones like the Epoch Times have a more right-wing bent…"}

^{Class Dealignment, Multiracial Workers, and Labor's Future After Trump's Reelection (Labor Studies Journal, 2025): "...many Filipino immigrant workers are not union members who obtain their news through right-wing sources such as Fox News, NewsMax, Epoch Times, One America News, Townhall, the Daily Wire as well as follow right-wing commentators online."}

^{Comparing Frame Repertoires of Mainstream and Right-Wing Alternative Media (Digital Journalism, 2022):}

^{-- "Other alleged RAM [Right-Wing Alternative Media], like Sputnik, Epoch Times or RT Deutsch, are more reserved and show no ideological tendencies substantially different from mainstream media, thereby mismatching their a priori classifications…"}

^{-- "The MDS model in Figure 3 shows that most mainstream media form a dense region on the left side, which also encompasses the alternative outlet Epoch Times, being again close to conservative mainstream media Welt and Focus."}

^{Mapping Emerging and Legacy Outlets Online by Their Democratic Functions—Agonistic, Deliberative, or Corrosive? (The International Journal of Press/Politics, 2021): "…cluster 4 within Figure 2 contains Russia Today, Epoch Times, and Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten. These media play a prominent role within right-wing populist media spheres (Bachl 2018), but we find that they interestingly do not diverge much from mainstream reporting."}

^{How many people use alternative media in Germany and how can we measure it? (Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media,  2024): "The different degrees and types of alternativeness can be illustrated with three outlets from the German right-wing alternative media sphere, which are frequently included in measurements of alternative media exposure that will be examined in the present study. The Epoch Times is a globally operating news outlet with a rather conventional orientation. It has a professional layout, covers a broad thematic spectrum (Freudenthaler & Wessler, 2022a; Müller & Freudenthaler, 2022; Rone, 2018), exhibits a neutral style of reporting (Freudenthaler & Wessler, 2022b; Klawier et al., 2022), and offers subscriptions to paid content and a weekly print newspaper. Thus, the alternative nature of this outlet remains rather implicit…"}

Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Because the far right is a subset of the right wing, it is redundant to state that The Epoch Times has been described as far-right and right-wing in the first sentence. Likewise, because far-right politics is a subset of conservative politics, it is redundant to state that The Epoch Times has been described as far-right and conservative in the first sentence. To provide an example, ice cream has been variously described as a food, a dessert, and a frozen dessert, but there is no need for the first sentence of the Ice cream article to state that all three descriptors have been used for it, because dessert is a subset of food and frozen dessert is a subset of dessert. "Ice cream is a frozen dessert..." is the most appropriate first sentence for Ice cream, and "The Epoch Times is a far-right international multi-language newspaper..." is the most appropriate first sentence for the article under discussion.

In terms of sourcing, Nguyen (2025) is a 20-page article "Analyzing a corpus of 19,000 articles from 2013 to 2022" to show that The Epoch Times is a "far-right ethnic media outlet" that uses strategies "to foster enclave extremism within its readership". Also cited is Peng (2023), a 22-page article that "examined the Facebook newsfeed history of The Epoch Times (N = 117,274 posts from 2013 to 2020)" to explain how The Epoch Times "is an important example of far-right media outlets using far-right political content to attract attention". Nguyen (2025) and Peng (2023) use the term "far-right" 62 and 51 times, respectively (excluding citations), and both focus exclusively on The Epoch Times. These are high-quality academic sources with extremely deep dives into The Epoch Times's content and political orientation, in contrast to the passing mentions in the bulk of the sources you listed above. A problem with the articles you quote using language in the form of "right-wing sources such as..." is that when The Epoch Times is listed alongside a source that is not far-right (e.g. Fox News), the article is forced to use a descriptor that encompasses them all (right-wing or conservative) even when a more specific descriptor (far-right) is applicable to The Epoch Times.

