Talk:RT (TV network)

International sources needed ... new section titles

I improved the section titles to conform to WP neutrality requirements ... so I think the article is good in that regard. I did not change any content. The big remaining problem with this article is that it reads like a long list of criticisms by Western sources. Although those are valid and belong in the article, RT is a global network, so reviews/assessments from around the world are needed to round out the article and make it encyclopedic. Maybe inquiries could be made at other WPs for input ... e.g. to get translations of their RT articles & sources. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree on foreign sources. Just haven't found too many. Hmmm, I guess we could look up articles on RT in foreign language Wikis and then translate and see what info by what WP:RS seems good :-) CarolMooreDC 16:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've done that a couple of times with foreign WPs ... although strictly speaking, the editor adding material must read the sources themselves (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). Also, foreign WPs are not valid sources. There was a debate I saw once about whether it was legitimate to copy & translate material from foreign WPs, but I don't think there was a conclusive Yes or Not that it is permitted. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me it's grown more acceptable last couple years, probably because of google translate. But it shouldn't be in an article unless there is such a translation. CarolMooreDC 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I used some of your section titles and put "expansion" note where new info is needed in my revert to the October 12 version and good changes to that version. I actually HAVE some of that info spread out over several "add" files which have to put together, plus do some more research since accidentally deleted a whole file of new add material. If at first you don't succeed... CarolMooreDC 18:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Notable guests" section discussion

I put back the big list with a "discuss note" so here's the discussion:

• Title: I can't remember why Festermunk was against "Notable" since all the guests I listed ARE notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. So if someone has an opinion on removing it, do tell.
• About four are mentioned by WP:RS (underlined) and I've collected about 5 or 6 more not overly notable ones. However even Festermunk wasn't adverse to mentioning some of these. I guess anyone who cares can put an X on the ones who only have RT link to inteview to see which ones might be considered for the list. I'll put in my Xs as most notable/interesting.
  • Politicians (can be described by nationality or not?) British politicians Nigel FarageXx Laurence Kaye (UK Pirate Party UK) and Jeremy Corbyn; French politician Marine Le PenXx; Israeli politician Avraham BurgXx;
  • Former US government officials Henry KissingerXx, Jesse Ventura, David Stockman, Richard PerleX and Paul Craig Roberts;
  • United States Representatives Ron Paulx, Dana RohrabacherX, Walter B. Jones, Jr., Dennis Kucinich and former United States Senator Alan K. SimpsonX;
  • think tank intellectuals John Feffer (Foreign Policy in Focus) and Lawrence Korb (Center for American Progress);
  • journalists and writers Jacob Sullum, Pepe Escobar, Chris HedgesXx, Naomi WolfXx, (Danny Schechter and Glenn Greenwald I'll just mention elsewhere in article)
  • current and former professors Craig Calhoun (head of London School of Economics)Xx, Patrick Michaels , Jeff Cohen and Norman FinkelsteinXx;
  • assorted guests like former lobbyist Jack AbramoffX, investor Jim Rogers, trends forecaster Gerald Celente, Israeli military analyst Uzi Rubin and Apple Inc. co-founder Steve WozniakX.

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 18:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks okay: the key thing is that each guest is notable. My only comment would be that the list is a bit large ... I'm thinking 16 to 20 max, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Maybe move some of them into a footnote if it gets over 20? --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm paring the list down by asking people to put an "X" next to ones they like. :-) CarolMooreDC 18:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, above put a small x for Festermunk's choices, and adding a few more ref'd ones. CarolMooreDC 00:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's too early in Am to start reverting stuff like Anon Ip's addition of Nick Griffin - with no reference. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 16:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Staff section?

What about a "Staff" section listing a few top-tier managers/executives? At least name them. I think there was a section with 3 listed in the prior version. --Noleander (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned that in the more NPOV version most of that material had been moved to the issues criticism paragraphs because what happened was seen more as an RT policy issue or incident related to a specific story. That includes the the broader RT actions on Alexei Navalny/the election/the protests issue of which the Simonyan tweets were just a small part which need a better context. (Question on that in edit/conflict putting in soon.) However, I think there are higher management issues that need to be added under the Organization section, including regarding Simonyan, and whoever else is in charge higher up in Ria Novesti. I don't know right now but have seen mentions and have to research. CarolMooreDC 18:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally researched the info on opposition leader Navalny and the protests and see there were a couple different stories there, McFaul which seems more relevant to history since the real story is after their dust up he appeared on RT and coverage of him as a protester. Of course, the larger context of Russian paranoia about western governments organizing street protests to replace pro-Russian with pro-US leaders is not explicitly covered and maybe will throw in a sentence when I re-find relevant source. CarolMooreDC 05:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

RT as source about itself and news/opinion source in this article

Another editor deleted some of RT's statements about itself as self-serving (two or possibly all three "citation needed" sentences) - as opposed to, say its claims about viewership. Because of the intervening contretempts I never got around to discussing this, or the fact I doubt they'd lie about these things. Any thoughts?

Also I know there is at least one, probably more, RT Opinions and/or article about the Alexei Navalny issue that is relevant to putting in a paragraph on him and the protests and Simonyan's tweets. As long as it is clear it's RT's news or opinion story, and it is more a response to allegations than an assertion of what is true, I don't see a problem with using that material. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would they not lie? or at least twist the truth, after all it's their channel. Using RT as a citation itself is problematic because it lends itself to non-neutrality.Oxr033 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV? IMHO this matter should be further discussed.   M aurice  12:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Given the controversy surrounding them, it is clearly a neutrality issue. What further discussion does there need to be on something so blatantly obvious?Cliveklg (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

RT funding and ownership

I have done some reading in the RT Wikipedia article in Russian regarding funding and ownership, and did some more digging. I think the intro/lead in English is still a mess and inaccurate Here is the information i managed to gather : So we have the article quoting RIA Novosti -

"RIA-Novosti said in a statement issued last month that it is "neither a sponsor nor a backer of Russia Today" and merely participated in establishing the channel as an Autonomous Non-Profit Organization, which provided for its complete legal, editorial and operational independence." http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/03/23/230310_rt.html

RIA Novosti even published an article on the inaccuracy of the Wikipedia English article here itself (good read) : http://en.rian.ru/agency_news/20120206/171179459.html

I believe that RT in Russia is officially/legally an "Autonomous Non-Profit Organisation (ANO) “TV-Novosti”" as also stated in their disclaimer http://rt.com/about/disclaimer/

A quote from a senior government official from 2005 : "Russia Today will come as an independent company, said Mikhail Seslavinsky, in charge of the Federal Agency for the Press and Mass Communications.

The federal government intends to call the State Duma, parliament's lower house, to amend the year's federal budget for Russia Today financing. The channel will be funded through the Federal Agency for the Press and Mass Communications, by grants and from advertising revenues." http://www.rianovosti.com/society/20050607/40486831.html

the above statement is connected to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_of_Russia

And the 3 references in RT Russian Wikipedia article Do show that they are (RT and RIA Novosti) 2 separate entities having 2 separate budgets : http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=lenta.ru%2Fnews%2F2010%2F08%2F06%2Fsmi%2F&safe=off

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.ng.ru/politics/2006-09-05/1_svobodaslova.html#submit&safe=off

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=www.infox.ru%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F01%2F21%2FRussia_Today_ekonomi.phtml&safe=off79.181.8.18 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas, the Russia government and those supporting its official positions and statements are not reliable sources for anything else than what they have said, not that what they have said is accurate. When independent authoritative sources indicate RT is genuinely independent of its origins within the Putin cadre with the specific mission to improve Russia's image and promulgate the Russian view of the world--and no longer has those as objectives in any way shape manner or form--we can reflect that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest when you have a few spare moments you watch it. The news programming is the same as BBC, CNN. Fox, etc. You seem to be confusing news coverage with editorializing. We continually certify Fox News and MSNBC as reliable despite the polemical nature of some of their talk show hosts. (Do you remember Glenn Beck talking about the Founding Fathers and Christianity? Not mainstream, but his show is not news programming.) TFD (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you watch it more closely. Blanket support of Putin and his policies, excuses for him. Complete and utter blanket bias to any criticism for Putin or the current Regime. Blanket anti-americanism (this coming from one very critical of the U.S. government) It is a pure propaganda organization. I have to wonder at the neutrality of anyone who would claim it is just like the BBC or CNN. Fox certainly as Fox is a pure bs propaganda news organization also, or anyone claiming they are a credible journalistic organization.Cliveklg (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding what Russian govt sources say, as long as you identify them that way. Though I think we have more than enough on that topic in the lead; put it in organization/budget. Do articles name anyone as being above Simonyan? A normal nonprofit would or she would have some other title, as does the head of Ria Novosti. I do have more neutral and positive "reception" material to put in, if I don't get too sidetracked tonight by other articles and - external events. ha ha ha. CarolMooreDC 00:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Doing some detective work with Google translator in Russian , I found Margarita Simonyan's boss. Basically RT channel is owned by (ANO) TV-Novosti. "ANO" is a legal definition in Russia "Autonomous non-profit organization" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization#Russia

The General director (highest executive position in a company, analogous to a U.S CEO) of ANO TV-Novosti is Mr. Sergey Frolov. from the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation own website : http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.fapmc.ru/rospechat/newsandevents/media/2007/08/item3356.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522%25D0%25A1%25D0%25B5%25D1%2580%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B5%25D0%25B9%2B%25D0%25A4%25D1%2580%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BB%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2%2522%2B%2522%25D0%25A0%25D0%2598%25D0%2590-%25D0%259D%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2%25D0%25BE%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8%2522%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26tbo%3Dd%26sout%3D1%26biw%3D1061%26bih%3D541&sa=X&ei=7nKdUJ3kL8SF4AS53YGIBA&ved=0CGsQ7gEwCA&

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=www.broadcasting.ru%2Farticles2%2Fallauthors%2F8%2F&safe=off

Interview with him : http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.broadcasting.ru/newstext.php%3Fnews_id%3D25223&usg=ALkJrhh69ime8pXTdvKr8M9_bMuqB4SwVw

I even found the Deputy Director-General , Mrs. Elena Sokolova http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://sokolova-dev-tsukanova.moikrug.ru/%3Fnocookiesupport%3Dyes&usg=ALkJrhiH4MSGNLh9PqEU95fERT6dKyM3oA79.183.1.105 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to even look at this stuff for useful material. Will remind myself in my "ADD" wordperfect file. CarolMooreDC 22:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• (making this notice because it relates to last edits). Here is interview with official director of "ТВ-Новости"/RT Aleksei Nikonov. He tells: "Основным источником финансирования для нас, как и для других международных информационных каналов, является государственный бюджет. Реалии таковы, что ни один международный информационный канал себя не окупает. Разумеется, государство требует от нас отчета по каждой потраченной копейке, и мы всегда готовы его предоставить." This is state-funded organization, which should be noted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't edit war? (Guests continued)

Thanks for the advice, I suppose, if that's what it was, Carolmooredc. A list of notable guests invited on a network, even if reliably sourced, is in no way encyclopedic. Do you care to add such a list to the BBC article? or even Newsnight? Or Late Show with David Letterman? Come on. It reads like resume padding. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

First, there is a "Notable guests" section discussion above, thus I've added that topic here. Feel free to move this up as a subsection.

If I revert you and you revert me without discussing. we start getting into edit war. we've had a lot of that lately here.

Anyway, the section was started in part because an editor added SO MUCH negative material there needed some balance. The article is better now. Another place to mention guests would be in the programming section as a counter to the harsh criticism of past guests. In the interest of NPOV, a little bit of primary source referencing - in addition to secondary source mentions - isn't really a violation, if editors are working to make a good and fair article. Also note I've seen a couple "list" articles that actually list all the guests on TV shows, so it's not that totally out of line. CarolMooreDC 06:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

But primary source referencing on a tenuous section in an already disputed article is a really bad idea: it sounds like we're inventing something positive, disregarding good editorial practice, in the interest of presenting a balanced article where, for all I know, balance may not even exist. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

First, the discussion of the kind of guests who appear is relevant under programming and mention of guests who are described by secondary sources really should not be a problem. So far three editors feel a limited listing of guests with RT links is ok and thus I've been paring it down. If you put this section up with previous guest discussions, it might help.

Moving it all to being a reply to criticism would not be called for, though I may have another source to counter the early complaints about guests. CarolMooreDC 16:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Undue McFaul detail additions

Re: This diff: First, this is a minor incident only notable because it got an Ambassador on the air; and not really much of a controversy or criticism. My one sentence "In early 2012 Michael McFaul, the newly appointed US ambassador to Russia, rejected Margaret Simonyan’s tweeted charge that the United States government had paid for opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s 2010 Yale World Fellows Program semester." is more than enough info for this article and the rest is WP:Undue silliness, in my opinion.

Plus, I find it rather odd that an AnonIP from Bezquez Intnl has added all that negative and even silly detail to the McFaul incident, when AnonIPs from Bezquez usually would add positive info. It was another (twice blocked) editor who always wanted to added the full quotes of the tweet exchange, so I have to wonder who is behind that edit. Does it rise to the level of asking for a sock puppet check? Or did that previous editor just forget to sign in? CarolMooreDC 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was me Carol. BTW Simonyan did not tweet anything. I think now the story is more clear.109.67.33.28 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it is a violation of WP:Sock puppetry to edit with both a user name and a registered name and can result in another block for you. I would sign your name to both messages asap.

I'll check and see if I misunderstood the mode of her comment to him later since busy now; but the detail is unnecessary and WP:Undue. CarolMooreDC 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol I'm not Festermunk, I'm the Annoymous guy who was fighting with Festermonk a month ago109.67.33.28 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I should have said Festermunk (but didn't want to beat a hopefully dead horse) to clarify but I forgot AnonIps also blocked. Anyway, I'm a little burned out on this right now, but my WP:Undue length of content comments stand. Will propose something else later. CarolMooreDC 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a short version that makes the story clear but removes unnecessary detail they can get at the links if they really want it. It incorporates your edifying link to Panarin article - and I leave in all your refs:

In early 2012 Shortly after his appointment as the United States Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul challenged Margarita Simonyan over Twitter in regards to allegations from RT that he sent Alexei Navalny to study at Yale. McFaul was found to be referring to comment in an article by political scientist Igor Panarin which RT had specified were the views of the author http://rt.com/politics/mcfaul-opposition-rallies-panarin-667/ http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/09-02-2012/120456-michael_mcfaul_ambassador-0/ Ambassador McFaul then accepted an interview by Sophie Shevardnadze on RT on this and other issues and reasserted that the Obama administration wanted a "reset" in relations with Russia.

• US ambassador says seeks reset, not revolution in Russia, RT.com website, 25 January, 2012.
• 'US not funding Putin's presidential campaign', RT interview with Ambassador Michael McFaul.

Hopefully acceptable? CarolMooreDC 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Acceptable79.180.0.84 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

The entire section looks like cheerleading for RT, especially the lede paragraph. I've have placed in a POV tag for now on the section and reported the user who has been making these changes to the ANI, although all other third-party observers are welcomed to comment on the ANI. Festermunk (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My reply here. Meanwhile, I think it can be hard to separate neutral and positive reception from criticisms (and whatever one can find that WP:RS actual call "controversies"). I actually wouldn't have a problem with calling the section "Reception and criticism." The paragraph on criticism of the criticism could go under objectivity, but it really does introduce some of the more strident criticisms. Rational good faith discussion can sort it all out. CarolMooreDC 19:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You've still yet to answer my questions, why did you: (i) remove content for which there was consensus and (ii) why have you not reinstated them. Simple questions, simple answers. Festermunk (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You WP:ANI was closed as a content dispute. I countered your fantasized claim that there was any consensus (except on one reliable source) at Dispute Resolution at this diff. You still retain your aggressive stance of pulling out every stop to make this an attack article instead of working with others to make it a balanced article. Why not see if any other editors chime in here? CarolMooreDC 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't have a clue what you are talking about, I wasn't talking about consensus for the RT section I was talking about consensus for specific points in the RT section. In any case, then by your admission via your link, I can re-add the Marcin, Heyman and Simonyan paragraph (The simonyan paragraph I'll put under the staffing section, barring further discussion on that) However, that still leaves your baffling edit for the Assange paragraph as there was consensus that the Assange program shouldn't be in the history but rather programming section.

In addition to all that, you've yet to explain why you removed all the extra sourced information I put but then added extra sourced information of your own, especially for the reception section. Why is that? Festermunk (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

n this talk page we try to get input from a number of people. This isn't just you and me and our past conversations which obviously we both can't even keep straight. If the issue is covered in a section above, why not continue the discussion there? If it's a new one, explain here or in a new section. I'll put something in Assange right now. CarolMooreDC 00:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you even talking about the the DNR on RT makes it clear that the Assange program should be in the programming section. That user's comment: "Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)" to which you never responded. As the DNR shows consensus on that, I suggest you move it to the programming section instead of leaving it in the history one. Festermunk (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD and consensus on either the relevant sub-sections on the RT talk page or through the RT section on the DNR, I am going to restore and modify all of the aforementioned text that was achieved through consensus, but overridden through the unilateral edits by the user CarolMooreDC. Specifically, I'm going to make the following changes:

1. As per the RT section on the DNR, moving the Assange paragraph from the history section to the programming section. In particular, make note of the lines by third-party observer User:Noleander: “Okay, since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section.” and “Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path.”

2. As per this edit by third-party observer User:Noleander, reinstating all the the properly sourced content under the criticism and controversies section in the-then current Wikipedia version of RT. In particular, note the user’s opinion that, “Although those are valid and belong in the article…” However, as per the RT section on the DNR, a resolution over the name of the headings has yet to be decided upon, so I'm going to leave the headings as shown in the current version of the Wikipedia article as they are for now

2. As the content to be hypothetically reinstated is lengthy, please note the specific issues that were disputed and subsequently resolved:

a. The Marcin Maczka material: in particular, note this sentence by User:Noleander: “Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one?”

b. NY Times article by S. Heyman: In particular, note this sentence by User:Noleander: “Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used.”

c. Section for chief editor Margarita Simonyan: In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this paragraph between myself, User:Carolmooredc and User:Noleander: "FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"? Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position." Note that my suggestion has yet to be disputed. - this paragraph could go under the staffing section.

An extra note, as most of these requested changes already have consensus, if I don't receive a response to the points I'm raising then as per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, I'm going to tentatively reinstate the changes. Festermunk (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus yet. Could you please post the proposed material here in this Talk page (or in a subpage of this Talk page) so everyone can see it? The specific issue is not so much RS but rather the WP:UNDUE policy: if too much negative material is added out of proportion to the "positive" material, that is an issue. Information, even if perfectly sourced, can be excluded from an article if it misleads the readers by giving an especially negative impression. Also, the section titles as of yesterday were very neutral and satisfactory. Can you clearly post proposed new section titles here? --Noleander (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Could you please post the proposed material here in this Talk page (or in a subpage of this Talk page) so everyone can see it? " I could but I'd prefer not to because the talk page (much less this section) would then become too unwieldy. Basically, what I said above which is content that you and I both agreed on, but for brevity's sake here they are in abridged form:

1) The Marcin and Heyman paragraphs which you, myself and even User CarolmooreDC says is a legitimate Wikipedia source.

2) Reinstating all the the properly sourced content under the criticism and controversies section in the-then current Wikipedia version of RT which you agreed to as "valid and belong in the article"

3) The paragraph on Simonyan.

Of course, we can debate other issues later, but these three seem to be the most important ones for me to address first. Festermunk (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As Noleander said, except that Marcin is WP:RS, there was no consensus among the only two editors editing at the time and a volunteer dispute resolver on WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I clearly stated that in this diff], also linked above. (Do I really need to quote it here?) Plus now there are several editors getting involved and issues also should be run by then.

1) What Marcin and Heyman paragraphs where?

2) Reinstating all the WP:Undue negative criticism? That is the problem that I've been trying to correct.

3) All the Simonyan material has gone into areas more relevant to the article, except to the extent it was WP:Undue. Your preference for pushing an attack paragraph constructed to make her look really bad is a WP:NPOV and a WP:BLP violation. CarolMooreDC 04:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1) It's in the DNR, I'm not going to find it for you when you can do it yourself.

2) As opposed to having the lead paragraph for the reception entirely pro-RT POV? How about I remove all that on grounds of WP:UNDUE? Actually I can't. Here's why: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." In any case, where do you get this idea that only pro-RT sources can be put into the article? I'm proposing that the content be introduced and merged alongside the pro-RT content, while you on the other hand are dedicated to removing only content that is critical of RT.

2) I should also remind you that there is already another user who has said that the content you're referring to is, "valid and belong in the article" so as of right now, the only person who is advocating that properly referenced criticism from valid sourced be removed from the article is just you.

3) No it hasn't the Simonyan material about her connections to Putin aren't in the article anywhere, and the McFaul issue she had with him is weirdly under the history section when in fact we discussed that it should be under the staffing section.

4) I forgot to put this in the original list but the Assange section is still under the history section even though DNR shows that there was consensus that it should be in the programming section. As of today, you've still yet to put the Assange program in the programming section. Festermunk (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk: You can put the proposed material in a subpage of the talk page: that way we can see it, but it won't clog up this talk page. All you have to do is create a new WP page such as Talk:RT_(TV_network)/proposedMaterial (click on the red link) and put the text there, with citations. --Noleander (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done @ Talk:RT_(TV_network)/proposedMaterial. In essence, what you said was O.K. except I changed the heading and added relevant content in the current version of the RT article and merged it into the propsed material content. Festermunk (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Noleander has a good idea. As for specific responses:

• 2-first one)OK. Since the reception subsections are all negative material followed by responses, it seemed NPOV to have the first paragraph be some neutral or positive statements. The second paragraph is below. The first sentence obviously is relevant; I really wasn't sure where to put next two sentences which seemed to support that statement:

Journalists have noted that RT has received "considerable" criticism.[89] Glenn Greenwald wrote that RT showing the Julian Assange show led to "a predictable wave of snide, smug attacks from American media figures".[46] Mark Adomanis rebuts some of the "fevered denunciations" against RT and Julian Assange in an article in Forbes.[45]

• 2-second one) Just be specific. What is the most important and different negative material that has been removed that you think must be in? Put that on another page per Noleander. Just wanting to re-add all those hostile opinions saying something already there once or twice or three times is what is WP:Undue and that's most of what you were adding after User:Ipsign reverted you after you returned from your first block.
• 3) Simonyan: I thought I had put in the flowers and more than one source about her connections in the 3rd paragraph of history, but with all the cleanup and retrieval work I had to do, evidently missed it.
• 4) I never agreed Assange belonged in programming so please stop misrepresenting me. No one else supported your cutting it out of history, in the discussion section above. That is because WP:RS worldwide covered Assange program and especially the Hezbollah leader "scoop". CarolMooreDC 05:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

2) "Since the reception subsections are all negative material followed by responses, it seemed NPOV to have the first paragraph be some neutral or positive statements. " What kind of logic is that?

2) As opposed to having the lead paragraph for the reception entirely pro-RT POV? How about I remove all that on grounds of WP:UNDUE? Actually I can't. Here's why: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." In any case, where do you get this idea that only pro-RT sources can be put into the article? I'm proposing that the content be introduced and merged alongside the pro-RT content, while you on the other hand are dedicated to removing only content that is critical of RT.

2) I should also remind you that there is already another user who has said that the content you're referring to is, "valid and belong in the article" so as of right now, the only person who is advocating that properly referenced criticism from valid sourced be removed from the article is just you.

3) But it doesn't go in the history, it should go in a section called 'RT Staff' or 'Staff' as we discussed at DNR.

4) Doesn't mattered whether you agreed or not because we've already discussed this at DNR. I can't help you if you think "noe on else supported your cutting it out of history" when Nolelander clearly says that he thinks the the Assange section should be in the programming section as he says at the DNR. If you don't move it to that section, I will. Festermunk (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk: Your tone is becoming very belligerent again. Please be calm and respectful, otherwise you will get reported for Edit Warring again. My statements made in the DRN case were made based on the prior outline of the article. The new outline is much improved, and that change impacts the assessments I made beforehand. Regarding Assange: I made it clear in the DRN case that either location was fine - it is not a big deal. The article has many more important areas that need improvement. --Noleander (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am calm and respectful, where do you get the idea that I'm not? I understand that in the DRN you said basically that it was a coin-toss, but when I pressed you further on it you said that it should be in the programming section as the program is still on air, in fact you even said that it was the best path if the program was put in the programming section. Your exact wording: "Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)" Festermunk (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The concern about your behavior stems from your 3 recent reverts (immediately after returning from a 1 week block) plus comments like "If you don't move it to that section, I will." Regarding Assange: I still consider it a coin toss, and we really need to be focusing on the quality of the article and the overall balance. Insisting on moving a paragraph from one section to another equally good section is not a good use of time. --Noleander (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an idea why you keep going on about my "behavior" I am calm and respectful. I understand we need to be focusing on improving the balance of the article...which is why we're dealing with the Assange program issue. It's unclear how you say that you still consider it a coin toss when you wrote this in the DRN ( Your exact wording: "Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)"). You say that it's because of the change in outline, but that is confusing as the outline for the article is still the same as it was when we initiated the DNR. Perhaps you can elaborate further.

