Talk:RT (TV network)

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)[1]. 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.[2] 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.[3] 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 [4], 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)

For the record, I haven't reverted Volunteer Marek's edits. This is what I had 'There have also been accusations of RT providing false information.[20][26][27][28][29] There are proponents who disagree.[30][31]'; it should have been disagree with the criticism. There's no reason to remove, the statement about RT providing false information, unless the editors are in absolute denial. Like I said earlier, is truth-or-not a reliable source or not, bc I don't know, if it's not reliable, it needs to leave; I've explained it. Notability wasn't the issue (I've explained above), it wasn't restored (by me), and a summary but not the quote was put in the lead by me. I wanted to leave the statement that there are some RT proponents who disagree with the negative criticism of RT in the lead. Also, a statement about RT's bias is good for the lead too. Also, I'm for leaving in any form of it 'provides false information', I won't agree to removing that from the lead. My vote for consensus is either disinformation or (favorably to me as a compromise) provides false information, but not neither, so (Kenfree) please don't try to over-interpret what I wrote. Also, there aren't walls of text, it is supported that it provides false information (or disinformation), there are 5 refs behind it that say so. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, Sidelight, I erred in giving you too much credit. I have stricken out the objectionable sentence above. Clearly, you are still on board the "slam RT" crusade, though I was touched by your rather decent attempt to provide SOME balance by restoring my earlier reference to positive critics (like Herman). Still, your insistence that we must use the lede here to advertise that RT is providing false information (which everyone will read as "disinformation," so the difference is negligible) shows you, too, are a "true believer" of the Marek school (that RT is essentially dishonest and the lede must be used to deprecate the Network). But here we go again with this crusaders' mantra: "5 refs behind it that say so." LOL, LOL, LOL. It's as if this has never been discussed. My CLEAR and well explicated contention (see the NPOV noticeboard discussion) is that four out of five of these appended references make no such allegation AT ALL. You are surely welcome to disagree, but the burden of proof is on you then. I have challenged Marek and any other defenders of these irrelevant citations to produce a SINGLE quote from these four that make such an allegation, and NOT ONE QUOTE has been produced. Perhaps you will be the one to break the silence, but if not, may I politely request that you cease claiming that those four of the five sources in any way make such an allegation until you can quote them on it? Thanks! Kenfree (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Kenfree, I suggest you mind WP:NPA or you will be blocked. You are refusing to acknowledge opposing editors as having a good-faith motive. No, they are all crusaders, bent on destruction. Actually, looking at this kerfuffle from an outsider's point of view, it appears to me that you are the crusader who is a 'true believer' of the rectitude of RT. As I did at the noticeboard, I will point out again that people who oppose you here are basing their opposition on a multitude of reliable sources. These sources are ones you must acknowledge if you are to be included in the consensus rather than bypassed. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's see if I've got this right: If I use the term "crusader" I am not minding WP:NPA, but if YOU call me a crusader, then that's just peachy. Do I understand you correctly?

Now, if all the editors (including me) agreed that these sources reliably show that RT practices disinformation, then yes, we would have a consensus of editors. If all of us disagreed that they do, then we would ALSO have a consensus of editors. But if some editors agree and some disagree, then there is NO consensus, there is an editorial DISPUTE. The idea of "bypassing" is not something I have seen reference to in Wikipedia policies, but perhaps you would care to explain how that works, since you apparently have seen such a policy. Kenfree (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You are seriously asserting that the sources I put here fail to show that RT engages in disinformation? Sources such as the US State Department's article titled "Russia Today’s Disinformation Campaign"? Your complaint has no merit. I advise you to stand down on this issue, and let more objective voices be heard. At some point, your obstructionism here will be recognized as disruption, and you will be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

*'Russia's Propaganda Channel Just Got A Journalism Lesson From The US State Department' - 'That response came from Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Richard Stengel... who wrote a blog post Tuesday accusing RT of a "disinformation campaign."'... 'Important read from U/S @Stengel - sets record straight on disinformation being spread about #Ukraine by #RussiaToday'

*'KGB TV to Air Show Hosted by Anti-war Marine Vet' - 'Russia Today has been described by Konstantin Preobrazhensky , himself a former Soviet KGB officer who defected to the West, as “a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation” designed to mislead foreign audiences about Russian intentions. He says Russia Today television utilizes methods of propaganda that are managed by Directorate “A” of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. He explains, “The specialty of Directorate ‘A’ is deceiving world public opinion and manipulating it.'