I can continue finding sources for the far-right descriptor, but there is really no need, because the 20+ from the previous years are already enough to constitute a critical mass. The situation with The Epoch Times is equivalent to that of Breitbart News, for which the request for comment at Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 5 § RfC: Should Breitbart News also be described as "right-wing" in the lead? concluded: "There is a significant supermajority for No. I've not seen good arguments for having both - 'far right' is a more specific term than 'right wing', not one that conflicts with it. As such, I see no WP:NPOV case for going against the majority here. The Nos have it." — Newslinger talk 05:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Your ice cream analogy could work if we were trying to describe an outlet as media, a newspaper, or an American newspaper. But that is not the case here. Food, dessert, and frozen dessert form a vertical hierarchy (food > dessert > frozen dessert), but not a horizontal spectrum. Political descriptors like conservative, right-leaning, right-wing, and far-right, on the other hand, form a horizontal spectrum of increasing intensity and connotation.

Taking the ice cream example, I think a more appropriate analogy can be this: Suppose some sources describe this ice cream as good, some other sources describe it as excellent, and some other sources describe it as fantastic. Using your logic, because “fantastic” is a subset of “good” and “excellent”, should we only describe this ice cream as “fantastic” in the lead, instead of describing the range from “good” to “fantastic”?

I reviewed one of the sources you mentioned (Peng (2023)), and I see the paper’s research is not to prove Epoch as far-right. The paper starts with the premise that Epoch is "far-right." It cites external sources, such as Ad Fontes, for the far-right categorization. The paper focuses on Epoch’s strategy of using viral entertaining videos to draw many audiences and viewers. Btw, Ad Fontes’ current rating of Epoch is “skews right.”

Also, the fact that each of these two papers used the term “far-right” (some of them don’t refer to Epoch) 50+ times doesn’t make it more than ONE source. We cannot negate so many other sources with only two sources.

I checked some of the articles above and many are specifically about Epoch. They are not just mentioning it in the passing. Frankserafini87 (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Peng (2023) has a background section titled "The political logic: far-right content as an attention driver" that parenthetically cites 11 sources in the portion that explains The Epoch Times's far-right characteristics. An earlier section states that The Epoch Times "championed the dissemination of pro-Trump conspiracy theories, such as the Spygate theory, which falsely claimed that the Obama administration planted a spy in his 2016 presidential campaign, and the allegation about widespread fraud in the 2020 US presidential election", as additional examples of how "this outlet blends disinformation and far-right politics".

Finally, Peng (2023) examines The Epoch Times's 117,274 Facebook posts to conclude that "that The Epoch Times transitioned from an outlet centered on criticizing the Chinese government to an actor extensively spreading far-right politics in the United States". A key finding of Peng (2023) is that The Epoch Times's far-right political posts received high social media engagement in the short term that dropped off in the long term, whereas The Epoch Times's posting of clickbait videos licensed from other companies attracted long-term engagement, thereby exposing the outlet's far-right political content to a greater audience and leading to The Epoch Times outperforming other US far-right media outlets. Peng (2023) is a robust analysis of The Epoch Times's far-right political orientation, much stronger than, for instance, a set of newspaper articles that focus on The Epoch Times's CFO being indicted for money laundering.

Your ice cream rating example is not a good fit, because the "goodness" of something is analogous to the critical reception of a film and not the political orientation of a newspaper. When an article describes a media outlet as conservative or right-wing, that is not equivalent to a critic giving a film a "good" review, because "excellent" (e.g. 5 out of 5 stars) is not a subset of "good" (e.g. 3 out of 5 stars) on the "goodness" scale. On the other hand, conservative politics and right-wing politics are broader concepts that encompass far-right politics, which is why sources that describe a media outlet as far-right can be seen using terms such as conservative and right-wing in the same article to describe it without contradiction. The term far-right conservative, which has been used to describe The Epoch Times, only makes sense because these political descriptors represent ranges of varying wideness instead of fixed points. — Newslinger talk 05:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The quotes you cited from Peng (2003), such as the being pro-Trump, spygate, 2020 election, have all been reported by other media such as NBC, NY Times, etc. They are not the paper’s original findings. The paper’s findings are about Epoch’s social media strategy. The “Results” section of the paper includes only a shift in the topic trend of FB posts going from a China focus to a greater emphasis on US politics (but no specific topic in US politics), and the immediate as well as ripple effects of audience engagement. These are the actual findings of the paper. The “far-right” categorization, or at least the content that the authors cited to justify the “far-right” descriptor, came from Ad Fontes and other sources. No matter how many times it repeats “far-right”, it doesn’t change that fact. Again, it is just ONE source.