2) If you want to be logical, please reply to what editors actually wrote. AGAIN: Re first sentence of Reception lead, Positive comments do NOT just come as a reaction to negative ones. That is the simple logic. Or we could just make a separate section on positive comments then? Obviously sentence about their being criticism is relevant; where to put two replies is up for discussion. As for the rest, the DNR is old history now, and it was just you and me - and a volunteer dispute resolver who has now decided to become an editor of this page. There are other editors here though I can certainly understand why with your aggressive and hostile attitude they might want to avoid interacting with you. That is the way you disrupt collaboration on a page. CarolMooreDC 17:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed material page

In addition to this, I would also like to remind you that I'm still waiting for your feedback on the changes I've made at Talk:RT_(TV_network)/proposedMaterial. Festermunk (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you update that talk subpage and indicate what parts you are proposing to add. It is a bit confusing: some of the text is boldface ... is that all you want to add? Other paragraphs (not bold) are already in the the article. Note that starting a paragraph with a few bold faced words (as in Libya) is discouraged by the WP manual of style. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"some of the text is boldface ... is that all you want to add?" That's right so for brevity's sake I won't indicate what parts I'm going to add. Somehow when I wrote that what I would merge the relevant content in the current version into the proposed version of the reception section would be bolded, it didn't come up on Wikipedia, so the confusion was probably due to a technical error? In any case, yes the boldface text is what I want. As for your concern about the bold faced words, that's just a stylistic issue I'll change that when we reach a consensus on the content. Festermunk (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An addendum to my last post: "Other paragraphs (not bold) are already in the the article." Alright, I see what you mean, the bolded paragraphs denote the paragraphs that I would merge from other sections of the paragraph. In that case, I'll put in italics the information I'd like to see added in. Festermunk (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• As you will see some of the things you are complaining about WERE taken from your version and put in current version of article. Did you ever read it? Also criticisms should be in somewhat dated order since first couple years it was more amateurish and had more questionable guests than more recently. I do have one ref to that effect haven't put in yet; and I'm sure I've seen others I'll keep eyes open for.
• A separate section for RT Staff...this was agreed upon in DRN. Untrue. You don't want to hear what others say
• Margarita Simonyan - she acknowledged that she once received flowers on her birthday from Mr. Putin.[6] I already said YES. Everything else is redundant or trivial.
• Peter Lavelle - September 11 attacks. Trivial example as part of your attack article mindset
• "peddling the softer side" of former Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin, - there is one negative opinion I believe, if there were two, a third more neutral one would have to be added for balance, and I have one. Is it worth all those sentences?
• Later critical opinions on RT have included:" First separate propaganda and anti-American criticisms are already in separate paragraphs. What do each of these add that is NOT already in there? Putting in every single quote you can find that is some shade of the same criticism is just WP:Undue POV attack behavior.
• Marcin Mączka writes' etc. Most of that in there now. Adding more becomes WP:Undue
• , the "brainchild of former Information Minister Mikhail Lesin and Putin's press spokesman, Aleksei Gromov" Is in there now. Have you bothered to read the newest version?? Rest is repetition of points already in there. If you think any sentence makes a BETTER case than one in there already on the topic AND comes from a more reliable news source, instead of just some opinionator spewing distain, replace it.
• quoted journailst Ed Lucas as saying that the core of RT was, "anti-Westernism."[29] Isn't there a paragraph already on that? I don't have a problem with adding it since it's funny to see someone on Al Jazeera saying that.
• Alyona Show could use mentioning; rest is just piling on WP:Undue
• Evgeny Morozov pointing out Point already made...just piling on WP:Undue

So that's my view, as I've stated repeatedly. CarolMooreDC 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• A separate section for RT Staff...this was agreed upon in DRN. Untrue. You don't want to hear what others say

Then prove that I am wrong.

• Margarita Simonyan - she acknowledged that she once received flowers on her birthday from Mr. Putin.[6] I already said YES. Everything else is redundant or trivial.

But it's not in the right section, it should be under the staff section as we discussed on DRN. Also, you're missing the extra citations that further document her closeness to the Kremlin. This edit by User Nolelander: The Staffing section should certainly contain a paragraph on the chief editor. Right now, there is no section called, 'Staff' and the paragraph on Simonyan isn't in there.

• Peter Lavelle - September 11 attacks. Trivial example as part of your attack article mindset

Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit" in the lead paragraph of the reception section?

• "peddling the softer side" of former Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin, - there is one negative opinion I believe, if there were two, a third more neutral one would have to be added for balance, and I have one. Is it worth all those sentences?

Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit" in the lead paragraph of the reception section?

• Later critical opinions on RT have included:" First separate propaganda and anti-American criticisms are already in separate paragraphs. What do each of these add that is NOT already in there? Putting in every single quote you can find that is some shade of the same criticism is just WP:Undue POV attack behavior.

Because they aren't in there. Where are they?

"Putting in every single quote you can..." Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit"?

• Marcin Mączka writes' etc. Most of that in there now. Adding more becomes WP:Undue

The original paragraph ("it is usually related to the progress of Russia’s “modernisation”, economic achievements and the growth of foreign investment" and, "embarrassing information about Russia is usually omitted and RT never broadcasts programmes showing Russia’s social problems, condemning corruption or administrative incompetence."), which was said to be O.K. on the DNR. Also, it's not in the receptions (then criticisms and controversies) section where we decided on the DRN where it could be

• , the "brainchild of former Information Minister Mikhail Lesin and Putin's press spokesman, Aleksei Gromov" Is in there now. Have you bothered to read the newest version?? Rest is repetition of points already in there. If you think any sentence makes a BETTER case than one in there already on the topic AND comes from a more reliable news source, instead of just some opinionator spewing distain, replace it.

But it's not in the reception section.

• quoted journailst Ed Lucas as saying that the core of RT was, "anti-Westernism."[29] Isn't there a paragraph already on that? I don't have a problem with adding it since it's funny to see someone on Al Jazeera saying that.
• Alyona Show could use mentioning; rest is just piling on WP:Undue

"rest is just piling on WP:Undue" Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit" in the lead paragraph of the reception section?

• Evgeny Morozov pointing out Point already made...just piling on WP:Undue

Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit" in the lead paragraph of the reception section? Festermunk (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the updated subpage of this talk page, which contains the material you want to add. It appears to be 100% negative. That is a red flag. It suggests that you cherry-picked information from the sources, and are rejecting all neutral/positive information. The article, under no circumstances, can be 90% negative and 10% neutral/positive, which is what your proposal would achieve. Can you review the sources and see if there is any neutral/positive information? I've already found a few neutral/positive facts from your sources that are not yet in the article. The WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV policies require that the article reflect the rough balance of material that is out in the sources. --Noleander (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Remaining issues?

A couple of us had had enough as of yesterday and independently took Festermunk to ANI and 3rrn. So he's indefinitely blocked for edit warring and I DIDN'T HEAR IT... He had a few points that were worth discussing and I tried to discuss them above but he preferred to ignore my attempts to collaborate. So just to be collaborative, below are the things people should comment on if they are problematic or need tweaking:

• Second paragraph of reception section mentions a lot of criticism and then has two sentences inferring too much. Probably could go lower down somewhere but I haven't had energy to deal with yet with all the back and forth; will do sooner rather than later.
• Margarita Simonyan - she acknowledged that she once received flowers on her birthday from Mr. Putin.[6] Our AnonIP put in fuller info in her article saying it was something spontaneous he did on hearing it was her birthday. Worth putting in?? Interesting but not critical.
• "peddling the softer side" of former Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin, - I did see one less negative/rather humerous comment on it, in addition to this one, so both would have to be mentioned. Is it worth mentioning at all?
• quoted journailst Ed Lucas as saying that the core of RT was, "anti-Westernism."[29] I guess Festermunk put it in. (Yesterday's other Festermunk WP:Undue I'm taking out unless someone beat me to it.) I see a couple existing refs to "anti-Western/American". Leave it in?
• Alyona Show could use more mentioning since a couple sources say it was RT's most popular and/or well thought of show; his quote was just piling on more negativity.

So that's my thoughts for now. CarolMooreDC 14:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Absurd description of VOA

From the Reception>Objectivity section : "After the 2005 announcement the station would be launched, the U.S. government-sponsored VOA[86]". really? just sponsored? sponsored is a nice whitewash for the word funded. but it is not just funded . it is owned by the US government :

"The IBB supports the day-to-day operations of Voice of America" "The position of IBB Director is appointed by the president of the United States, with Senate confirmation" International Broadcasting Bureau

The IBB is part of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, guess who is a member of the board of governors ? Hillary Rodham Clinton the 67th United States Secretary of State. http://www.bbg.gov/about-the-agency/ Should be - "the U.S. government-owned/controlled VOA" 109.67.33.28 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk: I could not find that info on the source page so put what I did find. Feel free to correct it. A long derisive post is not necessary to correct a simple error. CarolMooreDC 19:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Festermonk. I'm the guy who put in the Glen Greenwald original quotes.109.67.33.28 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Corrected my error. Obviously another reason to get a handle. Feel free to correct with the proper reference, whatever it might be. CarolMooreDC 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Derisive rant not appropriate the characterization was pretty much factual

VOA is frankly sponsored, funded and subject to the control of the US and reflects US POV consistent with State Department outreach, there is nothing sinister or deceptive about that. However, it strives for legitimate journalism which is factually objective while consistent with foreign policy of the US. That does NOT make it the equivalent of propaganda organs which are funded by totalitarian or authoritarian governments. In fact, it is arguably more even handed, NPOV or RS to some degree, than for instance Fox News or the Washington Times or any Rupert Murdoch typer operation. There is nothing absurd, foolish or naive about CarolMooreDC's choice of words and I hope that your pit bull approach with this thread does not deter her from taking an interest in how, exactly, you intend to qualify the characterization of VOA. Wikidgood (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Subsections in History

I added subsections to the History section and spread it out slightly, as it was very cramped and very long. I am not 100% sure about the subsection titles, any suggestions of better names would be welcome.Hentheden (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see it needed to be divided a bit, though I think that's too many.

• It could be done like BBC is done by year, say: 2005-2007; 2008-2011; and 2012 (adding "to present" on January 1 2013).
• Or it could be done topically and yearly: Foundation (1st three paragraphs); Growth (next six paragraphs); and then 2012 (adding "to present" on January 1 2013). I have a slight preference for latter myself. Meanwhile tweaked it a bit and moved awards paragraph to that section. CarolMooreDC 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Travelodge

How did Russia Today manage to get shown on almost all UK Travelodge TVs in the early part of the 21st century, even sometimes to the exclusion of nationally-local BBC News 24 which was also available on the "freeview" setup that the Travelodge TV setup was using? Was it part of a global Travelodge/RT deal? I think I've briefly seen an explanation for this in reliable sources somewhere, but it needs to be fleshed out properly and mentioned in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from Margarita Simonyan

Two quotes from RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, but im not sure where to add them  : "Simonyan said it was good that countries like Russia are spending money to make their voices heard "after so many years in which the international media scene was reduced to the points of view of Anglo-Saxon countries. For five years, I have been watching BBC and CNN news every day — they have almost exactly the same topics, the same wording, the same order. And for so many years they were the only international TV news sources. … It’s great that there is a channel with a different view, different experts and a different order."

"In regards to Western media criticism of RT's "Coverage of conspiracy theories" Margarita Simonyan, the channel's editor-in-chief argued that the channel’s policy was merely to provide a platform for marginalized points of view that otherwise got little coverage, like the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. "I personally do not believe them. But I believe that if there are people out there who think so but do not get into mainstream media, they deserve an audience — and we should give them a forum,”. Simonyan noted that viewer resonance and audience numbers confirmed that the policy is right. She also added that giving airtime to “truthers” was morally comparable to Western media coverage of the 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow and two other cities that killed 293 people. "What about Western media reports saying that Vladimir Putin was behind the bombings?".http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/03/23/230310_rt.html79.180.0.84 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I already put in short version on apartment bombings. The other is one of a number of good ones she's said on that and similar topics. What's already in there already on the same topic? Is this one shorter and punchier? ("Sound bites!") I have a whole list of them myself I was waiting to look at later to see if they were needed to fill in any obvious holes to balance the article. CarolMooreDC 00:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Scrap

...this sentence from the lead: "RT, according to its corporate profile, "covers the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more."" What they do (or don't do) according to their corporate profile is not of any relevance to us or the reader, and the sentence contains only corporate fluff. Right now it's the first sentence of the second paragraph; as it happens, the second sentence works just as well, even better, to open that paragraph, describing that the network does. Not that I want to get involved with this article, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is their slogan and several WP:RS talk about it, but I lazily left it as is. (It runs ads with the slogan several times a day.) Will put on my list to properly place and ref. CarolMooreDC 04:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Or just remove it as unnecessary, since it is. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It could go as well in History or elsewhere depending on how WP:RS frame it. I'm just staying away from lead while it's reverted. CarolMooreDC 17:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol, this has nothing whatsoever to do with reliable sources. Not everything that is reliably sourced goes in an article. We don't do mission statements, for instance, or visions, or programs, even if they are reliably sourced on the main page of the outfit's website. It's a matter of editorial decision: this is not what good articles anywhere, in the lead or otherwise, unless it is proven to be of special interest (I assume Fox's "Fair and Balanced" is well-written about). I'm going to go ahead and remove it; it can only improve the article. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

AnonIp editwarring again

Hey, Mr. Bezeq International, you can NOT revert other's material more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please read and study WP:3rr. Adding new material is ok if it doesn't delete other existing material. If you remember a few weeks back the article was protected so AnonIPs couldn't edit at all and that will happen again if 3rr violations continue. So please a) stop doing it and b) consider getting a registered user name so we don't get confused and have to keep checking if it's you or some other AnonIp. Thanks! CarolMooreDC 04:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol what do you think of the new lead ? doesn't it sum up everything in a straightforward, respectful and Non POV way ?79.182.22.161 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol I"m truly sorry, but , as usual Festermunk is abusing the revert function to block anything that even smells neutral and not negative .

I have no choice but to revert him back. I"m not even assuming, I'm declaring zero good faith by Festermunk. All this mess is happening ONLY with him.79.182.22.161 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I get dizzy with the back and forth I really would need more parties to opine at this point to have an opinion besides keep it like it was. CarolMooreDC 05:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, AnonIp, I did edit warring complaint vs. Festermunk where refer'd to you, but not official complaint since I didn't have energy to add up the diffs; and last time they dealt with the problem without them. So again consider registering and counting your reverts. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 20:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I personally agree with you CarolMooreDC and I think the current intro sums up everything in a very nice non-POV way. "I don't understand why you're reverting this when there's already consensus for it, why don't you discuss this on talk?" is complete rubbish Festermunk and what's more you know it. And thanks for cleaning up the History subsections and minor awards CarolMooreDC, it looks much tidier now. Hentheden (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk has been blocked indefinitely now and Admin said unlikely any appeal will work. So hopefully our Anon IP can now be on his/her best behavior :-) We can revert any problematic edits of last 24-36 hours. And I think I will now archive all the long disputes centered around him so we can just look at the ones that more collaborative editors might want to continue to discuss. I'm quite exhausted tonight myself by all this. CarolMooreDC 00:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you can keep your anons straight. Good luck with it! Drmies (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank heavens for Geolocate :-) CarolMooreDC 13:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

ANO TV-Novosti general director quote

The following paragraph was in Reception>Objectivity section : ANO TV-Novosti (RT TV's parent Organization) General director (CEO) Mr. Sergey Frolov has stated "Our responsibility is not to be someone's lawyer or prosecutor. It is too stupid to hold information, because then you have to repeat it from others. We do our best to respond swiftly and impartially. Present the facts and not speculate or theorize. Actually, the problem is very simple: If we start to filter news or silent something - people will switch to CNN or BBC."http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.broadcasting.ru/newstext.php%3Fnews_id%3D25223/

Carolmooredc has reverted this On the grounds that "remove Novosti leader quote since not clear he's talking about RT and not other branches".

I think you made a mistake, and confusing RIA-Novosti headed by Svetlana Mironyuk with ANO TV-Novosti (Which ownes only RT Network) Headed by Sergey Frolov. The cited source Interview is all and only about RT TV.109.65.25.151 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the source makes it clear the discussion is about RT-TV. I've restored the material. However, it probably should be cleaned-up, and perhaps moved to another section? --Noleander (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, think I was starting to get a little burned out. CarolMooreDC 20:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Firing of all RT America Reporters

Anyone have information on the mass firing of most or all of the RT Reporters employed a month ago? This seems to correspond to a sudden shift in RT Focus. Press TV seems to have undergone a similar purge. This coup is very mysterious. I am trying to track down RT Reporters and ask them what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.4.7 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI this is their on air talent page which they update from time to time.

Obviously we need reliable sources not original research. Given all the antagonism towards RT, one would think there would be such stories by now. Of course western media fire reporters too when its politically necessary, like right before Iraq war or anyone who criticizes Israel (though even that's gotten a bit more permissible lately under Obama). So we shall see... CarolMooreDC 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Lauren Lyster already is working for Yahoo Finance so working for RT is not the kiss of death. CarolMooreDC 22:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT

I noticed that there is another name of the article Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT. If someone finds its appropriate, then a separate article with the name should be created. Now it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.101.218 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

See Reception section which we agreed should have that info, per policy. See above. CarolMooreDC 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Obejctivity and Bias

Can we include a para about how anti-EU RT is - and how anti non-white/immigration it appears to be too. I just noticed it was officially endorsed by British National Party leader Nick Griffin as 'the only real news channel!' i.e the only one that actually gives his party significant airtime.

What about including the fact that RT have a strong web presence especially on YouTube — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it is correct that there is an anti-EU bias. RT is not biased, it is simply a Russian propaganda channel. The extent of distortion in recent months, in particular with reference to Ukraine, has been laughable. RT has no credibility as a news outlet. Interestingly there was a report, which I cannot now locate, which suggested that the degree of disinformation is worse with RT now than with Pravda at the height of the Cold War. I suggest that the article be edited to reflect that status.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Viewing figures in lead

"Viewers" is defined as "Someone who has tuned in a minimum of one time". I think it's misleading to lump regular views and one-time viewers as 'viewers' because it implies they all watch it when that might not be true. I can't find any neutral sources for the '2 million in the UK' statistic, other than from RT (which has a dead link), apparently RT claims it 'doesn't release figures' or something to that extent. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't know why sites change all their links so unnecessarily! Probably others are bad too; I did change some a couple weeks ago.

I updated those two but don't have time to verify everything each use says right now. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the claim that "it is the most popular news channel in Britain after the BBC and Sky". What it actually says in the cited source (New Statesman) is "It is, it boasts, the most popular news channel in Britain after the BBC and Sky." i.e. this is referring back to a "boast" from RT itself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Why long Russian name in info box?

Per this diff, putting that long ANO "TV-Novosti" (АНО "ТВ-Новости") in the info box title is totally WP:Undue; putting it in the description isn't really necessary; it belongs in the lead. This is English wikipedia. Why is User:TarzanASG insisting on putting Russian names in those two places?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie 01:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's Russia-based company and de jure it has only Russian original name like Channel One Russia, China Central Television, etc. For example, OJSC VimpelCom is Russian company, but Russian language isn't used in the article about VimpelCom Ltd. because there is no reason for that. It's Wikipedia standard: original name + translation. Isn't it? --TarzanASG (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's usual practice, but in the lead, not in the info box if it's real long and likely to confuse people. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda on govt-related stations

Basically that's in there because WP:RS call it a propaganda source. If one objects, the best thing to do is find a couple WP:RS calling the BBC, NPR, and other govt sponsored/supported TV stations elsewhere propaganda, put them in those article and then add the category. That's what I'd do if had the time and energy :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie 18:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda only works if it does not contain real lies or fanciful exaggerations. I remember the propaganda banners of East Berlin. Now that was propaganda: "By 1965 we will have exceeded the living standards of the USA". "Our brother nation the Soviet Union liberated us from Fascism' etc. This is not what you find on rt (English article section). While they are certainly passionate about their causes and especially in the (very clearly stated) opinion segment, we are intelligent enough to look at the fact content. And Fact is Fact.

If the Western media weren't so one-eyed there would be no demand for what the other eye may discover. At least one can say that rt does not seek to incite the population to vote out a government that some foreigner (Murdoch) dislikes. When the 2013 elections were announced, the Australian Murdoch group advocated to 'throw out this mob', meaning the Australian government. To quote Paul Hogan "now THAT'S propaganda'. If one thinks that rt might have presented incorrect facts, we are now able to check that on the internet, no drama. 121.209.56.80 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL You’re obviously watching a different channel to me! I doubt single day has gone by since 2005 where RT didn’t broadcast some bullshit or other. During the course of the Ukraine crisis alone we’ve had: Green Men; imaginary refugees fleeing to Russia, dodgy intercepted phone calls (the Catherine Ashton and Yulia Tymoshenko ones we particularly laughable); repeated claims that the $5 billion the US has spent over the years promoting democracy, justice, etc was actually to finance the Euromaidan; the faked Easter Sunday checkpoint attack outside Sloviansk (just one of countless attempts to wildly exaggerate the involvement of Right sector), to name just a few.

And yes one can say that rt seeks to incite the population to vote out a government that some foreigner dislikes. Nigel Farrage (leader of the staunchly anti-EU UKIP party) is on there on a monthly basis. Ron Paul (staunchly anti-US foreign policy) was covered to ridiculous levels during his 2012 election campaign.

I watch RT because I want more news from Russia and the region, you’d think RT would be the place to go, but you’d be very, very wrong!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

PS Rupert Murdoch is Australian, so his interference in UK politics would have been a better example.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Introduction and notable guests

Hi, I just wanted to leave a note here after I saw the page history, in case anyone wants to discuss this. There was previously a list in the introduction of what looked like every important person ever to appear on the channel. I trimmed all but a few (the ones not citing YouTube) and used one of the other existing sources to note the "propaganda" claims. There should probably be a more balanced layout, but at least it looks better for now. Aiwen Zhang (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Totally negative POV driven. reverted79.176.189.89 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps people would listen if you articulated your concerns here instead of being disruptive. Just an observation from someone not involved in your dispute. Cheers. Aiwen Zhang (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Go back and read the tremendous POV wars in the past on the tlak page. immense effort has been put to keep this article neutral without personal negative POV79.177.2.120 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Issue solved: I moved it to the proper section, RT (TV network)#Notable_guests. - Yambaram (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

looks good to me. thanks Yambaram79.177.2.120 (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• • @79 From the article it appears that the POV wars on the article have not yet stopped. But please also note that having or not having a POV war ultimately has nothing to do with whether there were any such issues or not. Moreover, the latest discussion of edit warring I can see is almost a year old.

• Since content on any page is decided by policy, could you please provide a rationale for why the paragraph should stay as is on the article? I've also tried to ask the other editor to come to discuss this issue. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Soni. I did some reading and Wikipedia's guidelines state that the introduction should be a summary of the article -- of which the trivia list is only one part. I also believe there is a policy about not citing primary sources, which supports my culling of the YouTube clips. Finally, if we are supposed to represent the contents of the article in the intro, the disproportionate criticism section merits a passing mention per my original edit. The current version without any guests or criticism is fine by me though. Aiwen Zhang (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Israel paragraph

I just looked over the paragraph that was being argued over before I wandered into this mess and it's actually quite flimsy in light of Wikipedia's guidelines on subject weight.

RT has been accused of being anti-Israel by officials and media outlets on multiple occasions. The main claims are that it's too one sided, that it uses propaganda in news reports, and exaggerates events - which once led to an official complaint made by Israel's foreign minister to Putin at their meeting. Barak Ravid (July 31, 2012). "Lieberman complained to Putin over Russian TV's 'anti-Israel' reporting". Haaretz. Retrieved 8 October 2013.</ref> Examples include RT's reportedly anti-Israel Rachel Hirshfeld (February 4, 2013). "Russia Today Accuses Israel of Using 'Hitler Methods'". Retrieved 8 October 2013. "Bizarre: Russia Today Host Abby Martin Lashes Out at The Algemeiner". November 25, 2012. Retrieved 8 October 2013.</ref> correspondent Abby Martin's accusation against Israel, claiming that the country uses 'Hitler Methods' like no other country, or The Algemeiner critics of RT, saying that the news network's anti-Israel agenda has gone even further than Arab TV. Lakkana Nanayakkara (November 22, 2012). "Russia Today Continues its Anti-Israel Propaganda, Going Even Further Than Arab TV". The Algemeiner. Retrieved 8 October 2013.