* 'Tit-for-Tat: Putin’s Maddening Propaganda Trick' - This article says Russia and Putin use disinformation, and refer to its media outlets. This part gets specific 'Outlets like RT are “devoted to this effort to propagandize and to distort” the truth, he said, adding: “No amount of propaganda will hide the truth,” Kerry declared.'

* 'Disinformation: ‘Pravda’ May Be Gone, but Now There’s ‘Russia Today’' - It's the title, it is heavily implied, plus there is this direct quote from it 'RT is using its increasing influence to warp the truth about Assad’s crimes against the Syrian people' This is from 2012, before Kerry even said it.

* 'How Russia Is Revolutionizing Information Warfare' - Is about Russian disinformation and information war, and it talks about RT, then it says... 'Ukraine-based StopFake.org have been working hard to expose disinformation in Russian and foreign media. But for every ‘fake’ they catch, Kremlin-allied news outlets produce a thousand more.'

Of all of these 'How Russia Is Revolutionizing Information Warfare' implies RT conducts in disinformation, because it is a Russian media outlet which it calls out for being distorted information. It was the point of the article singling out RT. The other 4 are solid. It doesn't offend me, if I'm called a crusader here, but it's not what I am, I'm not here to force my way as a crusader does. I'm here to keep what I believe to be true in the article. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 18:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kenfree: You misunderstand what consensus means, and I believe I tried to explain this to you a month ago but you somehow refuse to listen. Consensus does not mean 100% of users agree on some point. If this would be the definition of consensus, any sock could block a reasonable discussion for years just refusing to accept the outcome. Consensus means a sizable majority of users in good standing (in practice, it usually means 2/3, but the details can depend), after having discussed the issues and given policy-based arguments in support of their cause, agreed on something. There are always some editors who disagree on a particular issue, but it does not mean there is no consensus. If they persist, they are first politely asked to drop the stick (and you are well beyond the stage), and then, well, they get their ability to edit Wikipedia severely limited.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the current version per the sources, Russia Today’s Disinformation Campaign, Putin’s Disinformation Matrix, Richard Stengel: Russia Today's disinformation campaign, This bizarre piece of disinformation surfaced on RT (Russia Today), the Moscow-funded English-language propaganda network known to critics as KGB-TV. , The Soviet Union may be dead, but Soviet disinformation tactics remain Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ofcom's Content and Standards Team, Broadcast Bulletin Issue 266

The Broadcast Bulletin Issue 266 is a very interesting and insightful document produced by "Ofcom". The methodological transparent reasoning in this document should be exemplary for WP and serve as a methodological model in applying WP:NPOV policy (The RSB seems to be a prime example of an opinionated "Alice in Wonderland" like institution that makes intransparent blanket judgements on the reliability of ENTIRE (content spectrum) news outlets operating very much like a "Kangaroo court").

This "opinion quoting system" (or "fishing" for reliable sources for that matter) is the basis for political topics (f.e. the status of the hollywoodreporter / businessinsider as a generally reliable source for any international issue, with complete disregard for a factual check of the claims made in its articles) and is then used to justify every ideologically convenient article and opinion (f.e. RT) - with the bonus of alienating readers who actually care about facts.

Ofcom instead provides context (f.e. regulatory rules) and defines clear boundaries when it makes a judgement by stating actual facts and applying it's rules in its specific judgement (becoming an opinion when it leaves the territory of facts, which it actually readily admits).