I also checked a paper Doctorstrange617 mentioned above: Klawier (2022), titled “Comparing Frame Repertoires of Mainstream and Right-Wing Alternative Media” (Digital Journalism, 2022),

Even though the paper is not solely about Epoch, it evaluates the German edition of Epoch’s coverage in migration and coalition talks and compares it with other mainstream publications, both right-wing and far-right publications, and positions Epoch’s coverage in the political spectrum using quantitative methods instead of subjective judgment. In other words, Epoch’s political position is the actual finding of the paper. I find it more valuable in this discussion than a paper that simply cites other sources to justify the “far-right” label.

Klawier (2022) found that Epoch’s coverage resembles those of other mainstream conservative publications and is far from far-right outlets. Here are the quotes (though listed above, I think it is worth repeating here): "The MDS model in Figure 3 shows that most mainstream media form a dense region on the left side, which also encompasses the alternative outlet Epoch Times, being again close to conservative mainstream media Welt and Focus." and "Other alleged RAM [Right-Wing Alternative Media], like Sputnik, Epoch Times or RT Deutsch, are more reserved and show no ideological tendencies substantially different from mainstream media, thereby mismatching their a priori classifications."

I am not suggesting this paper should negate other sources that describe Epoch as “far-right”. Likewise, Peng (2003) and Nguyen (2025) shouldn’t be used to negate this paper and dozens of other sources listed above that describe Epoch as “conservative” and “right-wing”. Frankserafini87 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion about "variously described," I don't really see the point of going back-and-forth on individual sources here and there when the point is that all three descriptors are WP:DUE based on DOZENS of reliable sources. According to 50-plus RS for "conservative" and "right-wing" (and more probably available), omitting those descriptors jeopardizes NPOV. To summarize, there is zero justification in choosing only the most extreme framing for this newspaper. Doing so is unnecessarily selective and clearly leading when the RS (not me or the rest of us) dictate that all three descriptors are very often used online and should therefore be used in this case. As editors, we should strive to reflect the reality of reliable sourcing, per RSP. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:LEDE, the lead summarizes the subject as described in reliable sources, with appropriate weight. Here, reliable sources describe the outlet using multiple political descriptors. So the lead should reflect that range. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Then I can update the opening paragraph with 10 or so reliable sources per descriptor, just to avoid WP:OVERKILL. A mix of strong academic and media sourcing makes sense for variety's sake. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Tagging @Binksternet:, @Grayfell:, @MrOllie:, and @Simonm223: to the discussion.~2026-97519-5 (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither conservative nor right-wing are antonyms for far-right and it's unsurprising that publications in a country with an overtly fascist government underlay how far to the right a far-right publication is. As far as I am concerned none of this is a compelling case to downplay the extremity of this publications views. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since when do we just ignore 50-plus reliable sources based on editor political persuasion? This is pure opinion on your part and we should just WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Pretending like the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Republic, NPR, HuffPost, etc. don't exist (plus numerous academic sources) for the sake of this argument makes zero sense according to Wikipedia best practices. Hardly "fascist" sources, wouldn't you say, given that they criticize the Trump administration on a daily basis?

Anyway, the summary section would and should still include "far-right." Readers can make that calculation for themselves, but a bit more nuance is warranted by the WP:RS—dozens and dozens and dozens of them. Not my opinion, but what the sources actually say again and again. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The far right are conservative. The far right are right wing. You present synonyms and act like they suppose a difference. They do not. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Simonm223 is correct. That some sources write 'the sky is cerulean' does not mean we can't just write 'The sky is blue', and someone saying so in no way means that they are saying the cerulean source does not exist. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

So why wouldn't you just describe them as "conservative" then? Or "right-wing"? The most extreme descriptor is obviously your preference for a reason lol proving that there clearly is a difference between "far-right" and the others. As we all know, based on any simple line of political ideology moving from left to right, like come on now Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

"Conservative" and "right-wing" are not synonyms of "far-right". As I mentioned above, they represent a political spectrum of different connotations and intensities.