US Jewish groups think everyone is anti-Israel and at best the wording is dishonest. Please discuss before re-adding the paragraph. Or keep ignoring the talk page and go back to accusing people of vandalism. Aiwen Zhang (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is hiding this, as being accused by the pusher of this paragraph. it is simply edited to conform to wikipedia guidelines. this is how it's now displayed in the article :

RT has been accused of being anti-Israel by Jewish and Israeli sources. The main claims are that its too one sided and unbalanced reporting - which once led to a complaint made by Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman to Putin at their official meeting.[138][139][140][141]

Now it's is in accordance to wikipeida policy of NPOV, Neutrality and Undueweight79.180.117.184 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't. "Jewish sources" is offensive. I would rather see something like "US Senator Joe Lieberman said..." or better yet incorporate it elsewhere. I won't have time to figure it out this week so I guess we'll see which version prevails. Aiwen Zhang (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is it offensive? Israeli newspapers are called Israeli sources. And the second source ,describes its own self as a Jewish newspaper:

The Algemeiner

The fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America, the NEW Algemeiner serves as a valiant media voice addressing the most compelling issues of our time, with vision, integrity and moral clarity.

Hence 'Jewish sources'. you implying that describing a source as 'Jewish' is somehow offensive - is offensive. I also found it important to note this in the article , because ALL the sources (israeli + jewish) reporting "RT Anti-israel" have, naturally, a Bias favorable towards israel.79.177.145.220 (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Algemeiner Journal cannot claim it speaks for the Jews anymore than their friends at Fox News can claim to speak for the Americans. The "Algmeiner critics is sourced to one reporter, Lakkana Nanayakkara. A neutral way of phrasing the it would be to say that some right-wing politicians in Israel and their media supporters have accused RT of being anti-Israel. TFD (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

neutrality of the article

In light of this, I'm surprised that there isn't any section about how controversial the network. At least there needs to be a debate about this. Royalenlightenment (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

But there is one! 4.2 Mezigue (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your source does not say RT is controversial, but says it strives to provide "balanced" coverage. TFD (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Mezigue: I should've been clearer, a controversial/criticism section that addresses solely the controversies of RT, not as a subsection of another section, or lumping it in with other headings so as to dilute the content.

@ TDF: the balance coverage part is about RIA Novosti. If you look at what is written about RT in the article ("which for opposition-minded Russians is more of a government mouthpiece, giving carefully selected news with a clear pro-Kremlin bias.") it is clearly controversial with at least some of the russian population.Royalenlightenment (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, why is there no mention of anything of the "reception section" in the intro section given how long the reception section is? And for the reception section, why can't you just make a section that is for RT and another one that perceives it negatively? That seems to be the point of a reception section...Royalenlightenment (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And as for this edit, yes I understand Russia Today is different from RT, but all I've done is mainly just move information around! Royalenlightenment (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Objectivity & Criticism?

"David Weigel writes that RT goes further than merely creating distrust of the United States government, to saying, in effect: "You can trust the Russians more than you can trust those bastards." highly unencyclopedic quotation

"Since its foundation in 2005, RT has attracted wide criticism in the West..." weasel wording

"Russian-Israeli blogger Anton Nosik (ru) said the creation of Russia Today "smacks of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns..." Anton Who?? non-notable source

"A representative of Reporters Without Borders..." Weasel wording. Representative's name?? "Luke Harding in The Guardian described Russia Today's advertising campaign in the United Kingdom as an 'ambitious attempt to create a new post-Soviet global propaganda empire.'" hostile source; irrelevant personal opinion

"In Russia, former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky criticized RT as "a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation".[143] Andrey Illarionov, former advisor to Vladimir Putin, has labeled the channel as "the best Russian propaganda machine targeted at the outside world." highly hostile sources; anti-Putin political bias likely to cloud judgement; despite being state funded, RT is a news organization and not the Russian government itself.

More on the section titled "objectivity and criticism". Many news organizations have their biases and give weight to particular viewpoints on certain issues and this is NOT a crime, so long as fundamental ethics are not violated. No credible media organization will tolerate racial incitement, for example. Furthermore, none of the criticisms in the section can really be related to professional or ethical misconduct on the part of RT. If evidence of misconduct does exist, then it can be placed under a suggested "Controversy" heading just as in the Wikipedia entry for CNN. Under such a heading, specific, concrete examples of misrepresentation of facts, editorial interference, bribery etc if they exist and are well sourced, can be placed. As it currently stands, the criticisms directed against RT appear to be based on nothing other than the fact that it is Russian and/or lends more weight to viewpoints highly critical of western mainstream perspectives. --Campingtrip (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is only one of many examples where a double standard exists. Almost any topic that has any political ramification is manipulated in favor of the consensus of wikipedia authors (just take a look at the Enlgish-language wikipedia articles about the Russian President Putin and his American counterpart President Obama). This consensus at least for the english language part of wikipedia is pro USA and its allies. This is especially dangerous because the second most used language apart from the first acquired in the world is English and with this in mind this has the most potential in misleading international audiences. Far from being objective in any way wikipedia authors enforce and entrench biased thinking. Take the article on the "CNN" or "BBC". Read the introduction for all three networks and the relevant parts. There you have a paragraph titled "Controvesy". Compare this to "Criticism" on the "RT" article. Controvesy --> "a lot of disagreement or argument about something, usually because it affects or is important to many people", Criticism --> "the act of giving your opinion or judgment about the good or bad qualities of something or someone, especially books, films, etc.", http://dictionary.cambridge.org. Both of this approaches are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If you have information i.e. facts and sources on a topic you can state them to verify or falsify, otherwise you are only particapating in propaganda yourself.

Abby Martin

I'm the last one to be influenced by TV or by some presenter's personal war with Wikipedia. However, thre is an will be an influx of people trying to find her after what she (very bravely) said. Just leaving it here. 95.49.169.254 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What's all this about a page about her being censored? She was on about it this morning.Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit of a story. To keep it simple, Abby Martin wanted her article created on Wikipedia. It was in the mainspace, so anyone is allowed to hold an Article for Deletion review on it. It failed the discussion and was redirected here. So, several users recreated the article. Another AfD was held and it was redirected here again. Then, a few users went a bit rouge and restored the page. After an edit war, an admin enforced the redirect and locked the article from being created in the mainspace, but it is still allowed in the userspace. Martin was upset and blasted Wikipedia for it. Her followers did the same and basically hit the Article Feedback with complaints of censorship. (If any of you are reading this, you could just create the article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Abby Martin and get it approved for the mainspace.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Super Goku V, on what do you base your initial assertion that "Abby Martin wanted her article created on Wikipedia"? It seems to imply that events were explicitly initiated by her rather than done independently by editors interested in her and her show. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My sentence was more in regards to her wanting a page on Wikipedia, though looking closer at the issue does show things a bit better. If you look at [the history for Abby Martin], you will see that everything appears to be finished on December 30 in that the AfDs were done and the redirect was put in place. However, on January 12, the page was edited by a small group of users within a four hour window. After User:John Reaves locked the page for editing, Martin made a tweet about it here the following day. Considering that she would have know about it on the 30th, I don't see why she would comment on it the day after it got deleted a third time. Not matter what happened, she did help to produce two different videos on Youtube about what she believes occurred and blasting us for it. All things considered, I believe that is enough to say that she wanted an article on Wikipedia. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Right on. I think you're saying 'quacks like a duck ...'. Though in that second vid you linked it seems she's more concerned/astounded by the Wikipedia process than by the existence or lack thereof of an article about her. I've come to warn folks—when Wikipedia comes up in conversation—that, much like law and sausages, it's not always so pretty when you get-under-the-hood and see how it's made. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Basically, you hit the hammer on the nail. Anyways, it seems that several users are working together to come up with an article. The only issue that I see left is what to do about tge Feedback, but that can be handled in time. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I take it that writing a decent article would be the constructive thing to do?Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Viriditas has a sandbox version, User:Viriditas/Abby Martin, going and has mentioned that he's open to collaborating. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am no fan of Ms Martin, but believe she, and all of the most senior anchors, hosts, and correspondent of RT should have separate short articles. As highly visible media individuals making a daily impact (review the market penetration information in RT article opening), there will be curiosity regarding these individuals—where are they from, where did they study journalism, where did they work before RT, have they ever received awards, etc.? Wikipedia is a venue where this information can be aggregated and presented in unbiased fashion. I haven't time or professional cause to champion this, but would ask that the question be revisited at a high, and objective level. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ditto that. At the very least, at this point, it seems odd that there is no explicit mention of her on "Criticism of Wikipedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.154.237 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, There's a proposed new version for AfC review located at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Abby_Martin.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda

Please don't add the word propaganda again, the source doesn't even mention it in this context.--Communist-USSR (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Communist-USSR, It would be easier for me, and likely others, to follow your comment if you'd post a link here—from the article's page history—to the edit(s) to which you refer and/or otherwise elaborate a bit more. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, put in reliable sources [RS] which validate your position. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Objections to coverage in March 2014

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1403/05/pmt.01.html Nick Kristof (of NY Times), Liz Wahl, and Abby Martin on Piers Morgan. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz Wahl quits

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/5475538/rt-anchor-liz-wahl-quits-on-air — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.205.130 (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Headline-1: Watch Russia Today Anchor Boldly Quit Her Job on the Air: ‘I Am Proud to Be an American’

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/05/going-viral-russia-today-anchor-quits-her-job-at-state-owned-tv-network-live-on-the-air/

QUOTING: Wahl said she is the grandchild of Hungarian refugees who fled brutal Soviet oppression.

“I am very lucky to have grown up here in the United States,” she said. “I am the daughter of a veteran, my partner is a physician at a military base, where he sees everyday the firsthand accounts of the ultimate prices that people pay for this country.”

“That is why personally I cannot be part of a network that is funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin. I am proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth. And that is why after this newscast I am resigning,” Wahl concluded.

Headline-2: Russia Today Anchor Quits On Air.

• Voice of America: http://www.voanews.com/content/russia-today-anchor-quits-on-the-air/1865548.html

"In order to succeed there you don’t question," she said.

Headline-3: Russia Today Anchor Quits Over Ukraine Coverage; Former Host Says Network’s Credibility Is “Destroyed!"

• http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/03/05/russia_today_anchor_quits_over_ukraine_coverage_former_host_says_network.html

This Slate writer provides some interesting insights.

Headline-4: VIDEO: Watch TV news presenter quit live on air over channel's presentation of Ukraine crisis.

• http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/liz-wahl-news-anchor-quits-3212240

QUOTING FROM THE ARTICLE: "As she closed her bulletin on Wednesday the journalist told of being from a family who fled to America to escape Soviet forces during the 1956 Hungarian revolution. She added she was the daughter of a military veteran and her partner was a physician who worked for the U.S. army “where he sees every day first hand accounts of the ultimate prices people pay for this country.”

She then said: "And that is why, personally, I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin.

"I'm proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth. And that is why, after this newscast, I'm resigning.”

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Headline-5: RT reacts to anchor Liz Wahl quitting on air

• http://rt.com/usa/rt-reacts-liz-wahl-042/

"...it is nothing more than a self-promotional stunt. We wish Liz the best of luck on her chosen path."
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad citation - cited article does not validate claim

I read the cited article for the following two claims. It did not validate either of them. These claims may still be valid. Just that the citation used does not justify them. (The citation refers to a Nielsen ratings report that could validate (or invalidate) these claims.)

• the number one foreign station in five major U.S. urban areas in 2012.
• It is also very popular among younger American people, U.S. college students, and in U.S. inner city neighborhoods.

Mdnahas (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nielson is the only way that I know of for tv viewership samples to be collected, and statistics (from primetime to superbowl to world series) are based on it. Are you referring to something else? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

roflmao

It is also very popular among younger American people, U.S. college students, and in U.S. inner city neighborhoods

got an ubbiased ref for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.193.254 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that User: 173.219.160.218 (05:35, 6 March 2014) just copied the neighbouring ref. The claim certainly isn’t covered by it. I'm binning the sentence.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section

This reference is used many times, but has a broken link

Marcin Maczka, The Propaganda Machine, New Eastern Europe website, July 9, 2012, originally published in New Eastern Europe: New Europe, Old Problems No. 3 (IV), 2012. http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/node/383

In the second to the last paragraph in the criticism section, I think the quotation marks were misplaced, but I can't verify it from the above broken link. "Andrey Illarionov, former advisor..." - Sidelight12 ^Talk

Done - Although I imagine Mr Lavrov really loves RT, I can't find a source for it? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Morgan Piers interviews Martin, Wahl and Kristof

Advisement to reinsert Kristof's comments on Morgan Piers like

"In March 2014, New York Times op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristof said on Piers Morgan Live, 'at the end of the day, RT is a Russian propaganda arm.'

or add comments Kristof made comments about Wahl and Martin's actions. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 08:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Kristof is certainly notable, and the fact that similar claims have been added to this article already is no reason to delete this one (as an IP is claiming in edit summaries). petrarchan47tc 23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's also in the same transcript as Pier's interviewing Martin and Wahl. I made a mistake the first time around by putting the wrong link in, that didn't have the full show. I will ask the ip from the same region and likely same user to discuss their concerns. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1403/05/pmt.01.html - Sidelight12 ^Talk 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wahl drama continues

• An Afternoon with Liz Wahl, the Reporter Who Quit RT and Hasn't Heard the End of It
• Neocon Con? US right stage media attack on alternative news (RT) petrarchan47tc 11:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Liz Wahl interview with Brian Stelter of CNN - Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely need to bring up that neocon connection. When I look at it more closely will figure out how to put it in. Meanwhile see TruthDig's Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek article; Neocon Foreign Policy Initiative interview with Liz Wahl by James Kirchick; [Slate defending Wahl, Funnier Slate followup article on same. Amusing to watch the propaganda battles, after all... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources

Here is some additional source material that I'm not sure about incorporating into the article, I might come back to it later, if someone else wants to, feel free --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Rosie Gray, How The Truth Is Made At Russia Today, Buzzfeed, March 13 2014
• Margarita Simonyan, 5 very serious answers to 5 very serious questions from BuzzFeed, RT, March 12 2014

• Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders - leaked EU's Ashton phone tape, RT, March 05 2014
• Doctor disputes Estonian foreign minister's claims, ITV, 13 Mar 2014
• Ukraine crisis: March 5 as it happened, The Telegraph, 5 Mar 2014

• Time to grab guns and kill damn Russians – Tymoshenko in leaked tape, RT, March 25 2014
• Tymoshenko denies 'wipe out Russians' comment, Al Jazeera, 25 Mar 2014

The Al Jazeera or Itv sources above don't mention RT, nor has a relation to the topic. Don't know if Itv is reliable. The log style events from Telegraph (@ 00.25) would be hard to use, or to find something that hasn't been said, but it does point to 'Buzzfeed' (listed above) and 'the Daily Beast' (added below). RT sources could be used, under certain circumstances, like to give detail or a quote of what a third-party source mentioned (the buzzfeed rtv interaction might be useful for something). I believe the source from Buzzfeed's site can be used. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Exclusive: RT anchor Liz Wahl Explains Why She Quit

My thinking behind the first two is obvious. The others do need further explanation. While watching RT I've noticed quite a lot of stories based on intercepted phone calls at "somehow" got posted to social media (Turkey seems to be having a similar problem ATM, can't imagine why :) ). All appear to be edited (In the case of the Tymoshenko story, some sentences have obviously been constructed from clips). The problem I've got is that many of the storys run across Russian media and while I can show that they're always disputed, finding someone responding specifically to RT is more difficult. Maybe they would be more suited to a different article? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A few more on the theme of propaganda --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Julia Ioffe, What Is Russia Today? Columbia Journalism Review, 28 Sep 2010 Quote:"The Kremlin’s propaganda outlet has an identity crisis"
• Russia wages propaganda war over Ukraine, ft.com, 3 March 2014
• Robert Fulford, Putin’s news network, National Post, 29 March 2014 Quote:"RT is a propaganda bureau, funded by the federal government"
• András Simonyi, Our Answer to Vladimir Putin Is... Stephen Colbert, Huffington Post, 28 March 2014 Quote:"RT, the Russian-sponsored English-speaking propaganda tool broadcasting the Kremlin's positions 24/7 globally"
• Nigel Farage's relationship with Russian media comes under scrutiny, The Guardian Quote:"the Russian state broadcaster that is often called Putin's mouthpiece"
• Watch RT, Putin's TV Network, Call the Cops on Me, The Daily Beast Quote:"RT the Kremlin-funded propaganda network formerly known as “Russia Today”"

• I guess I can find several dozens Russian language sources saying it is propaganda - but I do not see why all of them should be in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  Yevgeny Kiselyov compared RT with the Völkischer Beobachter [1]--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that if the sources don’t add something new to the article they probably shouldn’t need to be included. I assume from your subsequent comment in the Propaganda Tool discussion that you understand my thinking behind searching for them. Actually a few Russian based sources would surely go some way to countering the Western bias argument? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keeping article NPOV

I worked a lot on this a few years ago and haven't looked at lately. Just made a few changes which weren't exactly NPOV oriented. But can see that the addition of a criticism section in addition to responses which includes a lot of criticism, is already problematic, without reading it. Probably a lot of WP:Undue in there. Will have to review the rest. I hope old rejected stuff was not dredged up; we'll see...

It looks like partisans on either side have not been doing too good a job keeping it NPOV per policy. There is no doubt West's government regulated/controlled (and sometimes owned) media outlets also engage in rather obvious propaganda. Wikipedia editors are supposed to be smart enough to use sources to transcend either type of propaganda, not push it or fall for it. So let's be smart.  :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda tool

Frankly, I am sick of this. There was a statement in the lede that the channel has been accused in propaganda. In the article, there is a section about this, which is well sourced. I did not add the statement, but after someone removed it I reformulated the statement. It has been repeatedly removed by one user in good standing, at least two IPs, and now by a user who edits infrequently. The removals have been reverted, not only by me, but also by other users in good standing. Not I was accused in blatant POV (note that the last IP tried to change the sentence adding that this is an anglo-american POV). None of the users ever made an effort to open a discussion at the talk page. Since I do not really like edit-warring, I have to open it. Please give your opinions on whether the sentence ("The network, particularly due to its coverage of the 2014 Crimean crisis, has been repeatedly referred to as a propaganda tool.") belongs to the lede. I welcome users in good standing to comment, not socks. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The personal POV summary statement "The network, particularly due to its coverage of the 2014 Crimean crisis, has been repeatedly referred to as a propaganda tool.", currently being pushed by Ymblanter, has been introduced couple of days ago by Trappedinburnley (then in the form of "The channel is often criticised for its lack of impartiality and use of propaganda."). The statement is an unsourced summary that's at best POV pushing and at worst contains weasel words. It establishes nothing (who?, when?, where's the source?) other than that Ymblanter and Trappedinburnley don't like RT, which is a valid POV, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry.Zvonko (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no POV. RT is widely taken as such. Referenced too.--Galassi (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

So why are no sources provided for the above statement, then? Well, because there are none - the statement has been written by Ymblanter and Trappedinburnley who synthesized it from the specifically cited criticism by the specific individuals, all of which is covered in the criticism section. Pushing personal POV through synthesizing opinions is a clear violation of the explicit wiki policy against original research Wikipedia:SYNTH. Zvonko (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who started this, so sorry for any difficulties I’ve caused. I’ve watched quite a lot of RT in the UK, especially during times of conflict involving Russia. I’m genuinely interested in Russia’s honest view of things. Sadly RT doesn’t really help me there.

RT is obviously a propaganda tool, that isn’t to say it’s all lies. Most of the content is clearly intended to undermine confidence in our (western audiences) leaders, sources of information, even our way of life. The rest is about promoting Russian interests ie Anti-fracking = Russia has lots of natural gas to export.

So far I’ve been unable to find any straight denials from RT either. Just counterclaims that Western media is also full of propaganda and that the truth is so elusive that all news is POV. The article does have balance issues, and if I could find intelligent rebuttal from respectable people I would add it. If anyone else can, feel free. Then we could add something positive to the sentence, but I don’t know if it will stop people trying to remove it.

The lead section of an article is a supposed to be a summary. This article has lots of well sourced content criticizing the channel including the word propaganda. Not mentioning that in the lead is obviously incorrect. The guidelines on Weasel Wording and referencing don’t apply in the same way to the lead, again because it is a summary. OR? Nonsense. I should point that it is a simple matter to add a nice string of refs to the statement, making them easier to find.

The obvious way forward is try and find wording that people are more comfortable with, but I have no idea what that might be.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, your personal views on RT (or anything else for that matter) are entirely irrelevant here. The Talk section of a Wiki article isn't a personal blog. Let's stick to the article and how it fits into the Wiki guidelines.

"The lead section of an article is a supposed to be a summary. This article has lots of well sourced content criticizing the channel including the word propaganda. Not mentioning that in the lead is obviously incorrect. "

Under the sections "Criticism", "Guests", and "Responses to RT's news coverage", the article's present version cites the opinions of thirty six different individuals/organizations about RT with seven of them using the word "propaganda". That's 7 out of 36. Highlighting the term used by less than one fifth of those deemed worthy of having their opinions included in the article is misleading.

"The guidelines on Weasel Wording and referencing don’t apply in the same way to the lead, again because it is a summary."

What gave you that idea? The criteria for lead section is here Wikipedia:Lede.Zvonko (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual & WP:WEASEL Should we assume that you would support expanding the sentence with views commonly found in the other sources? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

We? ... Are you representing a group of editors? As for your question, I'd have to see what you (the plural you, the singular you, or however many of you there are) have in mind specifically.

Generally speaking, the articles covering subjects whose temporal and contextual scope isn't straightforward, that is they're open to interpretation and personal POV, should stay away from summarizing other people's opinions of it. This is why sections such as "Reception" and/or "Criticism" exist.Zvonko (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Like Zvonko said, this is blatant POV pushing. The claim is not attributed/it's clearly WP:WEASEL, and it's not even sourced. Just because a few individuals (rivals might I add) have criticized RT does not mean we can present their opinions as prevalent and factual in the lead of the article. Bottom line: Stop pushing unsourced POV material. LokiiT (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly sourced in the body of the article, and I already have drawn your attention to this fact. The sensence in the lede summarizeds the article and does not have to be sourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Selective summarizing (you picked a characterization used by 7 sources out of 36 and decided to highlight it in the lede) to reflect your personal POV, in addition to weasel terminology like "repeatedly", was the guideline violation in the statement you wrote. The current one written by Volunteer Marek is a bit less egregious only because he bothered to introduce two new sources (though he hasn't bothered to expand upon them in the article's body) so he highlighted a characterization used by 9 out 38 sources while ignoring all others. In both instances we have a misinterpretation of the article in the lede.Zvonko (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, you can write 20 more times that it is my POV. I suggest you better read carefully the answers, since all your objections have been carefully refuted.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line: Reliable Sources ref'd use precisely that term "propaganda". The section you removed is well ref'd not WP:SYN. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The way it works is that the lede summarizes the article. If an article talks about some important aspect of its subject, and that info is sourced in the main body of the article, then it is not necessary to source the summary sentence(s) in the lede. But just for good measure, I added a few sources to the lede sentence(s) as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To be precise you took one existing source (out of 36 existing ones) and highlighted it in the lede because it fits your POV. Those that don't fit your POV, you ignored. Then you added two sources in the lede that were previously not in the article and are thus not actually explained within the article that you're supposedly summarizing.

So right now the lede "summarizes" the supposedly general opinion of RT as "propaganda" even though such characterization is used in 9 out of 38 opinions (23%) given in the article.

So yeah, kudos - you summarized the article's 'reception' part so well that you failed to include 77% of the opinions in it. Great job.Zvonko (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Yes, I added two additional sources to support the claim. How is that "bad"? And we don't need every single source about RT to describe them as "propaganda". We just need a sufficient number so that characterization is noteworthy. And that we more than have.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I'm gonna have to draw here. Those two source aren't expanded upon within the article's body. The lede is a summary. How can you summarize something that hasn't been laid out first? That's one problem.

Another, bigger, problem is the fact that the lede you've written is completely inadequately summarizing the "reception" section of the article. It pushes your own POV using terminology and characterization that's supported by only 23% of the actual opinions in the article. So for the third time - the article contains 38 opinions of the subject (counting your two source that haven't yet been expanded upon in the article), 9 of those 38 opinions use the characterization being highlighted in the lede. Inadequate summary.Zvonko (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• First, noting that an outlet engages in propaganda is not unusual. See Category:United_States_government_propaganda_organizations with 18 odd entries. However, even if two or three sources use phrase "propaganda tool" - and in relation to some particular incident - in any of these articles that language is just not NPOV or appropriate for a lead. And who describes it as such needs to be described in the reception/criticism section (of which there only should be one). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

But it's not just "two or three sources", it's a common description. As to the "who" you can propose adequate wording if you'd like, but the fact that it is widely perceived and described as such is a fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The characterization as "widely" and "repeatedly" are entirely unsupported by facts. What you consider "wide" and "repeated" appears in 9 out of 38 sources.Zvonko (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you'd have a valid point if this was a case of 9 sources saying "it's propaganda" and the other 29 saying "no, it's not propaganda". But that's not the case here. You have 9 sources saying "it's propaganda" and 29 just not addressing that particular issue. It's like if I survey sources which mention "the earth" and noted that only a fraction of them make an explicit claim that "the earth is round" but most don't bother making that statement explicitly, and then try to argue that in the article on Earth we cannot state that it is round, because *only* a fraction of sources state so explicitly. Nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The argument for removing the propaganda claim has been, "I don't like it." Propaganda is what they do, it is well documented, and it is the truth. Their own reporters and an increasing amount of reliable sources even said that. The lead is a summary which is well referenced within the article. I judged RT without bias at the beginning, until I looked into it. So, its ok for RT to take elements of the truth to distort it? So, RT can take quotes or pictures out of context to completely change the meaning? Wikipedia isn't allowed to do that. It's either hypocrisy or clinging to beliefs for people to expect a double standard in Wikipedia, which Wikipedia is following, and expect no standards in another place. Besides, it says it has been referred to as, which says this is the voice of reliable sources, not Wikipedia's voice. So do you want us to lie, to achieve what you call NPOV? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Editorializing, soapboxing, and grandstanding. This tendency to treat Wikipedia talk pages as a personal blog is really starting to get on my nerves. Nobody here cares about your personal views on anything. Stop sharing them. They're irrelevant.