The link to its report: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb266/obb266.pdfSpotter 1 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RS Board judging entire news outlets in relation to political topics; case of RT

The purpose of this post is to provide the context of why many different editors are disputing the neutrality of the RT article. RS and the lack of facts in these publications lie at the core of the contention. It's astounding how weak the HOUSE OF CARDS aka the RSB (the political part of the RSB) actually is. Stating one opinion piece after another. The entire process is bogus. Examine the "discussions":

[List to be continued]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Enquiry_concerning_the_RT_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Can_RT_be_.22banned.22_on_principle_from_a_particular_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Russia_Today

Small sample of reasons given for RT being unreliable:

[List to be continued]

Tautology (rhetoric) / Opinion REPUTATION/WIDELY REGARDED: "No, this has been discussed previously. For it to be considered a reliable source it needs to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). It has no such reputation as it is widely regarded as a propaganda outlet.It can be used for certain claims, for example those of Russian officials, with proper attribution, as well as for statements for its opinion."

Tautology (rhetoric) / Opinion: "RT is not appropriate for foreign politics, international relations &c - and if editors are already using it on controversial topics because it says what mainstream sources don't, that's a red flag right there. Maybe it's worth considering on uncontroversial Russian current affairs though.

Tautology (rhetoric) / Opinion: "RT is a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarian government It can't be used as WP:RS in Wikipedia"

Opinion I THINK?: " I don't think this is a neutral source."

Opinion DEEMING: "Its not about banning or prohibiting, its about simply not using a source deemed unreliable for an area of context while we have plenty of other reliable sources that cover the information of the article at hand (BBC, Reuters, AFP, AP, CNN, Telegraph, Guardian, ect)"

Opinion REPUTATION?: " But ultimately, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does Russia Today have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I did a little research myself and found some troubling reports:"

Opinion RESPECTED?: "The site is not even respected as a reliable source by reporters without borders."

Opinion YES OR NO TOPIC?: " Can RT as a source be banned in principle from an article or not. It's a Yes or No type topic."

Opinion CAN CONCLUDE THAT ANY ... IS NOT APPROPRIATE?: " No source can be "banned in principle" from Wikipedia. The consensus of contributors to an article can conclude that any source - RT, CNN, whatever - is not appropriate, but consensus can change. Moreover, there is never a crystal clear final authoritative answer to any question on Wikipedia, nor anyone who can give one."

Complain by an editor concerning the process:

"Personally, I think it's a nonsense that I should have to raise this but Censorship and Discrimination and Politics predominate so often here on Wiki. If I get into an edit war, I'll be banned and the other editor will doubtless get away with his Behavior. I expect he will any way and raising this is futile but I'll give it a go. Frenchmalawi".

The only facts (so far) found in ALL of the opinion pieces:

William Dunbar resigned because of the coverage of the Georgian crisis. (giving an opinion why he did it.). Liz wahl resigned because of the coverage of the Crimean crisis (giving an opinion why she did it.).

Most facts are concerned with the simple recognition that RT offers different people, who are considered "fringe", a platform.

Instead of giving evidence (as in facts) point for point (researching like Ofcom does) opinion articles are exchanged. The "opinion quoting system" (or "fishing" for reliable sources for that matter) is the basis for political topics (with complete disregard for a factual check of the claims made in its articles) and it is used to justify every ideologically convenient article and opinion (f.e. RT) - with the bonus of alienating readers who actually care about facts.Spotter 1 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  23:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not dealing with the content which is very much needed to give us a context why so many editors are disputing the neutrality of the RT article. Context isn't WP:NOTAFORUM and claiming it to be so is quite Orwellian.Spotter 1 (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change your comments after someone's already replied to them. If you must, strike through your comments and redact them. Volunteer Marek  03:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll respect that.Spotter 1 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

template worldwideview

Like another editor already mentioned (International sources needed ... new section titles Noleander) there is a desperate need for international sources that are not from the "Anglosphere".