I don't think including the "conservative" and "right-wing" descriptors that have been widely used by reliable sources is "downplaying" anything. It is rather accurately and proportionally reflecting what reliable sources say. Only using the most extreme descriptor violates WP:NPOV. Frankserafini87 (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

They're not synonyms, but they are also not words that contradict each other. They overlap. That some source writes 'conservative' does not undercut some other source that writes 'far-right'. NPOV does not require the article to parrot every term every source has used. MrOllie (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

If we have to choose only one descriptor, then I'd say we should go with an all-encompassing one, like "conservative" or "right-wing" instead of “far-right.” Plus, if we only choose "far-right", it doesn't cover all of the sources that describe Epoch as "conservative" or "right-wing", unless we can prove that those sources actually mean "far-right" but are too lazy to specify it. But can we? At least the 3 academic papers that I cited below prove otherwise.

Also, I would argue that, choosing “far-right” alone contradicts what these 3 academic papers say about Epoch. Again, my argument is not whether Epoch is or is not “far-right.” I believe given all of these sources and evidence, all of the descriptors should be included to better reflect the sources. Frankserafini87 (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You can argue that, sure, but your argument is not convincing. As has already been pointed out, it relies on WP:SYNTH and cherry picked sourcing. Combining sources to try to generalize statements about the German edition is a no-go.

A source that "prove"s otherwise would say something like "The Epoch Times is not far-right", and that's not what's going on here. You've got sources that limit themselves to framing models and say things like [a]lternative viewpoints were carefully inserted into the overall communication flow, veiled by articles that could as well have been published in any of the mainstream news media sites and it may be a strategy to embed articles with a clearly alternative framing in a flood of more neutral ‘alibi content’ where they vanish from a quantitative perspective. Given that the topics Klawier studied were quite limited, your generalization of what they're writing into a broad statement is a misrepresentation of the source. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You reversed the burden of proof. I have never said that Epoch is not “far-right”, or attempted to disqualify any sources that describe Epoch as “far-right”. I agree that we should include “far-right” as one of the descriptors. So, I have no burden of proof to show Epoch is not “far-right.”

But when you don’t allow other editors to cite 50+ sources to describe Epoch as “conservative” and “right-wing,” the burden of proof is on you to show these sources used the wrong descriptors or at least not specific enough, i.e., they actually mean ‘far-right” without saying so. Otherwise, there is no rationale to exclude these sources, given that “conservative” and “right-wing” obviously represent different connotations and intensities than “far-right” on the political spectrum.

Going back to Klawier (2022), the charts in the paper clearly show that Epoch’s position is far from those of the far-right media included in the study. And Klawier (2024) says that Epoch “exhibits a neutral style of reporting”, which is not limited to topics.

After reading everything written by some of the other editors, I still think we should say that Epoch has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right. Frankserafini87 (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

You wrote that At least the 3 academic papers that I cited below prove otherwise.. Pointing out that your assertion is not true is not reversing the burden of proof.

But when you don’t allow other editors to cite 50+ sources to describe Epoch as “conservative” and “right-wing,” You can cite them all you like, but since they do not actually contradict the sources in the article, you're not going to be able to use them to undercut the sources we're already using. there is no rationale to exclude these sources You keep saying that, but it is a misrepresentation of what people are saying. I know it is easier to puts words in other people's mouths to argue against, but such strawman arguments will not convince anyone. MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The "nuance" you ask for is not appropriate, as many sources don't apply such nuance—they just pick a word and print it, most often substituting "conservative" for more damning labels. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