We're discussing the content of the lede here. Right now, as it stands, it doesn't adequately summarize the opinions of the subject being discussed in the article. It favours one opinion (that of RT being Russian propaganda) over others because that POV happens to be shared by several editors who are aggressively pushing it.Zvonko (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You're soapboxing by using omission. The RELIABLE SOURCES say this. And with other Wikipedia articles, GENERALLY DONE, the introduction, while not using a source, SUMMARIZES STATEMENTS THAT ARE SOURCED. There is a statement that says, NPOV is what reliable sources have to say about it. If you can't find something that favors your opinion, you probably can't. You can't cry out, NPOV is to make Kim Jong look good. So you haven't addressed anything, and replaced another opinion with your own. Did you read anything other than only 1 line of opinion? Wow, you used that excuse to ignore everything else, good job. And, if you missed it, I was talking about the lead. Do you want us to lie and use omission to achieve what you call NPOV? Basically, you just don't like it. If anything, omitting it from the lead is non-neutral POV. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you posses any cognitive ability or comprehension skills? You're accusing me of omission while without blinking you support a summary that ignores 77% of what it is supposedly summarizing. If you insist on lede summarizing the relevant opinions on the subject than it should SUMMARIZE THEM, not 23% SUMMARIZE THEM. As for the other stuff, Kim Jong et al. - please save it for your blog or Facebook page. Zvonko (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1/4 of refs is an awful lot, and it is less than 1/4 of the lead. There were about 20 different claims in the article that said it is propaganda. Are there that many reliable statements, or refs that say otherwise? That's a lot, don't you think? Why didn't you add to the summary in the lead instead of whining? Did you miss that? You either can't, or you expect us to do your work for you. More of your useless disguised opinion. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

1/4 is 1/4. 1/4 does not equate to "an awful lot" nor to any other characterization other than 1/4. It is one quarter of something. You can not pretend to summarize something by highlighting only 23% of it and then call it a summary. That's not a summary, it is peddling of a personal POV.

9 out of 38 opinions use the word propaganda. 29 do not. Highlighting the former while ignoring the latter because it fits your POV is a violation.

As for your accusation that I whine too much let me just remind you again how we got here. TrapedinBurnley and Ymblater have an obviously strong and clear personal POV about the subject of this article. So strong in fact, that they wanted to include their personal POV in the lede. So they selectively mined the opinions already presented and expanded upon in the article's body for the specific characterization that fits their personal POV. They managed to find a suitable characterization that fits their POV among those opinions and proceeded to highlight it in the lede, all the while pretending that such a POV-heavy highlighting constitutes a "summary" despite the fact that it appears in 7 out of 36 opinions (19%). Then came VolonteerMarek and made a bad "summary" even worse, though at least he bothered to find two new sources that support his (and TrapedinBurnley and Ymblater's) POV but didn't actually expand those two new sources in the article. So now the 'summary' characterization in the lede reflects 9 out of 38 (23%) of the opinions in the article. And all of the above is perfectly fine by you because it fits your own personal POV.

And now we come to your "whining" characterization of me. You and your buddies (you and TrapedinBurnley use plural pronouns like 'we' and 'us' so I guess one is to assume you act like a block here) first decide to push your own POV in lede, then you pretend that your POV in lede is actually a summary, and now when you are called out for it you quickly put the burden of fixing this mess on me.Zvonko (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please stop bullshitting. If someone here has a strong personal opinion about the subject this is you. So strong in fact that you continued to revert until you overstepped four reverts, and I had to report you. Concerning your argument, you were already pointed out that your argument is void, but once again: Do you want me to add 30 more references with call RT propaganda so that these references will be in majority? I can easily do this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your aggressive tone and uncivilized language. Wikipedia:Civility

It's becoming clear that expecting anything sensible from you like good faith or constructive editing is an exercise in futility.Zvonko (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Weren't you the first one to hurl insults? If you want to water down that line, go ahead, but don't remove it. It was fine before, but someone tagged it with, who what when, so now, who what when is answered. Apparently, the person who tagged it, doesn't like how that backfired. 1/4 of sources, or including 20 (counted) claims by notable individuals is enough for inclusion in the lead. "has been repeatedly referred to as a propaganda" avoids Wikipedia's voice so is NPOV, but to say "it is propaganda" would not be NPOV. It was one line of the summary. If the whole lead said this, then you'd have a point, but it doesn't. Despite my viewpoint, it is NPOV to include the mention in the lead. Reliable sources say this, it so happens English is a western language, but there are even reliable non-western sources in English. When I had a content dispute in a science article where research is scarce, I did the work to ensure it was more Neutral in POV, and found if the claims didn't reflect the sources, even if I didn't access all the sources behind paywalls. It so happens here, I'm reflecting the sources as they are. And its not like they're behind paywalls. I use rules as they are used generally by Wikipedians all across Wikipedia. So, should we change the rules just for you, simply because 'you don't like it'? I actually won't argue with removing "and has been described as an "'extension of... Putin's ... confrontational foreign policy'. The criticism of the network's nature as a propaganda tool increased during the coverage of the 2014 Crimean crisis." but if someone tags it again with "what, when" then mention of the Crimean crises goes right back in. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The notable statements by many more in those 23% of reliable sources in the article to account for mention into the lead but less then 23% of the lead = due weight. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently (from the discussion above) One quarter of the refs and sources here talk about RT as a propaganda outlet. (9 0f 28) That is "widely" but removing the word "widely" and replacing it with "commonly" or "often" might work as well. Perhaps an adjective is not even neccesary. Is it possibly better just to say "RT is described as..."? Volunteer Marek has made a thoughtful, policy based argument for the lede. The argument against it so far seems weak. Keeping key information that is heavily ref'd and RS out of the lede is a non-starter. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, we're talking about adverbs, not adjectives. Secondly, no, adverbs 'widely', 'commonly', 'frequently', 'repeatedly', and 'often' do not adequately describe 23% of something within the total (by the way it's 9 out of 38, not 9 out of 28). Thirdly, Volunteer Marek hasn't suggested anything, much less anything thoughtful; he went ahead and included his personal POV in the lede opinion summary through selective highlighting of one specific characterization found among the opinions in the article that's reflected in only 23% of the total opinions in the same article while completely ignoring/omitting/excluding characterizations from the remaining 77% of opinions. He then came here on 'Talk', pronouncing this characterization that fits his personal POV as "widely supported fact", but unfortunately for him and for you --- 23% does not equate to being used in connection with "widely".Zvonko (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That sentence sticks of negative POV to high heaven, and the article was quite NPOV before. off-course RT has a russian bias. they never deny it. western cooperate media are the biggest propaganda machines ever. was there even 1 voice of dissent invading Iraq? invading Afghanistan? " "war on terror" "? One editor here encapsulates the problem : "how dare RT question the truth our media and government have been feeding me" can you even hear yourself?do you know how brainwashed you sound? LarryTheShark (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement that said it has been accused of propaganda was better before. But since someone marked it with, what when where. Well that got answered. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So what? Add a propaganda statement to a CNN article provided it is properly sourced, I do not mind.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Look lots of sources state it's a "propaganda tool" or something similar. Whether that's "widely" or "lots" doesn't matter - the choice of the adverb or adjective (that also doesn't matter) is open, as long as it reflects the underlying idea. Second, one's opinions about CNN or "western corporate" media also doesn't matter (and actually... nevermind). If you can go out there and find numerous *reliable* sources which make that claim, then as Ymblanter said, go ahead and put it in the relevant articles. But that has nothing to do with this one. Third, if you can find reliable sources which explicitly deny the claim that RT is a propaganda tool, those can be included as well. But in the absence of any of that, leave well sourced and relevant text alone and don't remove simply because you don't like it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

For the millionth time, you're not addressing the issue here because you know you're in violation of guidelines. Your "summary" doesn't properly summarize the opinions in the article. You're pushing your own personal POV by selectively synthesizing a viewpoint based on a characterization found in 23% of the opinions.Zvonko (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't even know where this "only 9 out of 38" numbers got pulled out of. Even a cursory glance at the ref section strongly suggests that it's way more than 9 sources which note propagandistic aspects with RT's coverage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not, count them. Before you added your two sources that haven't yet been explained in the article there were 36 individuals/organizations whose opinions have been included in the article. 7 of them use the characterization "propaganda".Zvonko (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The inclusion of references claiming that RT is propaganda tool in the lead is wrong in my view. Why because it gives undue weight to the particular opinions of Western media and scholars that have themselves not been scrutinized for their political positions/allegiances. Secondly its inclusion in the lead is a recentism. Sietecolores (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, and not really. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions to resolve the matter:

• First of all, right now ,the article should have the tag :

• As explained by Zvonko in his "1/4 is 1/4" paragraph, the sentence should be totally erased for WP:UNDUE. At the very very minimum it should be defined to reflect that policy:

Some critics have repeatedly referred to the network as a propaganda outlet and has been described as an "extension of... Putin's ... confrontational foreign policy".[9] That criticism of the network's nature as a propaganda tool increased during the coverage of the 2014 Crimean crisis.[10][11]

• Reference 9, is an article by Julia_Ioffe who has an extremely negative Political bias on anything "Russian Federation", and i mean anything, including Hockey . and should not be used as an NPOV source even if it was published in the Columbia Journalism Review.
• If the paragraph will remain (with my 2 word edit), a response from RT should be added at the end:

Some critics has been repeatedly referred to the network as a propaganda outlet and has been described as an "extension of... Putin's ... confrontational foreign policy".[9] The criticism of the network's nature as a propaganda tool increased during the coverage of the 2014 Crimean crisis.[10][11] RT responded to the accusations of Propaganda, stating "The charges of propaganda tend to pop up every time a news outlet, particularly RT, dares to show the side of events that does not fit the mainstream narrative, regardless of the realities on the ground. This happened in Georgia, this is happening in Ukraine".[ 1 ] At the same time, the network relishes in its reputation as propaganda "we put the fact that this is propaganda right out front. We're putting out the truth that no one else wants to say. "Truth is the best propaganda"."[ 2 ] LarryTheShark (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

An SPA with zero edits outside of this page and their user page.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Attacking the messenger and not the message is indicative of the weakness of your arguments. Furthermore, your unsubstantiated judgment that i am a SPA is in violation of WP:NPA.

I declare that i have no ties of any kind to RT. I have been editing as an IP editor in wikipedia quite a while. I registered to make it more easy for me (my ISP provider has a dynamic IP address) in long talk discussions.

Actually come to think of it, you are Russian (probably opposition) and therefor have a conflict of interest and inherit bias on this subject. (please add that little text under your nick). Thank you LarryTheShark (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, for someone who starts their comment with complaints about "attacking the messenger" you sure do switch to actual attacks - haphazardly inferring a person's beliefs, positions and potential bias based solely on their presumed ethnicity. Now. Actually, given that you are a brand new account who pops into here and jumps right into the middle of a contentious discussion and starts talking about "undue tags", well, sorry but that just screams SOCKPUPPET! Don't insult our intelligence, that's all that Ymblanter appears to be saying. Assigning beliefs and making presumptions about editors based on their ethnicity? Well, that's another matter entirely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I noted that because at some point RfC would be closed, and then it is good to know for the closed that you have less than 10 edits. It is a pretty standard practice. You are welcome to add to my posts that I have 43K edits and was elected administrator with over 100 votes, I am fine with that. Concerning your message, the formulations can be discussed (and probably will be discussed when the article gets to DRN at some point), but your whole argument is based on "1/4" Zvonko's argument which is plain invalid.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW I do not have any conflict of interests with respect to this article. I do not live in Russia and I am not involved (and never been to) any political activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I take my words back, some what, because it still appears, to non regular wikipedia editors like a an intentional delegitimization tactic. I thought SPA means "special interest.. something". i had to search myself until i found WP:SPA. i recommend you hyper-link to it the next time you use it with a new registered editor to avoid confusion. Now let's get back to the issue at hand LarryTheShark (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal of LarryTheShark. Wikipedians should assume good faith, a low number of edits can't by no means de-legitimize an user, it absurd. Lets keep to discuss LarryTheShark's proposal. Sietecolores (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I still have to see a policy based argument why the sentence should not be in the lede. The 7/36 argument is invalid for the reasons which were already explained: The other 29 refs do not say there is no propaganda, they just do not mention it. The recentism argument can not be applied to the article on a channel founded in 2005 (and most of the propaganda statements are from before 2014). Concerning the formulation of the sentence - I am open to amending it, but saying that the channel is critized by those who criticize it sounds to me like tautology. Saying that it is criticized only in the US is clearly incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. There is more than ample RS refs supporting that. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We can move "and has been described as an "extension of... Putin's ... confrontational foreign policy".[9] The criticism of the network's nature as a propaganda tool increased during the coverage of the 2014 Crimean crisis.[10][11]" from the lead, and reword it. The quote is correct with 1 minor omission [Vladimir] that didn't change the meaning, however using ... makes it appear as if there is a misquote, when there isn't. The second ... wasn't needed. The second sentence uses Wikipedia's voice, and not of the criticizers'.

One sentence is enough. 7/36 sources including mentions by 20 different individuals or sources, or even less is enough for minor inclusion in a lead. Or look at it as 1/5 of sources saying this is enough to make less than 1/5 of the lead due. The fact that a lot of sources say it, make it due for inclusion in the lead. If anyone wants to insert a counterclaim that is said by reliable sources without using synthesis, go ahead. Even if there are 3 different reliable sources that say the same thing for a rebuttal, it may be able to go in the lead. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to LarrytheShark, you might be very new, but you’re the first person from the “I don’t like it” camp to get onboard with the reformulation idea! It is surely the only reasonable way forward. Although I disagree with your interpretation of the Ioffe hockey article and feel obliged to point out that your proposed text doesn’t refute the propaganda claim even slightly. I feel strongly that the criticism should be mentioned in the lead but it seems fair to me that it should be balanced with a response of some kind. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Every news channel has been accused of propaganda. Most U.S. news sources for example promoted the U.S. governments false arguments for the war in Iraq. In order to give prominence to them, it is important to find a secondary source that explains the prevalence of the view. Citing the opinions of two journalists to say it has "has been repeatedly referred to as" is OR. Get a source that makes that judgment. TFD (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly true that every news channel has been accused of propaganda by someone at some point. What matters is whether a particular news channel has been accused of propaganda by multiple reliable sources which discuss the issue at length. The underlined part is NOT true for many news channels. But it is true for this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. This needs a secondary source. Multiple primary sources are anecdotal evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This *has* secondary sources. Multiple ones. These are not primary sources. This is not anecdotal evidence - one or two sources. This is many many sources, and many many more can be easily added.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Sources which directly mention the propaganda aspect:

• Bloomberg Businessweek
• International Business Times
• Voice of America
• The Guardian
• Standpoint magazine
• Al Jazeera
• Columbia Journalism Review
• Slate
• Southern Poverty Law Center
• Der Spiegel
• Lieberman as quoted by Haaretz
• The Algemeiner
• A different article from The Algemeiner
• The Interpreter Magazine (points out that one of RT's spokesman is a straight up neo-Nazi
• Accuracy in Media

Sources behind a paywall, but pretty much call it propaganda:

• Independent (check this one - Highbeam)

Sources which don't call it "propaganda" directly but which compare it as such to Soviet era propaganda

• New Republic

That's almost EVERY single source in the criticism section. And that's 17, not 9. I have no idea where this "38" number was pulled out of, as a number of total sources in the section, but it's clearly "widely reported".

Note also that these represent a very wide spectrum of sources. I mean, the SPLC is in there.

Here's some more sources, just doing a quick ten second search, which say it's a propaganda tool but which are not currently in the article:

• Liberty voice
• Huffington Post (reporting on coverage of others)
• The Intercept
• USA Today
• National Post
• Transitions Online

and more is easy to find.

In fact, given how widely this fact is covered in reliable sources, this issue should be non-controversial, and this whole discussion is really a big waste of time due to a couple of user's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Primary source: "This is a propaganda source."
• Secondary source: "The following journalists have labeled TalkRT a propaganda piece, and here's analysis on the controversy."

Find a secondary source that identifies the controversy and analyzes it. Individual journalists that label it a propaganda source are primary sources. I didn't bother to read through the entirety of every source you listed, but several of them were obvious primary sources for this claim. The Slate article at least referenced a controversy on YouTube, but that's not so useful when discussing international politics. Personally, I'm only here because LegoBot invited me, and I couldn't care less whether it's labeled propaganda or not. I'm only concerned with Wikipedia policies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, primary sources are sources which are close to the event - like the Russian government document leaked by Anonymous which specifically outlines how the propaganda should be conducted (actually, that should be in here somewhere). That'd be a primary source. Anyway, several of the sources above do say something like "RT TV has been labeled as a propaganda tool by so-and-so and by so-and-so". So it qualifies even under this second definition.

This is the standard way of using news reports and magazine reports for this kind of information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are drawing a conclusion based on your original research. You search for sources that say it is propaganda. If you follow the OR path, a better way would be to identify top media people and see what they say. Do Anderson Cooper and Shep Smith call it propaganda? Why or why not? But since this is a tertiary source, you need to find secondary sources that explain what the media says, not primary sources where various writers say it is propaganda. An expression of opinion btw is a primary source for the opinion expressed. A source that comments on the opinion is a secondary source.

Incidentally, al Jazeera's "Listening Post" which you quote accuses both Western and Russian media of propaganda. Are you now going to add the moniker to articles about Western media?

TFD (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not. You've been around Wikipedia long enough, you know what original research is, so why are you pretending it's something else? The sources say it's "propaganda". I am reporting what the sources say. You seem to think argue (I doubt you actually "think" this) that finding sources is itself "original research" because, you know, looking for sources is a type of research. This is of course absurd. If this was the standard on Wikipedia, nothing cold be sourced. Again, stop pretending. "Original research" would be if I made up something or drew some conclusions on my own based on, say, that leaked Anonymous instruction sheet that Russian government send out (*that* is a primary source). And please stop with the wikilawyering of the definition of secondary sources. These plainly satisfy the requirements. Sources like these are used throughout Wikipedia articles in exactly this way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I don't see why Anderson Cooper's opinion should reign supreme here (hell, you just invented that standard out of thin air), or why he should even have one (has he even said anything about RT?), but for what it's worth, the first interview that Liz Wahl gave after quitting RT because ... it's a propaganda tool, was *with* Anderson Cooper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

[2]- there are billions of RS on its propaganda tool-ness, surely? I don't get the TFD problem with this.Sayerslle (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a much better source. It actually identifies a controversy instead of stating an individual opinion. By policy, editorials are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for details on that. Stringing together multiple primary sources does not allow you to draw your own conclusions; that's synthesis. I see this often in film articles, where someone will say that a film had a negative critical reception, then list three or four reviews by individual critics, none of whom directly discuss the film's wider reception. These wider, analytic articles, such as The Guardian source above, are the ones you need to find. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The refs are not editorials or opinion pieces. Almost all are straight reporting pieces by reliable mainstream world media sources. These are Wikipedia's ordinary standard references and not primary sources, by definition. In fact only the Standpoint magazine (UK) article appears to be a column. There are two ref'd articles from non-profits, those aren't opinion pieces either. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I’d just like to remind people that this is a discussion on the content of the lead. What description of the criticism that appears frequently in the article is appropriate for the lead?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

List of published various descriptions depicting RT

Regarding the Lead, and argument here, its all a question of wording, and which to chose. I think this covers the full spectrum of possibilities:

• RT's official statement: "RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint". (Source)
• Vladimir Putin - "Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign." (Source)
• Peter Lavelle (Prominent RT show host) - "“No one is telling me what to say,” said Peter Lavelle, the effusive host of “In Context.” Nevertheless, he said, the channel does take certain views. “ Part of our mission is public relations,” " (Source)
• Hilary Clinton - "... the Russians have opened up an English language network. I've seen it in a couple of countries and it's quite instructive." (Source)
• Kathryn Stoner-Weiss, deputy director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University - “It’s clearly a pro-Russian perspective; that’s the purpose of Russia Today,” she says. “Sometimes, a pro-Russia perspective involves an anti-somebody-else perspective—and we’re the most useful target at certain times.” (Source)
• Glenn Greenwald - "That that network has a strong pro-Russian bias is unquestionably true" (Source)
• Daily Express (UK) - "Russia Today, or RT, is the Kremlin’s answer to the BBC World Service. Seen as an arm of soft foreign policy, it is funded by the Russia government, in the same way the BBC World Service was financed by the Foreign Office.""it has also been criticised as too pro-Kremlin" (Source)
• MSN - " Liz Wahl, quit the network live on the air over RT's pro-Putin bias" (Source)
• The Sydney Morning Herald - "Russia Today is widely perceived as the voice of the Kremlin" (Source)
• Utne Reader (US magazine) - "worldwide Russian TV network spreads a unique brand of anti-American propaganda" (Source)
• Business Insider - " Russia's Propaganda Channel Already Has A Map Showing Crimea As Part Of Russia" (Source) LarryTheShark (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny, Hilary Clinton being snarky. What is the point of this list? What content do you want to add using these refs? Capitalismojo (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The point, as I understand it is that stating or quoting sources (usually Western) that says RT is propaganda tool gives that viewpoint undue weight (WP:UNDUE) given that there are much more view points that that. An aggravant is that these are personal/editorial opinions and not part of a more deep non-partisan analysis. I still consider th whole issue at stake here is WP:RECENTISM, RT actually existed way before the Crimean crisis. Sietecolores (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No. There's no UNDUE problem here as we're not talking about a source or two, but multiple, reliable, respectable sources. It's a very common description of the subject of this article and in fact *NOT* including it, in the lede or the body, would be POV. And you can call it "personal/editorial opinions" or we can call it "non-partisan analysis". And the description of RT as a propaganda tool predates the Crimean crisis and will likely still be accurate after it's over. So recentism isn't an issue either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The propaganda accusation also appeared way before the Crimean crisis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, in order for the Lead sentence to be NPOV, it should be something like this :

According to RT's mission statement "RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint". Other sources have described RT from: "clearly having a pro-Russian perspective" or "a strong pro-Russian bias" to "the voice of the Kremlin" or "Russia's Propaganda Channel"LarryTheShark (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not rs but weight. Virutally any source is rs for the opinions of its writer. Weight says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." How do you determine the prominence?" Do you Google search "RT+propaganda" and count the results? Or do you use a secondary source that says something like "many informed sources consider RT propaganda." Only by establishing the prevalence of a view can weight be established. The al Jazeera article for example accuses both Western media and RT of propaganda. Yet Volunteer Marek chooses to add that info to the RT article but not articles about Western media. Obviously he thinks he is a better judge of weight than secondary sources.

Larry, saying that they want to present news from a Russian perspective is not the same thing as saying they falsify facts in order to make Russia look better. All news media present news from a perspective. I notice that stories about the UK are more frequent in The Times than the New York Times.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous and try to say what I "obviously think". I didn't put it in any article on "Western media" because we're talking about this article right here and not "Western media" and because ... there's at least a dozen other sources which say the same thing without mentioning "Western media".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I could get behind LarryTheShark’s proposed text or something similar. TFD I can’t find the Al Jazzera source you refer to but you’re not suggesting that an article about RT that includes a claim the propaganda appears in the western media would be appropriate for use anywhere except here and maybe here? Lying is only a part of propaganda, it’s about twisting the truth to fit a narrative of your choosing, the less lying involved the better it works. I find arguing that RT isn’t propaganda to be ridiculous, even RT don’t do that. To borrow from LarryTheShark’s earlier suggestion, check this out for wesel words:

"The charges of propaganda tend to pop up every time a news outlet, particularly RT, dares to show the side of events that does not fit the mainstream narrative, regardless of the realities on the ground. This happened in Georgia, this is happening in Ukraine". RT press office[3]

The obvious issue with Larry’s suggestion is how to decide which quotes make it into the statement.--Trappedinburnley (talk)

I specifically used 4 examples. 2 which appear moderate and 2 which are appear extreme/loaded. all 4 should be used , and in that order to keep the article NPOV.LarryTheShark (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The current wording in the lede is just fine. If anything, what could be added is the fact that RT often propagates conspiracy theories. We could also add specific examples of misinformation carried by RT (like the supposed pictures of Ukrainian refugees fleeing into Russia, which turned out to be photos of the regular Polish-Ukrainian border) or mention the leaked Russian government documents which give clear instructions to RT on how to carry out Putin's propaganda. But *that* would be probably a bit too much in the lede so putting it in the body should be fine.