The globalize/USA - template is an entirely separate issue, that deals with the structural bias/systemic bias WP:BIAS of the English-language wikipedia by virtue of the sources used as evidence and the cultural background of the typical English-language editor. In the case of RT many parts of the article are almost exclusively written to be a representative opinion of the civil society of the USA and its Allies. Not one notable scholar / RS is quoted from the "Global South" (i.e. Latin America, Africa and Asia(f.e. India and China ---> therefore a minority stance is presented to be the worldwide majority stance).

This is why a globalize/USA - template (or similar template for the "Anglosphere") should be added to the article until we have all the significant views of the major parties involved.

Spotter 1 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC

WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:WAR, WP:POINT, WP:NOT, WP:HERE, WP:SPA... did I miss any policies or guidelines you've broken?  Volunteer Marek  00:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing more than a personal attack. As to be expected.Spotter 1 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, pointing out that you're violating Wikipedia policies and are not here to build an encyclopedia is not a personal attack. Volunteer Marek  00:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This comes to mind when I judge your conduct WP:NPOV, WP:ASSERT, WP:CONTROVERSY, WP:OWNER, behaving as the chief interpreter of wp:policies (WP:POINT),

you doen't react to substantiated points that I made on the rt talk page (f.e. giving evidence about "CNN" misconduct in the context of propaganda). A look on your contributions let's one assume that you are involved in an ongoing information war deleting everything that isn't pro forma yet, therefore deleting entire pages/arguments in its infancy, that could be reformed to comply with wikipedia policy and make a valid contribution [f.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_largest_projects_in_the_Russian_economy&action=history]. Despite calling it OR and SYNTH this could be incorperated into WP in a very useful and reasonable way. Your advantage is the general Anti-Russian stance in the Anglo-American society, making it so much easier convincing English-language editors to dismiss out of hand the points made by different editors. What you instead do is participation in personal attacks, calling my user account a sock of User:LarryTheSharkuating thorough posts as soapbox, giving everyone the chance to react to my points is interpreted by you as a wall of text (one post on the user page that is meant to be a notification: "NPOV dispute: Failing to recognize that the Neutrality of the article is not fulfilled") although I've explicitly said that this post-notification can be erased and has no other purpose (on user:Iryna Harpy page),

pointing out the defective process how RS are judged with the immediate effect to an article is your WP:NOTAFORUM, once you even got the concept of hypocrisy when you called out the article "demonization of Putin" to be applicable to other "leaders" but somehow you are unable to see this in relation to the propaganda charge of Rt and BBG/CCTV/Aljazeera/CNN, my intention is to solve specific issues, being consistent appears to you as WP:NOT, Wikipedia:HERE this is a joke right? look at the history of the disputes you faced with other editors, WP:SPA you who is roaming through everything Russia Ukraine Crisis related? is this a MPA? and before through neoclassical economics and Polish national identity articles which is very much related to your WP:WAR attitude concerning everything Russia - I'd like to contribute to other topics but I am in a bind with you now and finally equating my effort to solve the WP:BIAS issue with another POV push.Spotter 1 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no defective process, just a refusal of some editors to see how the proper balance is found at this article by representing the mainstream literature fairly and in proportion. In this case, the proportion of published analysis is strongly for RT being a state-owned propaganda arm, engaging in disinformation whenever the state wishes. In other words, the 'balance' we should have here is lopsided against RT. That's how we properly follow the policy of WP:NPOV.