We should edit based on sources and policies, instead of personal speculations. If we easily disqualify 50+ reliable sources that describe Epoch as "conservative" and "right-wing" by speculating they are not "nuanced" enough, may I speculate that some of the sources that describe Epoch as "far-right" do so simply based on Wikipedia given that many researchers and journalists often use Wikipedia for research? In those cases, it would become WP:CIRCULAR. I wouldn't go that direction though, as personal speculations don't count. What counts is sources and policies. Frankserafini87 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to 'disqualify' anything, these sources do not contradict the ones that use 'far-right'. MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged, I will cast my non-vote. I think this proposal is a false compromise based on debatable interpretations of sources. This discussion is tediously long, so I likely missed something, but it appears that the only source which arguably dispute the 'far-right' descriptor is Klawier... but it's not that simple, and it's only for the German-language edition. Klawier also cites other source which specifically describe it as far-right. The quote from Freudenthaler & Wessler (2021) is cherry-picked. In context, the full paragraph doesn't meaningfully challenge the 'far-right' descriptor. Misrepresenting sources like this undermines good faith. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Even though Klawier (2022) is about the German Epoch Times, the paper cites Hettena (2019)'s claim that "its German website is more radical than its American counterpart". Therefore, Klawier (2022)'s conclusion of German Epoch's coverage "being again close to conservative mainstream media Welt and Focus" can also be a reference for the English edition based on this inference. Though Klawier (2022) does cite a source saying that Epoch is frequently linked in discussions on Facebook pages affiliated with the AfD, it doesn't describe Epoch itself as "far-right". Instead, the paper's analysis finds that Epoch’s coverage contradicts these previous reports by showing "no ideological tendencies substantially different from mainstream media, thereby mismatching their a priori classifications."

Freudenthaler & Wessler (2021)'s study includes mainstream media, right-wing alternative media (including Epoch), and far-right media. It describes Epoch as right-wing populist media, but doesn't include it in the far-right media group it studied. I see the context of the full paragraph says its reporting is more partisan than mainstream media, but the results from the analysis still finds it does not "diverge much from mainstream reporting." The charts in the paper show Epoch’s position is far from those of the far-right media included in the study.

Another paper listed above, Klawier (2024), cited both Klawier (2022) and Freudenthaler & Wessler (2021) stating that Epoch “exhibits a neutral style of reporting (Freudenthaler & Wessler, 2022b; Klawier et al., 2022)”, and “the alternative nature of this outlet remains rather implicit.”

Given the number of reliable sources using all 3 descriptors (conservative, right-wing, and far-right) to describe Epoch and considering that some academic studies place it within right-wing or conservative spectrum rather than in the far-right category when comparing it to other media, reflecting the full range of descriptors would better represent the sourcing. Excluding some of these characterizations is underrepresenting a large portion (50+) of RS and may result in undue weight toward a single framing. Frankserafini87 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

No. You are engaging in WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Citing exact quotes from 3 papers is not synthesis. Frankserafini87 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, the article should be written "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If reliable sources use multiple descriptors, the lead should reflect that range. Limiting the lead to only “far-right” does not appear to reflect that full range proportionately, per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.

Per WP:CANVASS, outreach in Talk discussions should be neutral and broad to avoid the appearance of selective notification. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Once again, overlapping terminology does not represent any sort of contradiction here. It has not been demonstrated that there are conflicting 'signficant views' per NPOV. NPOV still does not require the article to parrot every term every source has used. MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, to @Path2space's point, choosing only one descriptor would clearly constitute "editorial bias" per WP:NPOV. Noting that all three descriptors are used by WP:RS (again, 50-plus RS) is the best possible way to "fairly" and "proportionately" represent what reliable sources have published over and over again.

And there's no need to get into "conflicting views" here. ALL THREE DESCRIPTORS are repeatedly used, and the summary should reflect the usage of all three as due. It's not rocket science. Cherry-picking one is silly, and if that is the goal here, then the more all-encompassing term on Wikipedia's political spectrum ("right-wing") should be used as the catch-all term. That is closest to NPOV, or just using all three descriptors to play it safe. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

No one would write 'The sky has been variously described as blue, azure, or cerulean'. That's not rocket science either. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

That analogy doesn't make sense in this case. We're talking political ideology with complex overtones and undertones, not shades of blue obviously Doctorstrange617 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Your analogy could be relevant if reliable sources described sky as azure or cerulean as often as it is described as blue. But that is not the case. Moreover, we choose blue because blue is all-encompassing. Azure and cerulean are different shades of blue. Applying the same logic, if we have to use only one descriptor, then it should be conservative or right-wing, as they are both all-encompassing terms.