Of course what RT says about itself can be, and probably should be, somewhere in the article as well. It's sort of like all those white power/neo-nazi guys we have articles on, where first we quote them calling themselves "racial realists" or whatever the euphemism they like to use, then have the article say "but many sources call them for what they are [1] [2] [3] [4], racists and neo-nazis". Similar thing here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

To be a bit more specific, Larry's suggestion would work if the description of RT as "propaganda" wasn't so widespread in reliable sources. Unfortunately for those trying to delete this information - in violation of WP:NPOV, erroneously invoking WP:UNDUE when it does not apply - it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with Volunteer Marek proposals. The lead is not a place to bash RT. It needs to be balanced and recieve a treatment similar to that of other media. That this whole issue was raised right now is clear indicator of WP:RECENTISM. Sietecolores (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "bashing" RT. It's including how the majority of reliable sources describe the channel. An argument for faux-"balance" is no excuse for POV pushing, which, removing pertinent information, sourced to reliable sources, would constitute. If we have an article on some far-right organization we don't remove the fact that they're far-right for sake of "balance". Same thing here. And it has been pointed out repeatedly already that WP:RECENTISM has nothing to do with it - they were described as such long before the Crimean crisis and they'll likely be described in the same way after the dust settles down on that peninsula.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is proper to call it a propaganda venue. That's what it is. You just Don't like it. Why are we even begging to change the rules over this. They choose to be propaganda, so lets call them what they are, propaganda. If we said otherwise, that would be not NPOV- Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the lede should be a summary of the article. The article states that RT has been described as a propaganda tool and this is well cited with references. Therefore the lede properly summarises this in the lede. --Nug (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have two issues with the current wording:

• who are we to decide which quote(s) feature. It can be argued that Ioffe is a hostile source and IMO the reported Israeli FM complaint direct to Putin is probably top of the criticism pile.
• mentioning the Crimea crisis is likely to keep leading to recentism objections.

Unfortunately I’m not at all sure that any wording will stop people trying remove anything negative, but maybe something more like this?

"The network was created as a part of a larger effort by the Russian government to improve the image of Russia abroad. It has been repeatedly criticised for the propaganda nature of its content."

Insert refs (and Americanize) as necessary. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the present wording is just fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And just how long after the edit block is removed do you think will be before we’re going to have another edit war to deal with?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the current phrasing. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, how do you know that is how "the majority of reliable sources describe the channel?" I do not suggest we get into a discussion about whether it is a propaganda channel but how we know that is what the majority of sources say. Do you have a source for that or have you looked at all the reliable sources and formed that judgment? And are you referring to their news coverage or there talk shows, which issue comes up with Fox News Channel. TFD (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD It is clear that a large number of mainstream news outlets based in multiple countries have run stories accusing RT of propaganda or similar. Can you offer any decent sources to contradict this? Nobody has suggested that RT is the only source of propaganda in the world, just the one whose talkpage we are having this discussion on. Also my previous statement was not a serious objection to the current wording, just an effort to ensure that we cover all the angles.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If it is clear then no doubt you can find a source that makes that observation. But I cannot find any sources that explain the general perception of RT. I can Google search ""fox news"+propaganda" and get plenty of hits in rs.[4] I made the same point at the subject's article, that that is not a proper way to edit an article. One would wonder too what there is not outrage over Larry King having a show on RT as there was over Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose. TFD (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Fox news, but for what it's worth (despite the link not working) I ran the same test and got very few hits, almost non had anything to do with Fox news and nothing that would qualify as RS. I'm very bored of this now but a 2 minute search found this Russia Today host who criticised Kremlin sent to Crimea, Telegraph which states "The English-language Russia Today is widely perceived as the voice of the Kremlin". On the King issue I'm sure there has been comment, and unless I missed it we're not at war? Now if you don't have useful to add to the debate please stop wasting our time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley,TFD - There is a source analyzing this very issue from the Boiling Frogs Post : Media War: Why Has Western Media Launched a Campaign Against Russia Today?. The line in the lead should not be kept as it is right now.79.179.155.133 (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually wasted my time reading this! It is just the same message coming from RT "If what we're reporting sounds like bullshit, it's not that we're wrong, just that you've been lied to by the entire media of the English speaking world." There are many ways in which this is useless to this discussion--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Four points.

1) Could someone summarize the discussion so far? This would be good to avoid repetition of arguments and to ease for other users to contribute to the discussion.

2) Do no abuse the you don't like it argument. Most users here are arguing based on Wikipedia policies, logic and common sense. Accusing others of don't liking it is nonconstructive and potentially disrespectful towards honest users.

3) On contributing to build a consensus: repetition is not an argument. That a few users insist in saying that there is no WP:RECENTISM in the current "propaganda" sentence in the lead doesn't mean that it is actually so.

4) At last, if Wikipedia is to keep its reputation of being relatively neutral, we should give similar articles an equal treatment. It is fully valid to refer to the treatment media like Fox News and BBC receives in Wikipedia and compare to RT. Sietecolores (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If anything, you're asking us to bend the rules, to make RT look favorable. Wikipedia uses the rules, but now you want to make RT an exception to the rules? The only abuse of rules is the people trying to say we should make everything look in a positive light, when that involves bending the truth. Do you have a third-party source to say how wonderful RT is? If not, you just don't like that there isn't one. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"you're asking us to bend the rules, to make RT look favorable". No I'm not, please provide evidence. Asking for equal treatment, avoidance of RECENTISM and consensusbuilding is not bending the rules. Please avoid falling into a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Sietecolores (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out multiple times, by several editors, WP:RECENTISM ain't got nothing to do with this. Stop repeating misinformation which has already been addressed. And "equal treatment" means "report what's in reliable sources", which is exactly what we're doing here. "Equal treatment" does NOT mean "ignore reliable sources because we don't like what they say".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Two users are not enough to make a consensus. Sorry, you can't close discussions at will. The RECENTISM issue had definitely not been solved as the 2014 Crimean Crisis is still mentioned in the lead. As one user mentioned above, the RECENTISM issue is likely to continue as long as the lead continues to give undue weight to recent issue. Sietecolores (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There are more than two users who've expressed that opinion here Sietecolores. And one more time, there's no RECENTISM issue. The description of RT as a propaganda tool predates the Crimean crisis and is likely to post date it as well. Furthermore, the Crimean crisis is what brought this aspect of RT into focus, and that's why there's a lot of sources which connect the two. However, "recent" does not automatically imply "recentism". For it to be "recentism" it has to be something which will be no longer relevant or important in the future. That's not the case here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, thank you for providing that source. Why not say something like "RT is widely perceived to represent the views of the Russian government?" Then say something like "RT denies it?" IP, the blog you link to argues that the perception is wrong, However, "weight" requires us to report different views in proportion to their acceptance. We cannot weigh the arguments ourselves and determine which is correct. TFD (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not say something like "RT is widely perceived... - Why not say something like what the reliable sources say, rather than trying to weasel it? Which is what we have in there already. Really. In this particular case the sources are pretty clear, so you really don't have much room for an argument, assuming you stick to acting in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on summarization, yet, under a rigorous interpretation of wp:nor / wp:synt, nearly all summarizaiotqn could be called wp:or/ wp:synth. So I guess summarizaiotn is wp:ssynth if it is challenged. :-) That situation is not as bad as it might sound, but should not get in the way of a consensused summarization. Next, discussions about the nature of the media are appropriate fort the talk page. The idea of using article-space standards to de-legitimize someone's talk page discussion is BS. Next, the maneuver of getting "x is y" inserted into an article by making the statement "some people say "x is y" is not enough basis. Finally, it sounds like in general the sources could support a summarization that the outlet is biased, but probably not that it is propaganda. So why not compromise on the former and move on? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I’ve not seen much in this discussion that makes me think that the word propaganda is the issue here? As far as I can see most of the arguments have been driven by the feeling that it is unfair to put anything negative in the lead? I fail to see how moving to "is biased" or "is the voice of the Kremlin" will improve the situation. Also please explain your view that there isn’t enough to justify "propaganda" again as far as I can see there are plenty of sources in the article and plenty more found during the course of the discussion (and yet more probably still to be found) that specifically use it? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the word 'propaganda has a certain connotation attached to it , more than it's dry academic etymology. just like the word 'conspiracy theorist'. The word is used as a tool to bash and to totally dismiss a certain view point.109.66.173.51 (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is actually two words. And... you know, there are actual, real-to-goodness "conspiracy theories" and theorists out there, to which the two words apply and are *not* just "a tool to bash and to totally dismiss a certain view point". Certain view points are wacky. Same thing with "propaganda". Yes, sometimes the term is used as a cheap negative epithet. But in other cases, it's the most accurate description there is. Like here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, the only reliable source presented that comments on what reliable sources say about RT says, "The English-language Russia Today is widely perceived as the voice of the Kremlin". There is not weasel-worded about it and the source, The Telegraph, is not an apologist for RT. I am merely suggesting that we report what this source says. How is that acting in bad faith?TFD (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're just trying to wikilawyer the definition of a secondary source. We have a statement "X is Y". We have a dozen+ reliable secondary sources which state "X is Y". Since you got a WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem with the statement "X is Y" you're now demanding that we also find sources that say "lots of sources say that X is Y". In fact we have at least one such source. What's next? Demanding that we have a source which says "lots of sources say that lots of sources say that X is Y"? "Lots of sources say that lots of sources say that lots of sources lots of sources say that X is Y?" I'm sorry but it's very hard to take the making of these kinds of spurious demands - which are not based on policy - as anything but bad faithed game playing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I do broadly agree with the comments of North8000. I thik there should be a compromise and consensus. Volunteer Marek, "For it to be "recentism" it has to be something which will be no longer relevant or important in the future."; exactly, the to have the 2014 Crimean crisis mentioned in the lead will be irrelevant in the future as RT is much more than the Russian media that covered the 2014 Crisis. As a news channel RT totally transcends a single event. That RT gained notoriety in EU and the Anglo-Saxon world trough the 2014 Crisis does not mean that this is a defining even in RTs history worth mentioning in the lead, it is just one of many conflicts and news covered by RT. Sietecolores (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear we are not trying to claim the RT’s nature as a propaganda tool is related to the events in Ukraine. Based on its content it was founded as a propaganda tool, it is a propaganda tool today and will likely be a propaganda tool in the future. All we are saying is that the level of criticism has increased lately, which is obviously correct. Recentism is a about confusing sources talking about specific recent events and those describing timeless features of the subject. As far as I understand it, it would apply here if we tried to make it look like RT has always been criticised using sources that only talk about its coverage of Crimea. This is not the case here.

I also strongly disagree with the idea that in order to summarise in the lead we have to limit ourselves to using quotes from sources. That’s not summarising, it’s cherry picking and is likely to cause claims of undue prominence. But if that’s consensus that arises, I’m sure I can find something sufficiently unambiguous.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, compare the following statements:

"The English-language Russia Today is widely perceived as the voice of the Kremlin." (The Telegraph, 4 March 2014)

"RT is widely perceived to represent the views of the Russian government." (TFD, 7 April 2014)

If you think I have misrepresented the source, then please find another one. If you think The Telegraph fails rs or is a propaganda tool of the Kremlin, then please provide another source. But to me, polling sources to determine what they say is original research. I could look for sources that said Obama was a good/bad president and say "lots of sources say he is a good/bad president." Instead if I wanted to explain how he was generally perceived I would go to a source that says how he is generally perceived. TFD (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So in order to summarise an article in the lead section we need to introduce new sources that contain quotes that are similar to the summary we want to write?!? TFD I’m really trying to see your point of view, but am I’m getting is that you don’t understand how to write a lead. --Trappedinburnley (talk)

TFD's last proposal is the most reasonable. The lead needs to cite or quote a source that is analytical about the propaganda/voice of Kremlin issue. We here should avoid, if possible, do the work of processing and weighting or we will risk falling into WP:OR. –Sietecolores (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL do you have a source for your claim?? I've also noticed that TFD has been hanging around this article for years, trying his/her best to stop any criticism making it in there. At the time this might of seemed reasonable but now it is a concern.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

ROFL, see WP:CITELEAD. I notice you mention that I had commented on this talk page previously, while failing to mention that Volunteer Marek had been involved in the same discussions. While that type of approach may be effective in polemical writing, it is not the type of approach one should take on discussion pages. And no I am not trying to stop any criticism makings its way here. In fact, I suggested using criticism from The Telegraph. In case you are unfamiliar with the English broadsheets, The Telegraph is not normally seen as a pro-RT publication. Editorially it is similar to the Daily Mail. TFD (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There has obviously been some large misunderstanding if you think that WP:CITELEAD contradicts anything I've said to you. As this is the virtually the same comment I've just responded to, please see "We moved past the "it needs citations" argument a long time ago..." in the Suggested alternatives section. Obviously it isn't a problem to have been involved with any article for a long time, I don't understand why you think that is my problem here? --Trappedinburnley (talk)

Suggested alternatives

Comment - Suggested alternative (I'm just here for the RfC). "The network presents a pro-Russian viewpoint; Western media frequently accuse it of being under the direct control of the Russian government". --94.193.139.22 (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, it *is* under the control of Russian government, not just "accused" of it. Second, that doesn't quite capture what the sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Another IP user with a suspiciously in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia! Logging out to make comments and edits is a form of Sock puppetry! Although most of the sources involved in this discussion and the article are from the "Western media", using the term would involve making a judgement that would need a source. Similar issue with "frequently" also. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley stop trying to delegitimize users because of being IPs (as you did to 94.193.139.22) or because they have been in Wikipedia for too long (as you did to TFD). Use valid arguments and not ad hominem attacks. Also, don't forget to assume good faith. Sietecolores (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yawn! This is getting really old. Any attempt to delegitimize the IP user for being an IP is a figment of your imagination. I suspect them of having a username and trying to hide it (RfC??). I also responded reasonably to the suggestion they made. As far a TFD goes I refer you to my comment that begins: “So in order to summarise an article in the lead section...” If that is what TFD is suggesting, I’m very sure it isn’t based on policy. In fact TFD tried the same argument in April 2012 as part of the Propaganda organisations category discussion. It didn’t work then and it hasn’t worked now. I also found suggestions that RT is similar to the BBC (Nov 2012) particularly troubling. I’m suggesting that the pattern of TFDs comments suggests a certain level of bias. If you want any sort of apology, find some policy that agrees with TFD. This discussion has gone on far too long and has largely been a waste of time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley is perfectly right here. There's some obvious shenanigans going on here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of sockpuppetry on a talk page is a personal attack. If you have any suspicions then take them to WP:SPI. Trappedinburnley, misrepresenting what another editor has said, then refuting it is a stawman argument. See WP:LEADCITE: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." The relevance of BBC and other government-owned news media is not that it puts RT in the same category, but that concluding a medium is controlled by the government because it is owned by the government is synthesis. IOW although it may be the case that RT is controlled by the government, you need sources that say that. I really do not think it is biased to request sources for judgments made in the article. That is what policy requires. Articles are supposed to based on sources, not editors' opinions. And it does not matter whether it is RT, Press TV, BBC, Fox News or Stormfront. We cannot put in our own unsourced views. TFD (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We moved past the “it needs citations” argument a long, long time ago. I agree that as it has turned out to be contentious that some citations are required. If the consensus becomes that we need more citations as I’ve previously said we can easily and a nice long string of them. But as your quote states that shouldn't be needed. What you appeared to be suggesting had nothing to do with citations. As far I could tell (in both cases) you where arguing that propaganda cannot be mentioned at all, until sources are found analysing world view on the question, or at least showing that the viewpoint is widespread. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Consensus (April 10, 2014)

Going through the whole "Propaganda tool" section discussion, this is the state of consensus as of April 10 2014:

Keep the Propaganda paragraph as is. 8 editors - Ymblanter, Trappedinburnley, Galassi, Capitalismojo, Sidelight12, Volunteer Marek, Sayerslle, Nug.

Change the Propaganda paragraph. 12 editors - Zvonko, LokiiT, Carolmooredc, LarryTheShark, TFD, NinjaRobotPirate, Sietecolores, 79.179.155.133, North8000, 109.66.173.51, 94.193.139.22, Damotclese. (I am IP 109.66)109.64.155.17 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: ips of 79.179.155.133, 109.64.155.17, 109.66.173.51 above are from the same general location. The IP knowingly makes a claim based on a false consensus count. Possibly other names in the list too. If this is not sockpuppeting, it is meatpuppeting. The change count is no higher than 9. Not consensus. Blocked user:LarryTheShark has a similar edit history to the IPs, and that editing started in March with the first edits to RT (TV network). User Mezigue was left off the keep count. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 05:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that this is a fair representation of the consensus? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In case I forget (and this is far for my only issue with the list), you also appear to be 79.179.155.133 --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. No, there is not a consensus, that's "jumping the gun." As has been pointed out previously, the "some people say" rhetoric that was removed is not worthy of Wikipedia, it was lacking references and citations and as such was legitimately removed. It is irrelevant what "some people say," what only matters in an encyclopedia is falsifiable statements which are germane, and tossing in an aside about what some people's opinions are about RT are a disservice to researchers who come to this page looking for serious information.

Later in the RFC comments we find an editor has done some research in to who has stated that RT is "propaganda" however once again it is utterly irrelevant about what people's opinions are, it does not matter what "some people say.

The text was removed for good reason. It simply does not belong in the article. Damotclese (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Erm I not really following you? Which text was removed? The text we're talking about is still in the article. What do you mean by serious information? Are you accusing researchers of not caring about people's opinions?? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not consensus. And how many of the above do you think are sock puppets? Additionally since WP:NPOV (including WP:RS) is one of the five pillars, that trumps any talk page consensus, as it represents project wide consensus. You simply cannot remove text that is extensively cited to reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Marek, there is a consensus which is clearly based on wikipedia guidelines. sorry that you do not like it. If you want to change the the current new paragraph reach a consensus for it first79.182.51.56 (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Also, wait for the RFC to close, don't jump the gun. Also stop using multiple accounts to create an illusion of consensus. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And it might be useful to remind people that WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote (especially in these circumstances). Also, there's an ongoing RFC. Wait for it to conclude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no more ongoing discussion. there are 3 editors (you among them) that try to bully the discussion. most editors that have joined the talk page , have agree for change.79.182.51.56 (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is simply not true. And you have to wait for the RFC to close before trying to force through your desired changes. I see that you're not even denying using multiple accounts here. So much for your vote count.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If we only count votes, then 8:12 is no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is not to use the propaganda description alone. the new edit includes the propaganda view. and meets consensus on all levels79.182.51.56 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous! People whose views run counter to policy don’t count for anything here. People who wanted it to be removed completely aren’t the same as people who wanted it changed. Sock puppet’s views don’t count. People who have offered a single post that was refuted and they didn’t defend can’t be viewed as definitive. IPs who introduce dubious lists and count themselves twice are a concern. IMO this is a contemptible attempt to twist the narrative of this discussion. You don’t work for RT do you? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And the person that decides whose voices don't count should be you? Why's that? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Another SPI candidate.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring sock puppet votes who try to stack votes is standard procedure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

3 of these ips are from within 50 miles of each other. If that's not sock-puppeting, that's canvasing. All with the same types of edits, with the same aggressive style, with hardly any other edit history. For the keep count, you left off Mezigue. The new version has synth. Find a third-party source that explicitly says "western sources". Even non-western sources cite its use as propaganda. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 18:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Balaenoptera musculus I’m going to assume that you are the Israeli IP that we’ve been talking to and not yet another sock. If this is the case you should make it clear. The only thing I get to decide around here is where I contribute. My views are based entirely on my understanding of wiki policy and a belief that Wikipedia should be a beacon of truth. This is not a referendum, if this ever gets as far as having two or three technically correct but differing statements to choose from, then maybe we can have a vote. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, your assumption is false, please consult WP:DBQ. Consensus is not a vote, which makes both the vote-counting above and your 'ad hominem' attacks on individual editors pointless. The best way to make Wikipedia a "beacon of truth" is to concentrate on the underlying issues, rather than attacking individual editors. I'm sure that in this case a compromise solution is possible. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that we can see your edit history – any experienced editor who looked at it would be suspicious. I’ve already made my position on the attack accusation clear. I hope a compromise can be found but considering the nature of a lot of the discussion so far I doubt it is going to happen any time soon.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Disappointing changes to lede

Having having returned from some days away, it is disappointing to see what has happened here. Larry the Shark indef banned, the appearance of single purpose IP accounts, socks, and edit warring. What is clear is that the long term lede was changed without clear consensus. By that I mean even if banned editors and single purpose ip accounts are given full weight, 8 to 12 does not indicate robust consensus. One does not determine consensus by totaling up votes. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest reverting to the pre edit-war lede and coming to consensus line by line. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

LTS was apparently a throwaway account, as I suggested from the very beginning. The article is protected from editing till May 2 as a result of my request today. I am waiting for someone to block 78* who has made already five reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at LTS' edits on snakes and compare them with [5]. The IPs are Larry, Larry is the IPs. Also compare "LarryTheShark" with Balaenoptera musculus, which is a whale. These are all the same person. SPI filed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've got a feeling that the we've been talking to far fewer people than it would appear. Did anyone know that the Many-coloured Rush Tyrant native to South America is called "seven colours" in Spanish? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

LokiiT is also starting a week in the sin-bin for some actual personal attacks. I'm not happy the page got edit blocked with the new version in place and have raised it with the admin and at the noticeboard. Capitalismojo are you suggesting that the statement be removed completely until consensus is achieved or just that it is reverted? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the circumstances, I would suggest that it be reverted. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, however I'm not sure of the best way to make that happen? The blocking admin dosen't seem to have been online since.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"I suggest reverting to the pre edit-war lede and coming to consensus line by line.", can you specify (link) what this would mean? As far as I see the lead has actually improved the last days. A more nuanced view of RT is expressed in the lead contrary to the prior undue weight given to the word "propaganda". –Sietecolores (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you agree with the edits of a indef banned user and series of sock puppets is awkward but does not detract from our combined ability to reach a true consensus. Let us agree that there was no consensus for the changes, "more nuanced" or not. If there had been consensus, no edit war would have occurred. Given that, we should work through the lede starting from the pre edit-war/banned-user/ip sock wave. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit-war wave times are those prior to the Euromaidan (late 2013). Do you have a specific version in mind? Sietecolores (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don’t really know where we go from here but I do know that it shouldn’t be this difficult to edit Wikipedia. In regard to the current changed statement, as well as the issue with “Western media” we are advised not to use mission statements WP:MISSION. I have other issues with it as I'm sure other people will also.

However taken as a whole, the current lead is pretty crappy in terms of the requirement to be “an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects”. If we have to go to all this trouble we may as well re-write the whole thing. I would suggest that we first try to establish a consensus on what a good lead should look like and then we create a subpage and thrash out a new one.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:MISSION is just an ESSAY, not a Wikipedia policy. Besides that, mission statements are perfectly fine in RT to provide context and proper weighting in the lead. Sietecolores (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And what about the “Western Media” issue that has been raised repeatedly and thus far undefended, and which didn’t feature in the version offered by (the very short-lived LarrytheShark)? That is highly contentious subject has been around for a long time, as has the wider issue of criticism featuring in the lead.

I’m not opposed the idea of balancing whatever criticism wording we end up using, with an opposing viewpoint. However it’s just an essay, is no reason to ignore it, at the end of the day what does the mission statement actually tell us about RT? I would point out that it was previously removed from the lead (Nov 2012), by an experienced admin.

Additionally (besides the mission statement), it contains zero citations. So far as I can tell "it needs citations" is the only part of the RfC in which consensus actually seems to have occurred. Neither of us has made any significant contribution to the creation of the article and are not in a position to pushing our opinions here.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't enforce an ESSAY as if it was policy. The "unsourced" part in the lede is backed up by references withing the article. Sietecolores (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Essays are generally followed practices, you need a very good reason to include a mission statement. Two examples: wp:Paraphrase is also an essay, but anyone in academia or any level of school isn't supposed to overly paraphrase; Paraphrasing may also be a copyvio, as I've seen that type of material removed from histories; There is no guideline about spelling either, but we know to use proper spelling. The reasoning in wp:MISSION under the list "Mission statements generally suffer from some fundamental problems that are incompatible with Wikipedia style guidelines:" is sound. My suggestion is either trim the mission statement to simply say no more than it is displayed as having a Russian perspective, or delete it all together.

So it is stated three times that RT has a Russian bias in the lead, it only needs to be stated once. Also, saying something is the perception of "western media" is wp:or, and not wp:NPOV. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 April 2014

Hello. In the Presenters section, it says that I am currently a Presenter at the Channel. This is not true. I no longer work there. Could you please delete me from the list of Presenters names. This is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)

Kind regards,

Cary Johnston.