Complaints about other news agencies belong on the talk pages of those articles, not this one. Any concerned editor who feels that a proper balance has not been achieved at those other articles is welcome to begin correcting the imbalance. Here at the RT article, we are only concerned with how RT is portrayed in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In effect you are saying that facts are meaningless, everything we do here is parroting American mainstream media talking points, that's not a neutral point of view it's the view of whatever majority opinion is; esp. regarding the globalize/USA - template this is a very questionable conduct.Spotter 1 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that all the literature should be weighed to determine the proper balance, all the analysis published worldwide, not just the examples I have listed at the NPOV noticeboard. There are a few observers calling RT a respectable news agency, and many saying that they serve up disinformation whenever the Russian state says so. I have never said that an Amero-centric viewpoint must prevail. Rather, it is the case that more American observers have written analysis of RT than any other nationality. Which is why the proper balance is lopsided. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Set aside which (fill in)-centric viewpoint is majority opinion, is it not more advisable and suitable if an ecyclopedia rather being a logbook for majority opinion would state all the RS which actually contain facts instead of brazen accusations? prime example being Ofcom's bulletin issue 266 [5].Spotter 1 (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've raised this point on as many venues as you could since your block was lifted only a few hours ago. Offcom is essentially a commercial enterprise (read their About us page): Wikipedia is not. Offcom is subject to censorship: Wikipedia is not. Offcom can indulge in POV positions: Wikipedia does not kowtow to writing what we believe the public wishes to hear, thereby happily presenting opposing views on a single subject (i.e., Offcom is not an encyclopaedic resource: Wikipedia is). Instead of being in the luxurious position of being able to tackle a single subject through as many articles as anyone wants to write, each subject is given one article space (as well as any spin-off articles if the size of the article becomes too long): this is the logic behind mainstream RS accounts and WP:GEVAL. Your considered opinion of what a perfect encyclopaedia should be is based on everything that an encyclopaedia is not (i.e., it's not Offcom!). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere do I even come close to ask for a reform of WP into a pseudo Ofcom knockoff. You don't seem to get the core of the argument which concerns the methodology of Ofcom in researching their findings. Much like the scientific method relies on data to verify or disprove a theory, one should pay attention to facts in one's claim, otherwise you quickly fall victim to a logical implication which is based on false premises. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from using a WP:POINTy example, essentially you're 'methodology' boils down to being one of a system of jurisprudence. Where do you propose to get your lawyers, expert research teams and how do you propose to pay 'em? One new editor, like yourself, comes in proposing a new model for how Wikipedia should be run, turns into the elephant in the room (along with TAGTEAM buddy, Kenfree), and you've just dragged literally dozens of people (like myself) away from fact checking, anti-vandalism patrols, copy editing and all the essentials for literally tens of thousands of articles. How does that add up? 40 legal experts per one actual contributor being interrogated over every word they write? If that's the set-up you're demanding, go and set up your own site. Wikipedia does not consist of the one article (or set of articles) you choose to work on. You believe Wikipedia should be something that it's not. What we have here is a failure to communicate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet,your claim that there are " many [observers] saying that they serve up disinformation whenever the Russian state says so" is a false claim. Others here have made the same claim, and at each turn I have challenged those editors to produce quotes (not "sources") that confirm this bias, and thus far NOT ONE quote has been produced. Perhaps you will succeed where others have failed, but until you can produce credible, independent observers who substantiate this claim with their actual words (and not with tendentious paraphrases), this claim of yours should be regarded as reflecting your Western bias, and not fact-based, thus demonstrating the pertinence of the above template for this article, and its current editing. Kenfree (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I gave you sources and quotes at the NPOVN discussion. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#RT_engages_in_disinformation for the list. I noticed that after I posted that list of sources and quotes, you ceased your involvement at that discussion, leading me to think that your concerns had been answered.
Certainly you must acknowledge that Accuracy in Media published the following note: "Konstantin Preobrazhensky, a former Soviet KGB officer... says the [RT] channel is serving the interests of the Kremlin, especially its intelligence agencies, by spreading disinformation about Russian intentions in domestic and foreign affairs."[6] And Martha Bayles' article in the Boston Globe was widely commented upon, the one where she described the Russian state working a two-prong disinformation campaign (Big Lie and Big Confusion) through the "slick, fast-paced satellite TV channel, Russia Today (RT), which pays top salaries to British and American broadcast journalists willing to repeat the same messages in English."[7] She says that RT puts out disinformation to suit the Russian state's wishes. And of course there's the US State Department stating the obvious: "Moscow is subjecting Ukrainians, Russians and the rest of the world to an intense campaign of disinformation that tries to paint a dangerous and false picture of Ukraine’s legitimate government. Russia Today, the Moscow-based TV network financed by the government, is a key player in this campaign of distortion. Along with its Russian operation, RT operates an English-language broadcast out of Washington."[8] There are many similar statements published in other media such as Tablet magazine which says "Disinformation: Pravda May Be Gone, but Now There's Russia Today. Russia’s propaganda machine is stronger than ever thanks to cable network RT."[9] The global view is not much different, though there is less volume. In the Ukraine's Kyiv Post, they said that the Russian government is engaging in "an intense campaign of disinformation" and that "Russia Today, the Moscow-based TV network financed by the government, is a key player in this campaign of distortion."[10] Finnish journalist Jukka Rislakki said that in December 2013 Putin folded Russia's propaganda machine into RT with the mission of limiting freedom of speech and sending out state propaganda.[11] I could go on and on in this vein, but you get the point. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