Plus, a quick search on wikipedia shows that there are over 1,600 entries that use "variously described," so this is widely used in Wikipedia. Frankserafini87 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

And your arguments would be relevant if the sources were contradicting each other - but they aren't. These terms all overlap, just as the color descriptors do.

Also that Albreda (for example) is variously described as a 'trading post' or a 'slave fort' is utterly irrelevant to this article, but it is emblematic of the problems with the approach here: Counting articles that happen to use a given phrase but which does not actually contradict this article or comment on the issue at hand. MrOllie (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Precisely. While not every conservative outlet is far-right, every far-right outlet is conservative; every far-right outlet is right-wing. Unless a source is presented that contradicts calling the Epoch Times far-right there's no need to inform people to a controversy that simply isn't there. Just because a source called Epoch Times conservative does not speak, at all, to whether or not that source would posit that the Epoch Times is also far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

You are right in saying that "not every conservative outlet is far-right.” The same is true that not every right-wing outlet is far-right. But by excluding all the RS that describe Epoch as conservative and right-wing and only choosing far-right as the descriptor, you just assumed that all conservative and right-wing outlets are far-right.

There is no policy or rule that “variously described” can only be used on mutually exclusive terms. There are plenty of examples in Wikipedia that this phrase is used on somewhat overlapping but different terms. The following are some examples in terms of the political spectrum that are relevant to our discussion. Also, note that the ones where “variously described” is not in the lead, the main descriptor used in the lead is the umbrella term.

• Nina Turner: "her politics have been variously described as progressive, left-wing, or far-left."
• Moms for Liberty: "Moms for Liberty has been variously described as a conservative, populist, reactionary, extremist, and far-right group."
• Japan Innovation Party: "The Japan Innovation Party is a political party in Japan based in Osaka, variously described as conservative, centre-right, right-wing, and right-wing populist."
• CounterPunch: "Other sources have variously described CounterPunch as "left-wing", "far-left", "extreme",..."
• Jacobin (magazine): "Jacobin has been variously described as democratic socialist, socialist and Marxist."
• Socialist Party (Netherlands): "SP has been variously described as left-wing, "old left", far-left,.."
• Civic Democratic Party: "ODS is variously described as conservative, liberal-conservative, and conservative-liberal."
• Douglas Murray (author): "Academic and journalistic sources have variously described Murray's ideology and political views as conservative, neoconservative, far-right, alt-right, ..."
• Javier Milei 2023 presidential campaign: "he was variously described as a far-right populist, right-wing libertarian, ultraconservative"
• Sanae Takaichi: "Takaichi's views have been variously described as conservative or ultraconservative."
• Brothers of Italy: "Academics and observers have variously described it as conservative, national-conservative, social-conservative, right-wing populist, nationalist, neo-fascist, post-fascist, and nativist."
• Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia: "Sources variously described the party as either left-wing to far-left on the political spectrum."
• Newsmax: “It has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right.”

Frankserafini87 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Two things: first your logic is faulty. There are sources that call Epoch Times far-right and they have not been contradicted. This is unsurprising as Epoch Times is the official mouthpiece of a syncretic new religious movement with a theology whose three pillars are anticommunism, racism and anti-med practices. Second please review WP:OSE I don't like "variously described" to create the appearance of controversy where there isn't one regardless of the page but right now we are talking about this one. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Going back to the policy question: under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the lead should proportionately reflect how reliable sources describe the outlet. There is nothing in the policy that says we must only include views that completely contradict each other. WP:NPOV reads: "The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."

Even if “conservative” and “right-wing” have some overlap with “far-right,” they are distinct views (like a spectrum). The fact that reliable sources use these different descriptors is relevant to how the lead should represent that sourcing. Thank you. Path2space (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the lead should proportionately reflect how reliable sources describe the outlet. Neither NPOV nor DUE (which is really just another link to NPOV) are about 'how reliable sources describe the outlet'. There is nothing in the policy that says we should be counting who uses what adjective. If we were to follow this principle in general, we're back to the nonsensical 'The sky has been variously described as blue, azure, or cerulean.'

they are distinct views - Ipse dixit. That's not the case just because you say it is. MrOllie (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

To clarify the policy point I raised above, my position concerns proportional representation under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. This is not about counting adjectives or treating synonyms as distinct views. It is about how reliable sources characterize this outlet. When reliable sources use more than one political descriptor (as in this case), the lead should reflect that range with due weight. Using only “far-right” in the lead does not proportionately reflect the range of characterizations found in reliable sources. Path2space (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines and policies, the onus isn't on any editor here to prove what the Epoch Times isn't (i.e. "far-right"); it is to reflect the reliable source material. Who am I to label something based on how I feel about a newspaper? Why would news reporting have to say explicitly this newspaper isn't something? Because some editors have formed an opinion that that needs to happen regardless of the RS? Lol why don't we just reflect what the reporting actually says?