80.7.133.6 (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Nick (talk · contribs)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests (May 2014)

Lead

replace: 'According to RT's mission statement "RT provides an alternative perspective on major global events, and acquaints international audience with the Russian viewpoint".[2] Western media perception of the network ranges from having a clear pro-Russian perspective, to having a strong pro-Russian bias, to being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.'

with: 'RT is depicted as on having a Russian perspective on global events. Critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.'

reasons: Russian bias stated 3 or 4 times, and wp:MISSION essay (about mission statements) is general practice. Summarized mission statement as compromise. "Western media perception" is wp:OR. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Partial agree - Reasons are sound, but I would suggest 'The network asserts that RT offers a Russian perspective on global events. Critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.' Also I feel we need to add two or three cites to the 2nd sentence or we're just going to go round in circles.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• either is ok by me. I worded it depicted as, so it can encompass RT's mission statement, and views that others hold, while being accurate. While it is a propaganda machine, it is still one point of view within Russia. Your wording is truer to it's mission statement. Another reason for wording it "depicted as" was to reduce edit conflict. Leads don't generally have references in them, since they summarize entire sections of the article that are referenced, but I won't oppose it. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

Request to add to end of criticism section:

'United States Secretary of State John Kerry refered to Russia Today as a state-sponsored "propaganda bullhorn" and he continued by saying, "Russia Today network has deployed to promote president Putin's fantasy about what is playing out on the ground. They almost spend full time devoted to this effort, to propagandize, and to distort what is happening or not happening in Ukraine." "Secretary Kerry on Ukraine" (Press release). CSPAN. {{cite press release}}: Text "April 24, 2014" ignored (help) Russia Today responded that they wanted "an official response from the U.S. Department of State substantiating Mr. Kerry's claims."Logiurato, Brett (April 26, 2014), RT Is Very Upset With John Kerry For Blasting Them As Putin's 'Propaganda Bullhorn', Business Insider {{citation}}: line feed character in |title= at position 38 (help) Richard Stengel from the U.S. Department of State responded.Logiurato (April 29, 2014), Russia's Propaganda Channel Just Got A Journalism Lesson From The US State Department, Business Insider Stengel stated in his response, "RT is a distortion machine, not a news organization," but he supports RT's right to broadcast in the United States.Stengel, Richard (April 29, 2014), [http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/04/29/russia-today-s- disinformation-campaign Russia Today’s Disinformation Campaign], U.S. Department of State {{citation}}: Check |url= value (help); line feed character in |url= at position 58 (help)

Video comment starts at 6:58. Thank you. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That is worth including, although I think stylistically it would be better just to summarize what was said, rather than include lengthy quotes. Also, it would be helpful to mention the specific claims that Stengel says are false. We should also look out for any additional commentary from other sources. TFD (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected again

I’m not sure what just happened here!?! Of all the things that I’m unhappy with about this article, that it is edit protected again, tops the list. Looking back at the last edit war I don’t see why this had to go so far? Can anyone tell me:

• How is this: In 2013 President Putin admitted “Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position” but stressed “we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line”.
• Fundamentally different from this: In 2013 President Putin clarified “Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign.”

As far as I can see the only bits I removed are redundant, and as Marek said the quote shouldn’t need to be there at all, but moving to the full quote didn't need to be the start of an edit-war. I only included it to add a third viewpoint (from a source that can’t possibly be called Western POV/irrelevant) and make the propaganda bit a little less obvious. And @LTS\Bezeq IP\whateveryournameis where do you think that idea came from?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

So people can understand what " just happened" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_admin_privileges

The current Edit, which has been illegitimately, not randomly, chosen by Ymblanter for locking in the article for the next month, in a very manipulative way, is saying that Putin admitted that RT is a propaganda outlet for the government.

Secondly, the cut of the quote changes the meaning from "on some level its unavoidable that RT will present the Russian government’s official position" to "it is reflecting the Russian government’s official position". and the paragraph should say "some critics".79.178.48.210 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting someone other than you has broken the rules to try and get their own way? Well I suppose I should care, but I just can’t. Guess what? Admins are people too, if you annoy them they react. That may/or may not be what happened here. “in our country and in the rest of the world” = everywhere, “one way or another” = unspecific differing ways “whether domestic or foreign” = everywhere. “Some critics” would move it too close to “some people say”, critics means more than one, how many is some?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting. it is the ruling of the ANI "Ymblanter has admitted their mistake and is reminded that an unregistered ("IP") editor has just as much right to edit the encyclopedia - or engage in a content dispute - as they do". So that has been said and done by other uninvolved admins. end of story.

You know exactly what i mean regarding the quote. but you are playing dumb the same as in the question of the ANI ruling.79.178.48.210 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely do not know what you mean regarding the quote or I wouldn’t be wasting my time discussing it. I’m not playing dumb regarding the ANI either; I’ve read every word of it and it did not come out favourably for you. And I can’t believe that after your consensus bullshit (the list where you counted yourself 3 times) was so completely shot down here. You thought it a good idea to try it at ANI?? But there is little point discussing that aspect here, we've got enough to deal with in the content. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out hypocrisy. IP reports admin, [6], then asks two other admins to do, what he reported an admin for, which is locking the article with his POV. User talk:Ged UK#RT (TV network) article lock and User_talk:Atama#The ANI admin dispute on RT (TV network). More [7]. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well s/he is certainly determined that some grave crime has been committed here, which doesn’t bode well for this article spending much time in an unprotected state in the near future. I interpret the quote (both versions) as “we pay their wages so yes they are biased in the governments favour, but it’s definitely not propaganda”. Obviously at least one person sees it differently, anyone else with an opinion?

After some reflection I’d come to the conclusion that “admitted” probably wasn’t the best word I could have used. And now it has been pointed out in the 2nd ANI case WP:SAY advises against it. However I don’t really like “clarified” either as (leaving aside the issue of truthfulness) the statement seems a bit vague to me. “Said” doesn’t feel sufficiently official, so I suppose “stated” would be my preferred option. I’d support an edit request of that nature, anyone disagree?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Viewership

I've stated somewhere before that this article tries too hard to portray the station as a 'propaganda' tool for none other than the fact that it is Russian. 'Hey, we are talking about a Russian station here, we have to mention propaganda, no matter how weak the justification is!' No wonder the article is littered with highly selective quotations from non-notable and hostile sources. What good thing is any mainstream western media commentator likely say about Russia or its media? Yes, the sources may be reliable but are these sources likely to be fair and objective? Even if they fail the fairness test, are they notable enough? John Kerry is highly unlikely to say anything good about the Russian media, but he is a notable figure of authority and a quotation from him is fair and appropriate. But... David who? Luke who?? Andrey who? It is apparent that someone or some persons are trying to hide behind carefully selected quotes from hostile sources to push their own agenda. No wonder the debate has been lengthy and sometimes quite bitter. If it is such a propaganda tool that 'enlightened' viewers would do best to avoid, then why is it, according to the 2012 Nielsen Media Research Survey, the most watched foreign TV station in 5 key US urban markets?

In the above, I've used the term 'propaganda' as it appears to be widely understood (or misunderstood) in many of the previous posts i.e. deliberate misrepresentation or lying. Propaganda is NOT the same thing as lying. Propaganda involves selective emphasis and non-emphasis to channel opinion in a certain desired direction. To this extent, almost all international media organisations are propaganda tools and the debate as to whether station A or B engages in propaganda is a meaningless debate and a huge waste of time. As I've stated before, it would be far more important to have a 'controversy' section and cite specific instances where the station was found to have breached journalistic ethics; or other instances of obvious interest such as when Liz Wahl resigned on air. --Campingtrip (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

All you have to do is watch RT (while having a bit of knowledge about the world) and you will see the propaganda to be quite obvious. I mean, why would a news channel funded by the country with the world’s largest natural gas reserves be so against fracking? It’s not hard to connect the dots. Thanks to the Ukraine crisis we now have lots more disinformation to highlight also. David Weigel, Luke Harding and Andrey Illarionov all have articles explaining who they are, they don’t have to be famous to be included. It is very difficult to find RS with anything nice to say about RT, but if you can I’d welcome its inclusion. However I notice that you haven’t complained about the "non-notables" who had positive things to say.

The Nielsen thing is probably bullshit. My understanding is that their claims are sourced to a privately funded special report. This means the data in it isn’t publicly available, and surprise, surprise, RT doesn’t want to share it. I plan to take an axe to that part of the lead one day soon.

I do agree that this article needs a "Controversy" section. Much of the "Responses to RT's news coverage" section would fit in it and the rest can be moved to "Criticism".--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

“All you have to do is watch RT (while having a bit of knowledge about the world)...”

A bit of knowledge about the world from where? Fox news? VOA?

“...you will see the propaganda to be quite obvious”

As I stated in the earlier post, all major international news outlets engage in propaganda. Propaganda is not the same as lying! If it is okay for western media outlets like Fox and CNN to engage in propaganda, why is it inherently wrong for RT to also do so? If you’re using the word propaganda to mean “lying”, then cite specific instances and put them in a “controversy” section. You appear not to be comfortable with using the word “lying” because it burdens you with proof that you are unwilling or unable to provide. Yes, it is much easier to hide behind the deliberate vagueness of the term “propaganda”. It makes the execution of a hatchet job that much easier.

“David Weigel, Luke Harding and Andrey Illarionov all have articles explaining who they are, they don’t have to be famous to be included.”

Of course they don’t have to be famous. But in the spirit of fairness and objectivity, why solicit the commentary of those whose evident hostility towards the Russian government, is highly likely to cloud their sense of fairness when making an assessment of a Russian funded news organisation? RT is not the same as the Russian government, though it is funded by it.

“It is very difficult to find RS with anything nice to say about RT...”

Maybe you’re right, if you regard monolingual English speaking, mainstream, western media commentators as the only reliable sources out there. I wouldn’t expect western media sources to have anything positive to say about RT. Little surprise that the article, as it currently stands, is more of a hatchet job that was carried out by actively seeking out hostile opinions against RT, while hiding behind the apparent neutrality of quoting from reliable sources. They usually accuse the station of “Propaganda” while leaving the term deliberately vague. By propaganda, what I suspect they really mean is “projecting a viewpoint that challenges those widely held by western media organisations”. That is the sense in which you and many posts here appear to use the term. Western media organisations don’t have a divine right to monopolize international news coverage. Any viewpoint that challenges established opinions among western audiences is NOT propaganda. If RT is derogatorily regarded as a propaganda vehicle for none other than the fact that it is Russian, or because it affords coverage to viewpoints completely ignored in the mainstream, then it says more about those making these accusations than it says about RT itself.

“However I notice that you haven’t complained about the "non-notables" who had positive things to say”

Damning with faint praise can hardly be regarded as saying something positive. Besides, they appear to be mere tokens designed to give a false sense of balance. In any case, the principle still stands. If they are not notable enough then they, too, should go.

“The Nielsen thing is probably bullshit...”

It is precisely “unencyclopedic” language like this that elevates passions and precludes rational debate. First of all, it is not a “Nielsen thing”. It was a scientific survey conducted by an American media organisation with over 60 years of experience in conducting such surveys.

“My understanding is that...”

Well, the hard fact is that RT was the number one foreign station in five major U.S. urban areas in 2012. Also, according to BARB, during the second half of 2012, it was the fourth most-watched news channel in Britain, behind BBC News, Sky News, and Al Jazeera. Added to all that is the fact that in 2013 it became the first TV news channel in history to reach 1 billion views on YouTube. These hard facts make all the hostile commentary against this station sound rather hollow.

“I plan to take an axe to that part of the lead one day soon.”

Yes, that axe you apparently have to grind with anyone and anything associated with Russia. Just take care not to hurt yourself when you swing and miss your target. --Campingtrip (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You don’t seem to have realised that the “anyone who doesn’t like RT must be anti-Russian” argument is just yet more propaganda. Intelligent people don’t learn about the world by watching the news! Even the best news only provides a momentary snapshot, those who can be bothered use things like libraries and the Internet to do research. I’m absolutely comfortable with accusing RT of lying, I doubt they’ve managed a single day without broadcasting at least one enormous lie. However this isn’t about my opinions, it’s about material published in reliable sources. I’m not aware of a rule against hostile sources. And to be honest I don’t know why you bother, I doubt RT is going to change any time soon so the scrutiny and criticism is only likely to increase in the future.

I didn’t mention the quality of the Nielsen survey in any way. The point is the data is not publicly available and the source the claim comes from is ITAR-TASS. I wonder which government owns them? As for the UK - The original claim said RT was "the third-most watched rolling news channel in Britain, behind BBC News and Sky News". Since the BARB figures are public, someone noticed that they’d missed Al Jazeera. Now I’ve had reason to look more closely I’ve found that Sky Sports News (a separate channel) also did better than RT, so thanks for that. 1 Billion YouTube views? Well I sure those figures are impossible to manipulate even with the resources of the Russian government (this was sarcasm in case you missed it). Are there any other bits of the article you would like me to research? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I’ve just noticed an issue that I’m posting here as a reminder. The BARB reports cited in the lead are for Q3 & Q4 2013 where as the claim relates to 2012. The Q3 2012 report shows ([8]) 2.479M and ahead of Aljazeera with 2.354M but a more than a little behind Sky Sports News with 12.011M. However by the next quarter ([9]) the Aljazeera figures jump significantly, moving them well ahead of RT. It seems that RT’s numbers have been gradually dropping since then. By the Q4 2013 report cited in the article, the figures where at 3.545M for Aljazeera and only 2.158M for RT (SSN 11.767M). The FAQ section of their website says that BARB only names you in the quarterly reach report if you request it. Aljazeera seem to first appear in Q4 2011 and RT in Q3 2012.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any difference between RT coverage of fracking and coverage in mainstream U.S. media. Can you provide an example where RT differs? TFD (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

While I obviously haven't had time to do a complete survey, lets play spot the difference. CNN, BBC, RT. From the headlines alone I doubt I'm going to find many references to the benifits of fracking at RT. However I don't plan to add it to the article unless I find a good source.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well what do you know! [10] [11] [12] --Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, Is Al Jazeera a "Western source"? Qatar in the Middle 'East' is 'West'ern right? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a complicated question to answer. To be honest I feel that “western media” much like “mainstream narrative” is just an attempt to explain why Russian news is so different from almost everybody else’s. I certainly see Al Jazeera English as a considerably more reliable source than RT.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, who cares if a contributor to the National Review thinks that the benefits od fracking to humanity are so great and the problems so infinitesimal, that the only people saying anything bad about it must be part of a conspiracy. No mention in the link btw that the contributor founded a company that is involved in fracking. His other main activity is promoting human colonization of Mars. You need a reliable source that says RT's coverage of fracking is different from that of other major media, which by the way does not include U.S. conservative alternative media such as the NR or opinion pieces. TFD (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn’t about if fracking is a good or bad idea, it’s about is RT providing balanced, objective coverage of the issue? I doubt that should environmental activists turn up at Russian frack sites, RT will be so quick to support them. That said I would prefer a better source to those above. If one doesn’t exist I shall just have to hope that somebody writes one soon.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Most mainstream Western media provide mostly negative reporting on fracking. Murdoch's media is an exception. (See for example "Fracking in the UK press"[13]) AFAIK coverage in RT is no different from that in most Western mainstream media. TFD (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to see how biased there are compared to other "mainstream" sources is to look at how they cover Russia, not even how they cover other countries. Show me a single article on RT that is even slightly negative about Putin, their government, Russians or Russia in general. You won't find a single solitary article. Now look at Fox News or MSNBC, I think we can all agree they're biased, right? But when one of their own does something stupid they'll still call them on it. They'll still talk about problems in the US and problems in society. Not only would RT never do this, but you will also never find an article praising the US for something unless it directly lined with their agenda. Also they try to market themselves as an independent news source and your average reader/viewer would never know that the Russian federal government created them and funds them. I don't see how any objective person could look at them from any angle and not see them as being purely a propaganda outlet for Putin and the Russian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.217.128 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You need a secondary source that supports your view, otherwise it is original research. How often btw do you watch the channel? TFD (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources are for medical articles. An unaffiliated reliable source is what's needed. Primary, secondary or tertiary reporting can be used, but it has to be third-party (to the article's subject) with an exception to include certain details. Some of that is in the article. There are sources that say Russian media are allowed to criticize anything except Putin. So we need to find one of those that's related to RT. btw, this isn't a discussion board, so help find a reliable source that backs that. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, all articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. Even when primary sources are used, secondary sources are usually required to establish their significance. Medical articles have guidelines that interpret the policy because, unlike this article where tendentious writing merely makes peoples less informed, in medical articles misinformation can actually kill readers. TFD (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it goes. Secondary sources establish the topic (based on secondary sources), which is already done. The rest says primary sources are to be used. There are different guidelines to medical and other articles. This is the way the rules are used all across Wikipedia, and that's true to the way the rules are stated. RT here would be the primary source. Every once in a while the, first-party source, RT could be used for clarification or details of what they said, or sometimes a quoted response. So excluding that actually goes against your interest. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia page for the controversies and criticism of Russia Today?

Nearly all of the other major news outlets have their separate wikipedia pages documenting their controversies and criticisms and given how much criticisms RT has received (esp. in light of the situation in Ukraine), I definitely think we need to consider RT having it's separate page for its criticisms and controversies. Limestoneforest (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If Putin doesn’t give it up as a bad job, I’m sure on day we’ll creating “RT controversies” articles by year. But I don’t think we need to start yet, we don’t even have a “controversies” section. And just in-case anyone is wondering, this wouldn’t result in the content all being removed from this article.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism articles and sections are not encouraged as they are not normally neutral. Criticism should be incorporated into articles where relevant. But nothing is stopping you from setting up your own RT attack page on a website. TFD (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"We don't have a controversies section" It's really simple to make one...

To TFD: You're right about there being nothing that is stopping me from setting up my own RT attack page on a website (not sure what website you are referring to) just as how there is nothing stopping you from creating an RT defense page, but then again that much was already obvious. What isn't obvious is this, if criticism articles and sections are not encouraged, then why are there criticism articles and sections for many (if not most) of the major news channels?Limestoneforest (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You might wish to look at Fox News Channel & Fox News Channel controversies, MSNBC & MSNBC controversies and CNN & CNN controversies. I do agree that Criticism should be incorporated into relevant sections, but that would require a large re-write. Given that even small changes will likely lead to another edit war and more article protection I don't think that will happen soon. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Limestoneforest, nothing with this article is simple.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not set up an RT defense page, any more than I would set up a Fox News Channel or Daily Mail defense page, even though I have objected to non-neutral material added to all those articles by people who obviously do not like them. I do not know why these other articles exist. Criticism of The New York Times was deleted, while it failed for Fox. Lots of articles that do not meet policy manage to survive AfDs. But I do not know of any other encyclopedia that has articles called "Criticism of [news company x]". Certainly there are few articles or books that would use such a title. TFD (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It is standard practice to create a sub-article if a section becomes too large. If the large section is about controversies, the result is obvious. When the RT controversies article becomes too big, then we’ll have to find a way to split it. As I said we are not in a situation that requires a new article...yet.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Except we are not supposed to have criticism sections to begin with, but are supposed to incorporate them into the article. For example, we could have a section about "Coverage of the Ukraine crisis", which could be spun out into an article called "RT coverage of the Ukraine crisis." But it would be tendentious to isolate everything that is negative an create its own section. Also, articles are supposed to be about notable topics. Show me an example of an article called "Criticism of RT" in a reliable source or mainstream encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I’ve taken another look at WP:CRIT. Although it says “The ideal approach is to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections” it also says that "Criticism of ..." articles are generally discouraged, but sometimes used. Examples given include, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of Greenpeace, and Criticism of the BBC. Added to the examples I’ve already given (+Al Jazeera), I see absolutely no reason why this article should be treated differently. And I’d assumed that the negative stuff had migrated it the end of the article in an attempt to bury it. I think we need a controversies section for some stuff currently in responses to coverage. I wouldn’t object to the criticism section being removed by moving the content to other/new sections.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

So you want to do something that is not recommended because ""other stuff exists". Have you read those other articles and their talk pages? The BBC article says in the lead, "Criticisms of the corporation's perceived lack of impartiality and objectivity have since been made by some observers." Great example of "weasel wording". TFD (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We’re talking about formatting not content. Not surprisingly the format of similar articles should be similar. And as it says in WP:WEASEL "not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution". I hope we’re not going to start this again, or have I missed your attempt at humor? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Section reorganisation

It’s pretty obvious that the current ‘reception’ section needs a reorganisation. As pointed out previously many comparable articles have a ‘Controversy’ section. I think we have enough in the existing sources to have three subsections on the topics of ‘Editorial Independence’, ‘Objectivity and bias’, and ‘Misrepresentation of facts’.

Also the ‘Criticism’ section is less than ideal, on top of being too general it is also quite disorganised. I’ve already tried to organise the ‘Responses to news coverage’ into chronological order. But I now think that grouping by news event would be ideal (i.e. Georgia, Libya, Syria, Ukraine). I think that the criticism should be moved wherever possible to one of the other sections. It might need a new section or two to completely empty it. I’m thinking maybe ‘Foundation’ or ‘Concept’, but we can see how we go. In the interest of avoiding another massive argument I thought it best to discuss it before ploughing on. Does anyone have a better idea?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The programming section should be free standing because it is both historical and includes reception for those specific programs and ones to come. Also the reception section has a WP:Undue amount of criticism from western sources. I've been waiting for things to cool down to deal with it myself. But just commenting now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why there is an undue amount of criticism of RT just because most of them are from Western sources. The lead paragraph in programming section praising RT is also from "Western sources" so would that qualify as undue praise for RT?Limestoneforest (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RT is primarily an English language organization, aimed at a western audience. We are the English Wikipedia therefore it is inevitable that most of the available RS will be from Western sources. The idea that the Western Media is a humongous unit of Russophobes who will attack RT to protect their territory is laughable. If they want to stop RT taking their customers the last thing they would do is publicize its existence. The biggest issue this article has with sources is the amount that point to RT. @Carolmooredc could you explain the following? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• How are you making a judgment on what constitutes undue?
• Can you give an example or 2 of what you don’t like?
• In respect to the Programming section do you mean that the Programming bit in Reception is OK as it is or that you would prefer it merging with the other Programming (S1) section?

Assuming three bullet points from TrappedinBurnley? Anyway, finishing off-wikiprojects so can't think about now. Been waiting for things to calm down before addressing again. Will look at next week; watching again meantime. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

ukrainian journalists?

"In March 2014 a group of Ukraininan journalists[citation needed] started a website StopFake.org dedicated to debunking propaganda and false news published by Russian media, including RT, for example using footage from past military conflicts (like Georgia, South Ossetia, Syria) and presenting them as current footage from Ukraine.[191]"

The reference goes to stopfake.org itself, which is not a reliable source to say that they are "debunking propaganda". This source says that stopfake.org is "created with an assistance from the U.S. Department of State through the Educational Partnership Program." 87.78.24.148 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your "source" is not reliable (it's a comment on some internet forum, right?).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

While I get the sense that the IP was trying to undermine the site by linking it to the US government, I do think there are issues. The current ref is just a pointer to the website and I have to agree that really needs an independent source. However that’s probably is easy to fix [14]. The bigger issue is just how much useful stuff relating to RT there is? I’ve had a couple looks and not found very much, but I wouldn’t expect it to be a priority for them. I’ve got a feeling that we’d be better converting it to an ‘External link’.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't use low quality student advocacy sites like this as sources, especially when they obviously are promoting a party line, as opposed to engaging in real journalism. There already are far too many critical sources of a much higher quality. It should be removed immediately. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Debunking fake news alarming e.g. about incendiary bombs in Slavyansk based on 2008 Iraq footage is fully relevant criticism, especially that StopFake doesn't put much commentary on their stories — just show the videos and explain what what is wrong with them. And getting rid of low quality party line news would require to remove most of the RT footage. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's another independent source [15].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

stopfake.org is staffed by volunteers and not rs. Note that it misrepresents a commentary in The Guardian as a news article.) (You can read the commentary here. Newspapers do not fact-check opinion pieces nor do they endorse the opinions presented or the facts used. TFD (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw the incendiary bomb story in the Daily Mail and it instantly set off my bullshit detector. Here is RTs version [16]. I plan on this making it into my proposed ‘misrepresentation of facts’ section, but I will be looking for a less involved source first. I would consider the content at stopfake.org to be of at least as high quality as TFD’s mentioned opinion piece, but not quite good enough to use as a standalone source. Regardless of its quality, there isn’t enough coverage of RT stories. This is all I’ve been able to find [17]. I currently can’t see how we can mention it in the prose of this article,(quite a few others probably) but I plan to use it to help me find stuff that we can.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Formatting availability in infobox

I added some new information as of today's USA listings at http://rt.com/where-to-watch/ to the infobox. However, despite my best efforts, it doesn't seem to be formatting correctly. Any help would be appreciated. --Holdek (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

YouTube Refs / list of notable guests

Youtube refs are almost never accepted. Even if they were appropriate, they would not be in this case. We have them being used as a primary source for WP:Original Research. This is not proper for addition to this or any article. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by an editor using multiple IP addresses as well as his account is unhelpful as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I applied for semi-protection of the page in the morning. This is the only way to stop destructive editing of an IP-hopper.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies previously removed this content calling it ridiculous name dropping. I also can see no purpose to a list of notable guests outside of a counterproductive attempt to promote the importance of RT. Self sourcing to YouTube again seems like an attempt to promote RT’s channel. It would be appropriate to mention particular guests as part of a wider look at elements of the format or important news coverage if independent sources support. The list should not return. Also I’ve altered the title of this section slightly.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

And now the editor has reinserted the material with no discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning notable guests from WP:RS is OK. I put a few old ones in. Researching some newer ones is on my "Do List". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess we all agree that it is ok, the question is whether every name should be accompanied with a youtube link.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't have to do every one, but certainly the most interesting ones. We are trying to be informative, after all. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus and Lockup

An editor has edit warred saying that the administrative protection ("lockup") of the page on May 6 indicates that this version was thus blessed as the "consensus". One need only look at the WP:the wrong version to understand that the administrative protection means nothing of the sort. A page is protected from edit warring by the administrative protection. The administrator is not making a ruling as to which version is "correct", the admin is trying to stop an edit war. No more no less. The effort to reach consensus can not be short circuited by referring to this administrative action. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, Stop being a hypocrite. There has been a huge discussion (you included) on the subject in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_tool . The same group of persistent negative RT POVrs have tried to take over the article and slowly move totally away from the Consensus of the discussion. The sentence "Critics have accused it of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government.[4][5][6][7]" has been accepted informally - nobody rejected it. it's a NPOV statement. And the proper lead to that sentence , is naturally RT official statement. This is where we draw the line. Wikipedia's article is not a piece of propaganda against RT. 79.182.6.109 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Bigbaby23, first please remember to sign your postings. I recall the discussion. I recall that there were a number of SPAs (at least one of which was quickly banned) and IP accounts that jumped in on one side. I suggest, as was stated then, that consensus is not a matter of adding up votes. That is especially true when socks are being created to vote. Even if you had a consensus in May, which I do not believe is accurate, consensus changes. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If I may ask, under what name/account were you editing in our May discussion? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP's claims are ridiculous. It's likely Shark something, and possibly 1 more user name. The IP never had consensus. Even when trying to count, the IP misrepresented votes by using edits, and using SPAs on one side, and leaving out counting an edit. The IP thinks he/she is sneaky by normally not using a username to make it harder to track, and avoid notice for abusing the revert rule. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Another presenter

Addition to presenters: Manila Chan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.217.70 (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutral?