RT organization / Recent developments

I´d suggest someone more knowledgeable - on both the subject & the Russian language - to perhaps deal with the just now reported violent death of this leading RT figure (?), cf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.116.19 (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

References

I'm seeing a lot of Russian sources on this (for Anton Kostylev, eg [12]), but no English language ones. Volunteer Marek  22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no doubts that he died, I have some common friends with him.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A tiny English note here, so far; seems to have been a major news producer: http://ru-facts.com/news/view/41269.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.116.19 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I had to rely of Google translate, but it seems that he worked for this Russia Today: Rossiya Segodnya --Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reading this talk page scares me

Of course any normal person reading the first few paragraphs of this article will immediately be struck by the intensely negative tone and way RT is described, totally unlike other news networks comparable in stature and influence with it such as CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, et al. So I immediately decided to check the talk page hoping there were dissenting voices. Well, I did find some. Unfortunately, their points and requests for actual evidence or facts DID NOT GET REBUTTED at all. Every single person claiming that RT is a "propaganda disinformation" network (again, compared to an ideal news standard, I'm sure it is, but you have to actually compare RT to CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, et al. not some imaginary ideal news network) does not give ANY actual evidence or facts backing up their extremely biased and strongly worded opinions. It is like a cabal of a few editors constantly demeaning and using ad hominem assaults on anyone who dares to request evidence that RT is "disinformation/propaganda" (relative to other famous news networks). All I hear is "you are new, there are not many of you, consensus was already reached (and in this case, "consensus" does not mean consensus, it means a cabal of like 6 people once agreed on something based on their own partisan opinions and shared anti-RT worldview). Repeatedly we have heard this cabal refer to various "respected reliable mainstream sources" like... the US State Department???? That is such a laugh and so utterly absurd that it really reveals their desperation to get ANY "evidence" to back up their strong anti-RT opinions. I am sure they will either a) totally ignore what I'm saying b) use ad hominem attacks on me, and c) will definitely not give any actual facts or evidence that RT is substantially more of a "disinformation/propaganda" network than other comparable networks. Good day, gentlemen, and this is why Wikipedia is failing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on...you complain about the other editors without offering any proof of your own. Go back to your Putin worship. Russia is a sinking ship. I am sure that Mr. Putin will blame Russia's economic woes on the homosexuals, of course tyrants like him cannot accept personal responsibility. RT will, like always, back him up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide any examples of anti-homosexual reporting on RT? TFD (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. While I wouldn't feed the trolls here in normal circumstances, TFD, I can find RT articles pointing out the struggle for LGBT rights in nation-states other than the RF (read as discrediting politico-economic opponents), using red herring tactics to divert attention away from Russian legislation (read as, "but they're all hypocrites"), yet I can't seem to find any surrounding the issue of LGBT rights as pertains to the RF, although this form of pointy 'debate' by a well known RT anchorwoman does exist. Might this be taken as an editorial oversight on behalf of RT or is it, rather, obfuscation of the RF's stance on LGBT rights? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oksana Boyko is not an anchor, she's a talk show host and "World's Apart" is not a newscast, it's a talk show. We distinguish between talk shows (Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly) and what their guests say, and news. Otherwise, all the U.S. networks would fail rs. Your other example is a documentary about discrimination against LGBT people in the U.S. As for your first link, lots of networks produce documentaries about social problems in the U.S. My question however was on reporting, i.e., news programming. Could you provide any examples of anti-homosexual reporting on RT? TFD (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to reverse the question: could you provide any examples of pro-homosexual rights reporting on RT? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this count :) [13] --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt RT has an "official stance" on LGBT rights. Moreover many of their (often western) presentes and correspondents probably support LGBT rights. However what RT almost avoids on any cost is any detailed critical reporting on Russia or more precisely on Russia's government and its policies. And that is where RT differs somewhat from the other networks, to answer the question from the beginning of this section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In support of Kmhkmh's appraisal, even the example you've presented 'censors' discussion of issues guests are attempting to address. As noted to TFD, I undertook an extensive search for analysis (which, of course, should include criticism/critiques) of LGBT rights under the RF's administration only a few days ago and could find nothing that even hints at an attempt to discuss RF legislation/policies. What was notable was the number of articles and interviews pointing out the hypocrisy of the policies and actual pro-active implementation of these policies in nation-states other than the RF, but absolutely no attempts at discussion of the RF's policies per se. Criticism of the rest of the world's policies may be rife, but the absence of critiques of RF policy speaks volumes regarding censorship... so, no, stuffing gags into the mouths of the interviewees is purely lipservice designed to create the impression of discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty much correct. RT is happy to be pro-LGBT rights when it comes to criticizing Western countries but when it comes to Putin's law, they bent over backwards to make it seem like "nothing, no big deal, nothing to see here". Essentially, the question "is RT pro-LGBT or anti-LGBT" is ill posed. Just like the question "is RT pro democracy or anti democracy?" Or the question "is RT anti-nuclear power or pro nuclear power?" Or the question "is RT anti-Western or pro-Western?" Or the question "is RT pro environmental movement or anti environmental movement?" Or the question "is RT pro feminist or anti feminist?" Or the question "is RT pro Dog or pro Cat?". These are all questions which it doesn't make sense to ask because the answer is the same every single time: whatever Putin thinks at the given moment.

There's no fixed, coherent ideology here except the ideology of boot-licking and opportunism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, what this boils down to is how RS sources are distinguished from WP:BIASED sources. While no one is going to argue that there are going to be opinion pieces which are likely to reflect the nation-state's mentality, the same sources will also provide dissent pieces (which may not be as prominent at the time of the event/events), but are available to the readers as alternative views and analyses. As noted by VM, RT does not offer any form of dissent or analysis of governmental/interest-group critiques at any point. If you think that Edward Snowden, for example, is under the protection of the RF for any reasons other than being a politically expedient pawn in the game of global politics... think again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

To what extent is Al Jazeera's international coverage critical of the policies or government of Qatar? Let's put it this way: is it plausible there is a spectrum for media which is based in a given country and largely funded by that country's government (BBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, NHK, RT) between which one could label it "propaganda" versus "reliable and mainstream"? Again I would need people to provide more detailed analyses involving statistical bases for judgements on this kind of a matter. Otherwise all we do is rely on our own selective memories of anecdotes. How does one really "prove" whether or not a media source is to be considered more or less "reliable" than another? Studies demonstrating these claims with their criteria transparently stated would be welcome. Again, otherwise we are not being scientific and it devolves rapidly into "warring camps" and subjective opinions based largely on nationalism.