Once again, because WP:NPOV needs to be reiterated for some reason: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

That's why "far-right" should be included in the summary, and why the two other descriptors should be too. This is an RS-driven encyclopedia, so let's treat it like one. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Still putting the cart before the horse. You have to establish that there actually are multiple significant views first, and adjective counting isn't how that happens. MrOllie (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

So how many examples of the Epoch Times being "variously described" do you need? 500? 5,000? If "far-right" is a significant view (and it is), then so are the others. All three. Otherwise, we should use "right-wing" as the overarching term because it encompasses "far-right" per the categorization of right-wing politics. And, once again, I have no problem with "far-right" being featured! Doctorstrange617 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no number of examples, because counting examples is not how this works, as I (and others) have been telling you. Your logic is flawed. Adding more and more examples and repeating that flawed argument isn't going to help. That one source uses descriptor 'A' does not undercut another source's use of descriptor 'B'. Overlapping terminology means overlapping viewpoints. Overlapping viewpoints are not in contention with each other, so there is no basis to argue that there are multiple significant views. MrOllie (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Understood, so let's all just ignore dozens of reliable sources that describe the Epoch Times as something other than how you want it to be described because you've made up your mind that "far-right" is THE ONLY WAY.

You're right: One descriptor does not undercut the other. That's why they should all be included. From your perspective, there should be no harm in using "variously described" other than increasing the word count of this page by a few words. And the upside is, well, adhering to NPOV (as far as possible) which should be the point of Wikipedia in the first place. As far as possible.

Are you seriously arguing that "conservative" and "far-right" mean the same thing to you? You would look at a "conservative" politician and a "far-right" politician in the exact same way? And there is zero difference in ideology being conveyed there?

Come on, just be honest. You know that's not an "overlap." If you're going to pick one descriptor, then it should be "right-wing" because that encompasses "far-right" and there is just as strong of a case—based on reliable sources—for "right-wing" alone. What is your argument against that? Because you just want this newspaper to be described as something more fringe?

Regardless, in the spirit of good-faith compromise, the idea of "variously described" with three descriptors makes the most sense. We editors should be able to agree on that unless calling the Epoch Times something more extreme—and only that—is the goal here. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

let's all just ignore dozens of reliable sources - Indeed, lets ignore irrelevant lists of links, since they don't support any valid arguments.

And the upside is, well, adhering to NPOV - I reject your premise that there is a NPOV problem, that's the whole point of this discussion

Are you seriously arguing that "conservative" and "far-right" mean the same thing to you? No. Please don't put words in my mouth. I know it is easier to win an argument against a strawman but that won't convince real people.

Come on, just be honest. - Kindly do not accuse others of not being honest.

in the spirit of good-faith compromise, Doing exactly what you would prefer is not a 'compromise'. MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, so "conservative" and "far-right" are suddenly not "overlapping viewpoints"? This would suggest that there is an NPOV problem to solve then. Even using those two descriptors alone would be an improvement.

It's not about what I prefer personally, nor has it ever been. It's what the reliable sources dictate we should do, based on countless news outlets reporting various descriptions. My "preference" is something closer to NPOV. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling argument here. Just repetition of the same empty points, over and over. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, so "conservative" and "far-right" are suddenly not "overlapping viewpoints"? There's that straw man again. You're repeatedly putting words in my mouth, and accusing me of dishonesty to boot. Since you're determined to handle both sides of argument yourself, you don't need me here for this - perhaps I'll respond again when someone has something new to say. Do not construe any silence from me in the meantime as agreement with your points. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going in circles without moving forward. @MrOllie, before we continue the discussion, I want to understand your perspective better. We can at least agree on the definitions of some of the terms we have been using. When RS describe an outlet as conservative or right-wing, do they always mean it is far-right? Frankserafini87 (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@MrOllie if I understand your earlier comments correctly, you are against counting various adjectives to describe one subject. I don’t think descriptors of the political spectrum are necessarily adjectives. But even with regards to nuanced adjectives, there are plenty of examples on wiki. I recall someone mentioning WP:OSE earlier. But the same essay also says "comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case."