After the July 2014 crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, RT rushed to blame others for the plane's shoot-down in Ukraine amid accusations by Ukrainian fighters of Russian involvement in the crash.[188]

• [188] Szoldra (July 19, 2014), Here's The Ridiculous Way Russia's Propaganda Channel Is Covering The Downed Malaysia Airliner, Allure Media

• • Is this a neutral, reliable source? Most of the section reads like a hatchet-job.Keith-264 (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

RT is NOT WP:NPOV by a long shot. AGREE.Wikidgood (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

85 to 135

• Any logged in user move the Freeview number from 85 to 135? 78.143.168.59 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be added to the article

I just bumped into a wikipedia article which should be mentioned here as well . It is another "sister" channel of RT called 'Ruptly' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruptly 79.180.198.174 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians playing games to hide the truth.

Request to lock this page for IP edits permanently. They are playing games to hide the disinformation RT causes. It is nothing but disinformation. First they bury a well sourced statement deep in the article, then they alter it, then delete it. Then they say it's not referenced. Someone buried it, so they could later delete it. These are games being played. It used to be mostly the Israeli IPs who sock-puppeted/meat-puppeted, and are probably proxying now. Those acts are very hypocritical. It will be another crying game of saying there aren't enough references, then the same people saying it will be over-citation. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not yet evaluated your suggestion but it is clear that RT is a bottomless pit of dysinformation and is seldom truthful about anything. Wikidgood (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Both of the above statements betray extreme bias on the part of the editors. The term "disinformation" was linked in the paragraph to a wiki page which defines it as "conscious falsehood." Yet not ONE of the half dozen or so citations behind the term gives the slightest indication that RT practices "disinformation," they are basically just newsy reviews. "Widely" is a very subjective term as well. It is also true that the network is "widely" used as a reliable information source by scores of alternative media people, but that is not the same as widely in general. Citing sources with an axe to grind against Russian foreign policy is hardly credible in the first place, but if these sources cannot even give evidence of consciously false information broadcasts by these networks (and not one does), then the term "disinformation" is obviously unwarranted by these citations. I challenge the individual who provided these citations to quote from any of them anything that substantiates the network was responsible for willfully broadcasting false information. If he or she cannot, then let's please stop this cat and mouse game and stick with neutral terminology. Fair is fair! Kenfree (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Slanting of lead is out of control

In the past few days I have made several efforts to neutralize the highly negative tone injected by a couple of editors into this article, especially their attempts to smear the RT network by characterizing it as "widely" seen as disinformation. This is simply not a fact, though I do not doubt that these individuals believe it. However, the "citations" they offer in support of this claim are extremely lame. The first set, which I reviewed last week, did not even mention "disinformation" or anything like it. I tried to use more neutral language for the sentence, stating it in a way that represented the actual content of the citations, and to move it to the "Criticism" section where it belonged. But each time I tried to rescue this mess, these two editors insisted on restoring the original language and its original position in the lead of the article, so that every visitor's first impression of RT will be profoundly negative, apparently.

The latest, still rather comical effort in this regard occurred today, when "Galassi" changed things back once again, insisting that "disinformation is what RT does." Interestingly. new citations were assigned to this claim. I reviewed both of them. One is the same as all the previous ones, not even suggesting that "disinformation" is a practice of RT. The other one, however, is a report dated last April that a US State Department official blogged that RT was guilty of disinformation (with the approval of John Kerry)[18]. How? By suggesting that the US had spent billions of dollars promoting the coup in the Ukraine. There are two obvious problems with this source:

1) The assertion by one individual does not substantiate the claim that this is a "widely" held opinion. 2) How can anyone think that a US State Department official is in any way a reliably neutral source in this matter? Do these editors seriously think that if the United States WAS IN FACT guilty of spending billions to foment the coup in the Ukraine that this man's job would have been anything other than accusing the Russians of "disinformation" for saying so? Does he provide any proof, by the way, that the claim is false? LOL

It is obvious that the editors in question have an agenda to give the reader as negative an impression of RT's credibility as they can get away with. I invite anyone reading this page who has a more neutral view to join this discussion, so that a consensus can be developed that will avoid the need for external involvement/mediation. I invite the editors in question to respond to my assertion that they are grossly misrepresenting their own sources in order to taint this news network in the public mind.Kenfree (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Concentrate on the content, not on imagined motivations of other editors. Your edits do not have consensus, if discussed at talk first there is greater possibility of reaching consensus. Regarding the term "disinformation". There are, in fact, large numbers of neutral RS refs that support the formulation of "disinformation". Removal of refs from the article does not help the argument or the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not the editor above that revered the edit again. I did it without knowing of this conversation and came to same conclusion. I see you added now few more references, but it is still not 'widely'. And I'm not sure why you added the Disinfo.com reference, it leads to nothing relevant to this. The term Disinformation is now proportionately placed and mentioned in the lead 79.180.19.142 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted previous refs. I'll look at disinfo.com. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you once more. listen I'm not going to fight. you wish to bully and be on a crusade, go ahead. but this kind of behaviour is what's slowly killing Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.19.142 (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To Capitalismojo: if there are "large numbers of neutral RS refs that the formulation of 'disinformation' where are they??? Each of the citations currently appended to the assertion of disinformation, save one, does not substantiate the claim. The definition of disinformation linked to the unproven assertion defines disinformation as " intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately." Each of the citations in question (none of which, except for perhaps the Atlantic Monthly article which CLEARLY makes no claims of "disinformation") asserts that RT is slanting its coverage in the direction of Russian foreign policy, but only one mentions "disinformation," and this, once again, is US Secretary of State John Kerry supporting an unsubstantiated allegation by one of his minions. Virtually all of these "sources" are themselves politically slanted (to the Right). So unless this fact is mentioned, the reference to "some sources" (without qualification) is misleading. Again, if a claim is made of "disinformation," then a specific FACT (not OPINION) broadcast by the network should be cited that was KNOWN to be false and broadcast anyway, for the sake of misleading the public. But not one of these sources does so, and only Kerry's underling even has the temerity to use the term. This is an extremely biased way of describing this network, and moreover, there is no sense in having a lengthy section on "criticism" if this spurious claim must be included in the lead. This is absolutely my last post on this question, unless there is some reasonable dialogue on this point here very soon, until I seek intervention. The claim of "disinformation" here is not made in good faith (as it is totally lacking in support), but is someone's personal POV.

This is only one of many examples where a double standard exists. Almost any topic that has any political ramification is manipulated in favor of the consensus of wikipedia authors (just take a look at the Enlgish-language wikipedia articles about the Russian President Putin and his American counterpart President Obama). This consensus at least for the english language part of wikipedia is pro USA and its allies. This is especially dangerous because the second most used language apart from the first acquired in the world is English and with this in mind has the most potential in misleading international audiences. Far from being objective in any way wikipedia authors enforce and entrench biased thinking. Take the article on the "CNN" or "BBC". Read the introduction for all three networks and the relevant parts. There you have paragraph titled "Controvesy". Compare this to "Criticism" on the "RT" article. Controvesy --> "a lot of disagreement or argument about something, usually because it affects or is important to many people", Criticism --> "the act of giving your opinion or judgment about the good or bad qualities of something or someone, especially books, films, etc.", http://dictionary.cambridge.org. Both of this approaches are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If you have information i.e. facts and sources on a topic you can state them otherwise you are only particapating in propaganda yourself.

I will remind anyone interested in this question of Wikipedia's relevant policy in this regard: "The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution." In no way does this spurious allegation of RT "disinformation" follow this guideline! Kenfree (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The "story" on RT was actually something spoken by former Scott Richard when being interviewed by a talk show host.[19] The wording implies that it was announced as a news item on RT. IOW it is using false information to discredit an organization. TFD (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The US state department is a reliable source. By the same token, how is the Kremlin and its owned news channel supposed to better, yet they bash everything western all the time, and that's supposed to be believable? An ex KGB agent even says the same thing, using the word "misinformation". I removed the word "widely", so that should be better for everyone. IP, you're the one calling people bullies, and you have an aggressive Wikipedia editing nature, even selectively interpreting when it suits you. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 08:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. Secretary of State is not the Pope, his words are not infallible. Remember Colin Powell's speech on Iraq? Sorry, I linked to the RT interview, I should have linked to the Tampa Bay Times article.[20] So a U.S. Democrat politician says one thing, and a reliable source newspaper says something different. And we can examine the primary source linked to in the newspaper to compare with both what the Secretary said and what the newspaper said. But we ignore the last too because politicians never get things wrong. TFD (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A summary of responses thus far, by the editors who defend the charge of "disinformation" in the lead, is as follows:

RT is a disinformation source because it "slams the West," but the U.S. State Department (whose proven disinformation about the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq leading to a war costing over a million Iraqi deaths) is a "reliable source." How do we know? Sidelight tells us so! LOLOLOL.

RT does not "slam the West," it criticizes US/NATO foreign policy. It does not make any apologies for that. but more importantly, it does not use "disinformation" to this end, either, because there are plenty of true facts that make the case, and this is all that they need to present. The US State Department, in the person of John Kerry, then accuses RT of "disinformation" when its reporting and commentary get too close to home, but regarding the specifics, Kerry could just as easily have targeted former US Congressman Ron Paul, who reported the same thing, that the US has been financing regime change in Kiev [1]. As the Congressman said, these are "known facts." Known to everyone but the US State Department, that is.

No one should harbor any illusions that RT is neutral, any more than US mainstream media is neutral. Both reflect the weltanschaung (world view) of their respective governments. However, there is a big difference between following a political line or perspective, and presenting "disinformation." There has been no hard evidence presented by any of the editors here that RT has engaged in that practice, nor that responsible, NEUTRAL, OBJECTIVE sources claim that it has. Therefore, the attribution of this claim, if it is to be mentioned at all, must be direct (to its source), and it CERTAINLY does not belong in the lead. Unless there is constructive response to this post, I intend to delete this slur against RT from the lead paragraph within 24 hours. If either of these partisan editors attempts to revert its position, I will seek mediation. I do not sense that there is any effort on the part of either of them to demonstrate the veracity of their claim that RT practices disinfo, nor, on the other hand, to recognize our need to maintain neutrality in this lead section. Kenfree (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfree (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your private opinion, which is not supported by the majority of editors of this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

And would you please seek mediation BEFORE resuming edit-warring. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you seem to be very confused between the idea of an "edit war" and that of a "dispute." What we have here is an editorial dispute, plain and simple. An edit war is defined as three similar reversions in a 24-hour period. Do you really wish to accuse me of that? (If not, would you care to apologize for the false allegation?) In fact, I have voluntarily refrained from any changes for several days. hoping that the opportunity to discuss the matter here on this talk page might lead to a consensus. I have carefully articulated the Wikipedia policies that the current charge of "disinformation" against RT violates:

1) Encylopedic content must be verifiable. 2) "The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution."

I have given those who support this "disinformation" allegation ample opportunity to bring the phrasing of this "disinformation" claim up to Wikipedia standards in both regards, and to address these questions here. It has been a dialogue of the deaf. Only repeated editorial reversions have followed my efforts, no constructive responses. As the objectionable statement stands at this moment, it is followed by five citations, only ONE of which in any way alleges "disinformation" on RT's part, and this by a US State Department blogger who can hardly be considered a reliable or objective source. And to top it all off, the information in question broadcast by RT was actually a confirmation by a former US intelligence agent during an interview. Why is it, Ymblanter, that we must note the criticixms of former Russian officials about RT (when it's negative, of course), but that we must discount information provided by former US intelligence agents as "disinformation?" Where is the NPOV in such treatment??

So, what I am going to do after completing this post is not "edit warring," it is editing. It is deleting a passage from this lead that doesn't belong there in first place, is not supported by its own references and does not follow the Wikipedia guideline for presenting disputed claims (direct attribution). I fully recognize that there is not "consensus" for this edit, but then, there is clearly not consensus for the objectionable allegation as it stands, either. So in such a case of unresolved dispute, I say that Wikipedia's guidelines and the need to maintain a neutral tone are the guideposts we must follow. I fully expect that one of the opposing editors will, once again without addressing any of these explicit problems here in the talk page, revert the edit, at which point I will request mediation. It seems the only way to resolve a dispute in which only one side is willing to address Wikipedia's editorial standards. Kenfree (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be advised that (i) you can be blocked for edit warring even if you revert less than three times in 24h; (ii) that we have WP:CONSENSUS, and what you are planning to do explicitly contradicts it; (iii) we have various avenues of dispute resolution including for example WP:DRN but edit-warring is not one of them. If your edits get consistently reverted, and especially if they get reverted by different editors in good standing, like in this article, you are expected to try to convince them that your proposed edits are valid, and seek the dispute resolution if you can not.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL, how can you say we have "consensus" when there is obviously conflict here, and two opposing views?

I would remind you that Wikipedia defines the consensus process thusly: "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy..."

What is happening here are exactly repeated reversions (by your side) without the slightest attempt to address the issues raised in this talk page by me and other critics. Really,. Ymblanter, can you possibly take a moment to read the~Wikipedia page on the consensus process to save us all from any further ill-informed references to "consensus?"

Thanks! Kenfree (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Started an ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kenfree--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement regarding disinformation is well sourced and should stay in article. NE Ent 12:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit I made a mistake that the term disinformation or misinformation may not have been in the previous supporting lead refs, but I knew it was supported in the article by remembering reading those sources. I went in and helped put the supporting refs back in to support the word 'disinformation'. Also I removed the word 'widely' for it, to correct myself, earlier. I believe, there are a few more refs out there that mention disinformation by rt about ukraine: like stopfake.org or yahoonews. The disinformation passage belongs in the article. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sidelight12, you say that the current refs support the claim of disinformation. I say they do not, save the one report of a single US State Department employee blogging something to this effect. Do you think a single politically motivated blog by one individual merits mention in the lede of an article about an INTERNATIONAL network? Well, I do not. Therefore, I'm once again removing this unsupported allegation from this sentence. If you or any other editor wishes to once again undo my editing, please show the good faith to state here in this talk page where in any of these references the claim of "disinformation" is made in any of these references, other than the one I mentioned here, that must surely be discounted. Kenfree (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple RS [The Atlantic's DefenseOne] [Tablet Magazine] [Time Magazine] , and multiple editors here disagree with your assessment. You'll have to make a stronger, policy based, argument in order to achieve consensus. Don't edit war, the ANI discussed that. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no need to "fix" negative description of something if it has been indeed described in negative way by majority of mainstream sources. However, criticizing all mainstream sources using WP:FRINGE sources like here ("Mainstream News Coverage of Ukraine, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Shows Western Propaganda Machine at Work") is not appropriate, at least in this article. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

RT is not "described in a negative way by majority of 'mainstream' sources, and as the counterquote demonstrates (by a reputable media analyst...the source of the interview is not relevant unless you challenge its authenticity), it is far from a universal opinion.

Before Marek or anyone else decides to revert this edit once again after I reinsert it, I would remind all editors of this Wikipedia policy: "Reliably-sourced, notable material written in a neutral point of view should not be deleted from articles with the intent of protecting the political interests of a party, agency, or government." That is CLEARLY what is going on here, when a good faith edit of material from a notable source is expunged without cause, in order to leave only NEGATIVE judgments of the network in the lede. And it is why the NPOV dispute continues, and will likely continue until there is neutral intervention of some kind to put a stop to this , disruptive editing by those who insist on using the lede to dis RT. Kenfree (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's original, Kenfree. Since when is truth-out.org (or the writer of the article, Dan Falcone) and RT on itself WP:RS? At best, they are WP:BIASED sources needing WP:INTEXT attribution. In terms of the WP:BALASPS, other editors have noted (correctly) that the content is WP:UNDUE. Perhaps, as you and Spotter1 seem to be unaware of policy and guidelines, you should take some time to actually read the policies and guidelines being provided lest you become more confused as to how Wikipedia works as a collaborative project. If you don't like the fact that there are a lot of guidelines and policies, perhaps you ought to consider desisting from making decisions about content. There are plenty of forums and blogs in cyberspace that might suit your temperaments better. Remember Wikipedia isn't compulsory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Another sneaky half-truth?

Yeah right. Cohen got a full segment on NPR that went out coast to coast on the radio probably for two or three rotations in each market, plus a transcript, plus a pod cast and poor little Mr Cohen now poses as if he is just oh so censored in the Westmedia. What a revolting piece of work this paragraph is. Isn't it original research to cherry pick this material and put it up on the encyclopedia? Yes I get it that they are commenting on RT but I am not so sure that their comment is really true secondary. They are like virologists talking abouta virus, oops I did not mean to compare RT to a virus honest. I edit on virology. THey are like astronomers talking about experimental data. That is really primary. Primary research on media. I don't know that I am going to get consensus I have no intention to revert the material out as OR. But it seems to have a little bit of a POV slant. Let's face it Cohen is an obvious rank apologist, he tried to tell the world that Russian arms were not responsible for the MH17 shoot down, and this presentation of him as an underdog is just hogwash. IMHO. Maye I will feel differently after a schnapps.

REGARDING: Others disagree; media analyst and author Edward S. Herman argues that "to be at all credible to English-speaking audiences, RT has to lean over backwards to avoid straight out pro-Russian propaganda, but it welcomes Western experts like Stephen Cohen and Ray McGovern who barely make it to The New York Times or US television." The network states that RT offers a Russian perspective on global events. Wikidgood (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

== Actually this warrants something added for balance on POV and veracity grounds ==

I think that WP policy as a whole miliates against this presentation of material in the encyclopedia without informing the reader that Stephen Cohen also gets column inches in The Nation Whoever aggregates that material is probably not violating WP OR but it makes sense to also aggregate other RS and juxtapose in the interest of veracity. It is just ridiculous to put in this blatantly slanted assertion that the poor guy doesn't get NYTimes attention as if he is just being blacked out by the West...when in fact he gets much more than his absurd conspiracy theories justify. I mean does anyone really think the Ukrainan government shot down the plane in an attenpt to assasinate Putin?Wikidgood (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether you personally agree with Herman's assessment of Cohen is pretty irrelevant. The reader will have to decide whether Herman's opinion has merit. The only point that is relevant here is that Herman is a media analyst and notable author on this subject identified as such by WIkipedia (link now provided) and this is HIS take on RT. Kenfree (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of RT (TV network) page

These are the two most recent posts from the Objectivity and Critism" section:

More on the section titled "objectivity and criticism". Many news organizations have their biases and give weight to particular viewpoints on certain issues and this is NOT a crime, so long as fundamental ethics are not violated. No credible media organization will tolerate racial incitement, for example. Furthermore, none of the criticisms in the section can really be related to professional or ethical misconduct on the part of RT. If evidence of misconduct does exist, then it can be placed under a suggested "Controversy" heading just as in the Wikipedia entry for CNN. Under such a heading, specific, concrete examples of misrepresentation of facts, editorial interference, bribery etc if they exist and are well sourced, can be placed. As it currently stands, the criticisms directed against RT appear to be based on nothing other than the fact that it is Russian and/or lends more weight to viewpoints highly critical of western mainstream perspectives. --Campingtrip (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is only one of many examples where a double standard exists. Almost any topic that has any political ramification is manipulated in favor of the consensus of wikipedia authors (just take a look at the Enlgish-language wikipedia articles about the Russian President Putin and his American counterpart President Obama). This consensus at least for the English-language part of wikipedia is pro USA and its allies. This is especially dangerous because the second most used language in the world apart from the first acquired one is English and with this in mind this has the most potential for misleading international audiences. Far from being objective in any way wikipedia authors enforce and entrench biased thinking. Take the article on the "CNN" or "BBC". Read the introduction for all three networks and the relevant parts. There you have a paragraph titled "Controvesy". Compare this to the paragraph "Criticism" in the "RT" article. Controvesy --> "a lot of disagreement or argument about something, usually because it affects or is important to many people", Criticism --> "the act of giving your opinion or judgment about the good or bad qualities of something or someone, especially books, films, etc.", http://dictionary.cambridge.org. Both of these approaches are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If you have information on a topic i.e. facts and sources you can state them to be verified or falsified letting the reader draw his own conclusions otherwise you are only particapating in propaganda yourself.Spotter 1 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The previous two posts on this issue are spot on! Moreover, they propose together a constructive way forward that would resolve SOME of the current editorial dispute for which mediation has been requested. This entire article should be revamped, and brought up to the standards referenced in the above posts. The "criticism" and "reception" sections, together with "guest selction" should be culled for accuracy and NPOV and placed in a new section called "Controversy." The criticism of RT erroneously placed in the lede would also be transferred to this new section. In its current version, this article singles out Russian media for "special treatment" in violation not only of NPOV, but more obviously of [need to maintain a relatively positive tone] in Wikipedia articles. I would be willing to undertake this reorganization, but first request that it be discussed here by all interested editors, as such Herculean tasks should not be subject to being undone, and should reflect reasonable consensus beforehand. Any objections to this proposed reorganization should be clearly spelled out here. so that they can be examined and openly considered. If no reasonable objections are offered in the next seven days, I'll assume consensus and proceed with the reorganization. Any editor who would like to contribute time and energy to this reorganization, please volunteer here. Also, any additional ideas for page reorganization are welcome. Kenfree (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I would avoid a "Herculean" effort to massively reorganize the page. Mass edit changes are difficult to gain consensus for. It is best to change articles section by section, even line by line. It is easier for editors to evaluate and agree. Just my advice, for what it's worth. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda again

There was an earlier consensus on this very talk page that it is important to mention in the lede the fact that RT is often referred as a propaganda tool. The consensus can change of course but so far this is what we have. For the last several month, we have the same pattern: A new editor comes and moves that last paragraph of the lede down the article, effectively removing the mentioning of the propaganda. Whereas I would personally not object moving some of the material down, please do it in such a way that propaganda remains in the lede. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As someone with administration privileges, you should not have to be reminded that agreement between some editors in the past is irrelevant once there is editorial challenge. I question whether genuine consensus ever existed on this point...if so it must have been a long time ago, because one of the editors whose posts I copied wrote in January, and he clearly did not agree. Did this "consensus" include any of these new editors you mention, who, like me, recognize the impropriety of this tendentious critique of RT in the lede? How could it? And even if all these dissenting editors DID agree, it's hardly relevant now, as the location of this criticism is once again being challenged by several editors. Did you happen to notice the NPOV dispute template that now graces the lede? Well, I'm not responsible for putting it there, but I'm glad someone else had the perspicacity to do so. Perhaps meditating on that for a bit will help you wake up and smell the coffee...the matter is under DISPUTE...there cannot be any talk of consensus when there is a dispute. Consensus is what we must strive for, but it is clearly not what we have!