The following are 10 Featured and Good articles that use “variously described” on somewhat overlapping but still different terms or adjectives.

The Word for World Is Forest: "It received generally positive reviews from reviewers and scholars, and was variously described as moving and hard-hitting."

Design B-65 cruiser: "has been variously described as a 'super-heavy cruiser,' a 'super cruiser,' or as a 'cruiser-killer.'"

Mulholland Drive (film): "The relationships between Betty and Rita, and Diane and Camilla have been variously described as "touching," "moving," as well as "titillating.""

Fleetwood Park Racetrack: ""the New York Timesvariously described the track as ‘oddly-shaped’ and ‘queer-shaped’”

Battle of Auberoche: "Total casualties are variously described by modern historians as "appalling", "extremely high", "staggering", and "heavy"."

Elizabeth Hazelton Haight: "The works were variously described as "enthusiastic", "charming", and "interesting"."

AIM-174B Gunslinger: "Variously described as a "large" and "outsized" weapon, the Gunslinger is 1,900 lb (860 kg)"

Geraldine Ferraro: "Her personality, variously described as blunt, feisty, spirited, and somewhat saucy, was also viewed as an asset."

Winter: Five Windows on the Season: Reviewers variously described the book as "interesting", "charming" and "fascinating"

Metro Theater (New York City): “The outer sections are variously described as being pink or ‘rosy beige’ in color.”

My earlier edit listed 13 Wikipedia articles using “variously described” when referring to political descriptors. Though they are not Featured or Good articles, they use the same “variously described” wording found in the Featured or Good articles mentioned above. I see no reason not to use “variously described” here, given the NPOV requirement.

My bottom line question is: would using “far-right” alone represent all the 50+ RS that describe Epoch as “conservative” and “right-wing”? Frankserafini87 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said earlier, in the comment you replied to: perhaps I'll respond again when someone has something new to say. Do not construe any silence from me in the meantime as agreement with your points.. Kindly stop tagging me over and over with these repetitive questions and comments. Thanks! MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

OSE should be revised regarding the value of Featured Articles etc. If there's no discussion on the topic, then editors shouldn't assume it's been reviewed, much less align with content policies or any general consensus. --Hipal (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "far right" to "right leaning" or "skews right" according to allsides https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart and Ad Fontes https://adfontesmedia.com/epoch-times-bias-and-reliability/ ~2026-26402-78 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. See the FAQ and extensive discussion further up the page. - MrOllie (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Larry Sanger, who was blocked indefinitely for off-site canvassing over another issue at WP:SANGERBAN, also tried to dilute the above RFC by advertising it to his 96k followers on his rather conspiracy laden X account.

Also there has not been much scrutiny of single-purpose accounts per WP:SPA. User:ClifV had previously tried to push the same views, and was previously blocked and unblocked due to some unconfirmed sockpuppet allegations. ~2026-40495-85 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

After Sanger's June 11 X post, three additional editors participated in the discussion. One supported changing the lead to "variously described," while the other two supported the status quo of retaining only "far-right." The RfC ultimately closed with consensus to change "far-right" to "variously described." From the discussion record, I don't think that the post affected the outcome of the RfC. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That is disappointing. My sole issue with Larry was that his top argument was Epoch Times produced only quality truths and his reasoning is based on his personal experience rather than a RS. I replied to him that the paper didn't produce high quality news as it's known to have produced conspiracy theories And then another joined in and kept repeating that same argument. It's troubling because if the majority of voters are like him and assumed or support that the newspaper does not do conspiracy theories - then RFC is compromised by people in denial of the papers' reality that's supported by multiple RS. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)