Here is a definition of an encyclopedia lead from Wikipedia: "Encyclopedia leads tend to define the subject matter as well as emphasize the interesting points of the article." Where in this description do we find "the lede is a good place to go into detail about critcism of the subject?" NOWHERE. I say the lede needs to be cleaned up and neutralized. I am willing to wait for seven days to do this, or until reasonable arguments for keeping this criticism in the lede are adduced (until they are resolved or achieve true consensus). However, "reasonable" arguments must be stated in terms of Wikipedia policy, not in terms of the editor's personal disdain for RT. Kenfree (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, as a new editor, you still have difficulties understanding WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus does not mean that everybody agrees with the outcome of the discussion. It means that the arguments were presented, evaluated, and the decision was taken. Also, in this article I am not acting as an administrator, just as a regular editor. Concerning the lede, RT was created as a propaganda tool and never meant to be a genuine news and opinions source. Thus, propaganda is its basic feature and should be mentioned in the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I have no trouble at all understanding "consensus," I've personally facilitated using the consensus model for years. There is apparently a discrepancy between our understandings of the term. You say that not everyone agrees with the outcome of a (consensus) decision. Here's what Wikpedia says: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." Where was any of this done in the case you cite, where "consensus" was supposedly achieved here?

But the real crux is less your misunderstanding of the consensus process, and more your out and out prejudiced view of RT, shared with certain other editors here. You state: "RT was created as a propaganda tool and never meant to be a genuine news and opinions source. Thus, propaganda is its basic feature and should be mentioned in the lede." But this is not a FACT, as you present it, but your personal (and in my view erroneous) opinion. Yet it is coloring editorial decisions on this page to the detriment of NPOV. It is the core of the problem.

If you can show me a single credible source that shows that RT understands its purpose a NOT presenting genuine news and opinions but only propaganda, then perhaps I can take your wild allegation more seriously. In the meantime, it smells like rank prejudice to me, and once again, the type that is coloring the RT TV Network page as an attack page, rather than a neutral encylopedic article.

As Spotlight points out in the next section, the assertion that a network is a propaganda source discredits it in the minds of most readers. Therefore, such allegations belong in a "controversy" section where they can be weighed according to their source (usually political) and against more positive assessments, NOT IN THE LEAD!! Putting it in the lead is nothing but an attempt to transfer your own personal prejudice to the reader. Kenfree (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Now you sound like a believer in a flat earth upset by the fact that the theory that the earth is flat is not mentioned in the lede of the article Earth. There is a lot of reliable sources saying RT is a propaganda tool, some of them are in the article. To be honest, I am not sure why I should discuss it for the tenth time. It has been in my opinion sufficiently discussed at this page. WP:IDONOTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to start edit-warring. You may have noticed already that all your edits to this article have been reverted by a multitude of users. I understand that it is difficult to you to accept the fact that they have been reverted because you are editing out of consensus, but try to come up then with some other explanation. If the whole world is biased and you are not, this is unfortunate, but we have to live with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No one disagrees that some sources (almost all with obvious motivations, though) allege that RT is a propaganda outlet. The dispute is over whether specific citations to this effect belong in the lede, or whether the lede should (as I and other editors in the past) argue simply note that the objectivity of the network's news coverage is "controversial," and refer readers to a "Controversy" section where they can weigh the pros and cons of this controversy (many more RT-supportive comments can be found than are currently posted). You claim that the references provided in the lede to support the claim are reliable, but the one appended to the claim about the Ukrainian journalists does not even mention RT. LOL.

But beyond alleging that the network is accused of propagandistic activity, there is the essentially unsupported and more serious allegation that it is accused of disinformation, whereas in fact only a single US State Department employee has ever made this particular claim, with rather OBVIOUS political motivations (the guy is paid to mislead the public, after all, when the State Department is compromised by real news reporting.) This is not explained to the reader, and by no stretch of the imagination should be placed in the lede, but there it stands, reverted again and again when the effort is made to properly place it under "criticism."

I accept that you believe that people who don't share your personal prejudices are "flat earthers," but WP is no place for your prejudices. Kenfree (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, by this kind of logic you could find some "reliable sources" that say that the President of the United States was a reptile and as long as some WP editors have "consensus" on that we could add it into lede of the corresponding article. facts anyone?Spotter 1 (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

For the fifth time: I do not care whether disinformation is mentioned in the lede ot not. Should I write it in capslock so that you finally get it?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter I don't think you understand that this issue is exclusively dependent on putting it in the lede or not (while it is certainly better to put it in the relevant part). I question your general insistence on characterizing rt as a propaganda tool while by the same logic omitting to put an analogue into the lede/criticism of other news network article. If you agree with the definition of propaganda: Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view [bias: A concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/propaganda. Arguably any journalistic organization is a propaganda tool, no journalistic organization is embedded in a void (it has it's own cultural background, ideology etc.). If you are asserting the name propaganda to rt because it is reporting from a Russian perspective, you also have to qualify every other news network from "Aljazeera" to "CNN" as a propaganda tool for the respective government or owner controlling it. we should get to work on some articles...Spotter 1 (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Try inserting in the lede of CNN or Al Jazeera that they are propaganda tools if RS are available, I do not object. WP:OTHESTUFFEXISTS. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Very convenient for you enforcing politically motivated slander on a subject where you know the majority consensus from people who "matter" (and who are almost allways considered as reliable sources) in "western" countries is on your side; making it apparent by writing "Try inserting in the lede of [[CNN] that they are propaganda tools...". By their very nature journalism organization are all propaganda tools i.e. information disseminating tools. The purpose to inform someone is never just for the sake of informing someone but the act of informing, given it is "true" or perceived as such, carries in itself a "sting" that is pushing to act accordingly.

That's why everyone should object to have any of the networks to be called propaganda tools. The only purpose of calling something by politically colored words like "propaganda tool" is to suppress dissent while hypocrytically omitting ones own reliance on a propaganda machine. If something is true it has to be accepted as such. Statement by statement has to be checked. If it's true it's a fact like your lovely spherical earth example illustrates; it is independently verifiable.

While wanting to say everything rt reports is false, dangerous and "you should only trust us" you use instead the surrogate expression "propaganda tool". Now find someone who "matters" making a blanket statement and cite him as a source (without any critical examination, without any proof or underlying facts!). Job well done.

"If the facts are on your side, pound the facts into the table. If the law [general ideology] is on your side, pound the law [general ideology] into the table. If neither the facts nor the law [general ideology] are on your side, pound the table". That's a very sad modus operandi.

If you have something concrete i.e. facts state them and let others draw their own conclusion.Spotter 1 (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case it looks like the facts are on Ymblanter's side. And I dunno, but from reading these long messages, it certainly seems like you're the one pounding the table. Volunteer Marek  22:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No they don't. Yeah, attributing a long post which purpose is to clarify a position with pounding the table is quite weak. One of the webpages that documents a plethora of "propganda" and systemic bias of American networks (certainly including CNN) in the reporting leading up to and about the Iraq invasion (WITH "reliable resources" for example NYT, National Defense University, George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs etc.) http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?military_analysts_tmln_media_generated_propaganda=military_analysts_tmln_media_coverage_of_iraq_war&timeline=military_analysts_tmln or for general "propaganda" http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=military_analysts_tmln&military_analysts_tmln_media_generated_propaganda. Again media organizations are by default (according to my points above) "propaganda tools" of their owners. The only thing that is justifiable is to point out/state factually false reporting, that what is not reported, how it's reported, history, actual structure etc. in short what can be proven by evidence - not opinion; something that provides for insight.Spotter 1 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Spotter 1: Enough of using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. You still have a couple of issues on my talk page to address. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: keep calm, you will be running out of wikipedia:tag pages soon. Care to contribute anything substantive? something on the matter?...

Not before you stop socking and posting walls of text. Also, finally getting acquainted with policies will not harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:Stop accusing opinion pusher. Finally get a grip on the concept of neutrality WP:NPOV. (The reason for the temp user is on my user page) Spotter 1 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When your sock was indeffed, the password to the sockmaster suddenly recovered? I see.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

First because of a technical error in one of my browsing session active login information gets erased - I falsely assume that the profile is also erased. Then (days later I might add) my intention was to reply to Iryna's posts with spotter_11 (to assume sockpuppetery with almost the exact same user account name --> facepalm, what happened to WP:GF) after that to try to merge my spotter_1 with the spotter_11 account with the help of an administrator. Ban on spotter_11 interferes with that. Trying to log in to spotter_1, realise automatic complete works --> profile unharmed. Bad news for you Ymblanter. Spotter 1 (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The conclusion: Ample evidence for the lack of a NPOV and ascriptions underlaid with opinions (of clear partisan nature) presented as facts. Opinions and claims supercede facts (@Ymblanter: Sehe dir den deutschen Artikel an und vergleiche ihn mit der englischen Version; fällt dir etwas, was die Neutralität in diesem Zusammenhang angeht, auf?). When confronted with evidence the reaction is indifference and deflection. Compared with articles on networks that are direct analogues to "RT" like "CCTV" and the "BBC" the bias is strikingly evident. NPOV tag becomes a necessity.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Failing to recognize that the Neutrality of the article is not fulfilled

PLEASE answer on the talk page of the rt article.

As of now Ymblanter is the only editor who understands in some sense the glaring hypocrisy of this article. Being new to this kind of kindergarten, NPOV denialism is quite instructive for me in as to how wikipedia works. Most disputes should be made evident for any casual reader of wikipedia. Instead editors try to hide behind a consensus made by editors who partly have VERY strong views about Ukraine/Russia and seem to be so desperate in their war like thinking as to becoming blind to any challenge to their views, dismissing it out of hand with bogus accusation of NPOV pushing and removing the NPOV tag (Volunteer Marek)(Iryna Harpy).

For once find some facts not some he/she said expert. I am sure many people, including myself, are very interested in finding out facts in the organisational structure, modus operandi actual work related misconduct that is systematic to this organization and the implications for its reporting. By failing to do that and just asserting names like "propaganda" you know fully well you are becoming a propaganda combatant with his/her own agenda; you absolutely understand that for most people "propaganda" has a negative connotation (not even to mention the etymology, it will conveniently discourage any serious discussion/contention with the organization itself and/or its published information). Guess what? articles on the "BBC" and "CNN" etc. don't feature this quality name, except they fully satisfy your definition of propaganda (as in pushing a certain line favourable to their owners, which dosn't imply that the narrative is necessarily wrong because the "forces of darkness" i.e. Kremlin is behind it or necessarily right because the "forces of light" i.e. the white house or benign businessmen are pushing it) but aren't declared as propaganda tools. The reason for this is quite normal in that editors of these articles are "just like you" similar cultural background, views, interests, similar tendency in evaluation and similar ideology.

And here comes the kicker the article for "China Central Television" doesn't feature a propaganda introduction - the article for "Broadcasting Board of Governors" doesn't either. The only concern (BBG) for english-language editors under the "criticism" section is just that the agency is intransparent/ineffective and the counterpoint is that "conservatives" don't like the liberal orientation of it.

How come that almost every article on "western media" [maybe seemingly] reads like a discription of a toilet paper factory with beautiful smiling people in it and the articles on "cctv" especially "rt" [maybe seemingly] reads like a script of (history) accusations [the obligatory picture of Mr.Medvedev and Mr.Putin behind the scenes, having a watchful eye on the operations] ---> rebutal of rt, (organization) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (On-air staff) "oh look how unsatisfied/unprofessional they look and oh look how they are very friendly with Mr.Putin [the personified Satan cough, cough]" , (Reception) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (criticism, disgruntled employee) accusation ---> rebutal of rt and finally we have to concede they are very good at their propaganda --> professional awards. Something wrong with this picture?.

The entire purpose of the article seems to be to demonize, sow distrust and make the reader feel like "rt" is a virus ready to take other your mind. This is so obvious you achieve the exact opposite. Instead of infantilizing the casual reader of wikipedia get a grip on facts (and not this pathetic, yés but we have reliable sources like some NGOs and the State Department and our consensus is...). You appear like employees for the Ministry of Truth. This is plainly pathetic.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use this talk page as if it were a forum. The guideline at the top of this page is very clear on such misuse of talk pages.

I've responded to both instances of the walls of text you've left on my own talk page (which are fairly much reiterations of the same speeches you've left here).

Finally, note that such walls of text are an energy sinkhole for other editors/contributors. Expecting anyone to respond beyond a WP:TL;DR in the wake of a tirade is unreasonable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Especially for an SPA registered yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to erase the "wall of text" on your user page. It's a way to call attention to this discussion.

Being thorough (Iryna, what forum? have you really read/understood the posts?)(Ymblanter, SPA really? is this the first thing what you heared when you started editing?) in explaining what the actual problem is in the light of your seeming inability to see a problem with the article is a necessity. It's regretable that there is an "entrenchment" like feeling by long standing editors who have to defend their side. A look at your your editing/dispute history shows that this is not a rare event. Many editors who watched this article and similar political topics on Russia/Ukraine are very heavily invested on one side of the argument and as a result you have a cluster of these editors controlling an article without appreciation for Neutrality. Telling everyone it's the way wikipedia works doesn't quite cut it. The purpose of my post is to argue on the merit of facts and proveable claims!(concerning among other things the propaganda accusation/singling out rt) everything else is a side scene of the real issue.Spotter 1 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

For anyone interested in following this lengthy indictment of Wikipedia, the POV calibre of Wikipedia's editors, etc. please see the continuation posted by Spotter 1 on my own talk page (posted under precisely the same section header as is used on this talk page). If you have anything to add there, feel free to chime in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

...the POV calibre of Wikipedia's editors, etc. please see the continuation posted by Iryna Harpy. I concur, please do.Spotter 11 (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)|Spotter 1 (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)(The reason for this on user page)

Oh, dear. Caught out creating multiple accounts? Would you like to try for Spotter 111? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Already indeffed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Already undeffed.

Oh, dear. Caught out accusing someone of something that is not true - what's that called? opinion?. Anyone who cares: created account because of temporary access loss to my account(details on user page). Thought spotter_11 is obvious enough but not to everyone.Spotter 1 (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Motion NPOV tag

The purpose of this motion is to establish if there is a consensus for tagging the article page with WP:NPOV or not. It should be a continuous motion with an immediate effect. A cluster of user prevents any visibility of (even the slightest sign of) a dispute. This is a call to set the record straight.

PRO motion:

• --Spotter 1 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• -- It is obvious that neutrality is not being maintained in the lede. Kenfree (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC) And I would add the following: there need not be a consensus of editors to tag the page with NPOV, only evidence of editorial dispute on the matter (which is clear enough). Consensus would be required, however,to REMOVE the tag (that is, consensus that the NPOV dispute has been resolved).Kenfree (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

True, this is apparent, the article is effectively WP:OWNER by certain editors (preventing the NPOV tag) and a defective mediation process does not change that. The result is a travesty of a POV article. It is selfevident that there is a ongoing dispute.Spotter 1 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

AGAINST motion:

• --Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC) (I would also note that from the editing history of Spotter1 it is clear that this is not an editor in good standing).

  And, given the instance of canvassing [21], they are ready to be reported.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"is not an editor in good standing" this must be very relevant to the NPOV motion I suppose...very instructive anyhow...judge,jury and executioner

Is this the same Ymblanter who recently preached "play the issue, not the man?" Do tell! Kenfree (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

...and notifying that there is a motion (like I was notified about the then ongoing mediation WITH the possibility to join) is canvassing, I see. Spotter 1 (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• --No, discussed already. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT isn't the same as "no consensus". Volunteer Marek  20:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek Yes, it's a legitimate way to identify if there is a consensus or not.Take a hard look at WP:ASSERT,WP:CONTROVERSY,WP:OWNER and WP:NPOV!. Go on .Spotter 1 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• --Trappedinburnley Many independent reliable sources have called RT propaganda. The lead should undoubtedly mention that view. The current wording is a response to previous attempts to hide it.--Trappedinburnley (talk)
• --Alexpl (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC) spamming of WP:Rules to save Federation "Media". Totally new and unexpected tactic. Alexpl (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Likewise.Spotter 1 (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• This NPOV label does not help to improve content or collaboration. Quite the opposite. There was even an RFC about placing NPOV label. This is waste of time and disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What it does among other things is that it unearths all the biased editors who even want to obfuscate the fact that there is a ongoing dispute. It is a signal that there is a NPOV problem with the content which should be resolved. I agree it is very disruptive to some world views. Spotter 1 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• --: Oppose This is a blatant attempt to protect the propaganda function of RT by suggesting that reasonable people may differ on whether or not it should be put under a jaundiced eye. It has been caught red handed fabricating as per numerous cited WP:RS Wikidgood(talk) 00:10, 6 November 2014‎ (UTC)

This is a blatant accusation care to show the evidence?.Spotter 1 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For those who are hooked on the earlier consensus "mantra" and cannot resist to deflect every dispute with it --> WP:CCC/WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. Spotter 1 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no indication that there is any change in consensus whatsoever. You are remarkably adept at throwing around policy and essay links for such a new editor, by the way. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The same two editors coming back for another round of 'prove it' only demonstrates that they are hooked on deflecting from RS evaluations of RT as being biased and trying to obfuscate their gaming the system. You'll have to forgive me for being befuddled by statements like "it is very disruptive to some world views". How many world views are there to represent? Is Wikipedia being held to ransom by what Christian Scientology, the KKK, Charles Manson, and the Illuminati have programmed us to say? Two users jumping up and down and making a lot of noise in as many forums they can insinuate themselves into for as long as they want to does not a 'world view' make. Per Volunteer Marek and everyone else who has been involved in discussions over the past year: enough of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am "befuddled" by your insistence that we are "only" two editors - numerous editors made similar assertions throughout the existence of the talk page.

There are a multitude of world views (as in oxford dic.: A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world: a Christian world view revolves around the battle of good and evil ---> esp. persistent in the US, f.e. Russia being evil i.e. President Putin, lol) present from the side of the editor to the reader. World view as in formed by cultural/historic background. The credo is "We are the good guys", everyone who has a different view must be a propagandist, the one who is not for us is against us. If Erich Honecker would have written an article on the "BBC" the article might look like this one using the same style/wording and he would have found enough reliable sources that are embedded into that society to quote from (RS board: How many of these editors who decide what is and isn't a reliable source, are not from the Anglosphere?! - the hollywoodreporter/businessinsider reliable on INTERNATIONAL issues- ROFL).

Wow Iryna, finally we do have something in common, gaming the system this is exactly my perception of a number of editors and their conduct. Cheers!Spotter 1 (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Guardian report russia today ofcom sanctions impartiality Ukraine coverage - seems to be about how RT isn't observing impartiality or something. Sayerslle (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent find, Sayerslle. That's a case worth keeping an eye on. Thanks for the link! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

I agree that RT is (deliberate by definition) disinformation. Do you realize the edit summary claim is still there; it's separated by 'and' now. It sounds better bc its separated, but its the exact same, without the moved part. Speculated sounds better, but it needs to be a direct statement which is based on fact, its not a supposed one. There's also less arguing if it is said, provides false information (which holds true, and doesn't detract from whether it is done deliberately or not). - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. You removed the word "disinformation" despite the fact that it's supported by multiple sources. You also re-added that undue quote by Herman, which there was much objection to including. This is the same POV edit as the other accounts tried to force into the article, the same POV edit which was against consensus, just disguised behind a neutral sounding edit summary.

Incidentally, grammatically speaking, it's a bit clumsy to write that "RT has been accused of providing commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy". In fact, it's a bit nonsensical. You don't "accuse" someone of providing favorable commentary. You might describe their agenda as such but that's a different thing. Volunteer Marek  16:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I get that wording it that way was clumsy, however, how it was worded was the exact same thing. What was there before was the equivalent of "RT has been accused [of this and] of providing commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy", and I suppose this is realized now. My edit didn't remove the claim that it 'provides false information', it only lacked the implication of whether it was done deliberately or not (I believe it was deliberate, but saying it provides false information is the minimum for truth, and sounds more neutral) (The refs also support that it was deliberate; but it's much harder to deny that it was done, and not why). That was the compromise which I tried to make, and still remaining sufficiently truthful, by containing the necessary amount of information to disclose that; otherwise everyone won't be satisfied with this article. Volunteer Marek, I also personally agree with how it is written now, (about Russia's confrontational foreign policy) but it doesn't sound neutral. In fact, this could be harmful to our opinion of what RT does; it will turn readers away from what is reliably published. There are a few sources, (by people who's opinion like Greenwald, who [rightfully] don't have any credibility anymore, however they are notable people) who say they disagree, there are enough sources for that to go into the lead. It doesn't even harm my pov to mention that there are proponents who disagree, in fact it helps it, especially when its someone like Greenwald (I'm against mentioning him in the lead).

I came to the opinion of what RT does on my own, independently of what others thought, before reading the sources. If my country is going to be bashed, bash it for something truthful (and not make exaggerated claims either), and not for what other past American or other world leaders did and incorrectly blame the current leadership for something Russia's leadership currently tries to do. Honestly, RT got away with it for a while, but ultimately brought this on itself. I'll enjoy watching their reporter's continuing turnover rate, and others who are not Western discredit RT. In my edits, I made my point about what goes on.- Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kenfree, will you please stop reverting. There has been long standing consensus, established here and in other forums (which you and your tag-team, now banned SPA buddy forum shopped) that this accurately reflects sources. When you remove the information you are misrepresenting sources as the text no longer reflects what they say. That's a pretty disruptive editing practice. Volunteer Marek  16:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Volunteer Marek, as usual you have the shoe on backwards. All of your claims that the "disinformation" charge against RT are verified have been disproven at length, both here in these talk pages, and in the discussion on the NPOV noticeboard. You have not been able to defend them there, nor here. So please stop PRETENDING that this claim is well sourced, and accept that the new consensus, as reflected in Sidelight's edit which you continue to revert, is that this claim is not well enough substantiated to belong in the lede, if anywhere else. Kenfree (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Virtually every editor except for you and your blocked friend agreed with "disinformation". If you can not accept consensus, this is your problem, not a problem of Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's disinformation, but I'll compromise as far as replacing it with, 'provides false information'. As much as I believe in NPOV, to remove that claim is to hide the truth. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sidelight12: Thank you for the edit. It's much better like this. It would be a good compromise to leave it like this, with "propaganda", but without "disinformation". --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but I still stick with something along the lines of, it provides false information in the lead. The implication of whether or not it is deliberate (in my opinion) isn't necessary there. The word misinformation would work too, but I didn't find it defined in main dictionaries. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 02:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. (I didn't mention it simply because I didn't want to sound like I was approving the part. Anyway, your version was a huge improvement in neutrality.) (But I guess the people who commented earlier won't let you change it.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine if it is written "provides false information" rather than "provides disinformation", I do not particularly care.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I hope that a consensus is possible. I also liked that in Sidelight12's version the "false information" part was later in the text.
As an aside note, Russian TV is no more propagandistic than the Western one. (You should watch some Ukrainian TV. It's truly entertaining. Wartime propaganda to the max (Channel 5, TSN news on 1+1). I wonder what if the English speakers who were commenting here could understand. In comparison to this, RT provides a neutral third-party view. :)) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal opinion. It is very interesting, but I disagree.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sidelight12. I know your edit was made in good faith. But here's the thing. The source talk about "disinformation". I guess that could be reworded to say something like "provides false information". But then what do you want to bet some SPA will show and try to remove that on the pretext that "sources don't say that it provides false information". Better stick close to the sources which say "disinformation". Also I didn't actually see you put in "provides false information" in there as a replacement, just removal of the consensus version. Maybe I missed it.

Also, it looked like you were restoring the quotes from that non-notable what'shisface into lede and the consensus is also that this does not belong. Why?

@Moscow Connection, you mistake "improvement in neutrality" with "closer to my personal views". "Improvement in neutrality" is actually "closer to what reliable sources say". There's a difference and this edit went the other way. Volunteer Marek  07:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Disinformation" and "providing false information" are not the same. These sources tell and mean disinformation. I believe this should stay per previous consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Where was this "previous consensus" achieved? --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    • According to this Kenfree statement, there was a consensus of seven editors about this edit. In the diff Kenfree named them as 37.214.122.178, Volunteer Marek, Sidelight12, Galassi, Capitalismojo, Ymblanter and NE Ent. It seems that no one but you and blocked Spotter 1 supported another side of the dispute during the previous discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, read it for yourself be all means, since My very best wishes has conveniently provided the reference. You can read it up and down, backwards and forwards, and you will still not find the word "consensus" anywhere in my statement. All I did there was point out tendentious editing by these six editors (which My very best wishes persistently misrepresents as seven editors). (user:Sidelight 12, given his recent attempts (reverted ad nauseum by user:Volunteer Marek) to reach a compromise rewording of this horrendous lede statement, should probably no longer be considered in this category.) So I, too, would like to request of My very best wishes, or anyone else with this answer, where this much vaunted earlier "consensus' is recorded or otherwise documented for the edification of those of us who are constantly subjected to such doubtful references to it. No walls of text please, just a citation is all I'm interested in. I'll be happy to go there and read it for myself then....thanks in advance for any help on this! Kenfree (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)