Talk:RT (TV network)

Large revert by Prinsgezinde

Prinsgezinde. You seem to have taken exception to every one of my recent edits and reverted them all, without regard for any of the existing talk page discussions they might be related too. I can assure you that very little content was removed. The content added is backed by RS, and the small amount altered was to deal with sourcing issues, or to move it to a more appropriate sections. Obviously you are ready to backup your revert with detailed reasoning? Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're shifting this to me, Trappedinburnley. You even warned me on my talk page. I simply handled in accordance with WP:BRD. In one fell swoop you remade the entire article. I know how delightfully satisfying and just it must feel to go against the supposed propaganda pushing communists of Moscow, but this is simply not how Wikipedia works. You inexplicably removed large parts as is visible in the revision I just linked to. Without any form of consensus this is simply unjustifiable. And yes, I will revert it again. I am ready to for a discussion at WP:AN/3 if it comes to that. This is POV-pushing of the highest degree. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well said Bataaf van Oranje and full support for your comments Govindaharihari (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde/Bataaf van Oranje, I've also reverted you as you don't appear to be taking any note of discussions on this talk page. If you have problems with article content, and changes that have been encouraged, you take it to the talk page of the article instead of conducting WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics using WP:ES. The only edit warring going on this article at the moment is yours. Also, Govindaharihari, when was the last time you involved yourself with any discussions here? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well said??? As I mentioned when I reverted you have removed 23 edits by six users (and a bot), made over eight days. Prinsgezinde/Bataaf van Oranje, when you revert something, you have to be ready to justify your actions. When you reverted, you removed 7,449 characters from the article, suggesting that you have misinterpreted the diff you linked, and little content was removed (just moved). That you don't like the number of edits I have made, isn't an argument backed by any policy I'm aware of.Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear here, the edit by User:Prinsgezinde did not "only" undo recent edits by Trappedinburnley. It also... resumed the edit warring over the paragraph in the lede about propaganda (which various sketchy single purpose accounts, sock puppets and pov pushing users have repeatedly tried to remove - this is just the latest reiteration of that disruption) and similar issues which have been previously discussed.

In other words this "no consensus for recent changes" is just a bullshit excuse to edit war over non-recent issues. Another sketchy account (Prinsgezine was created fairly recently) jumps in as soon as the previous sketchy account gets banned for sock puppetry or disruptive editing. And oh yeah, this is a blatantly dishonest use of edit summaries which are written to mislead.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• The Prinsgezinde Bataaf is blocked for 72 hours per discretionary sanctions: continued edit warring, reverting without consensus, after being warned. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the accusations and terrible faith, guys. Especially "Volunteer" Marek must be a shining example of good faith. Found any socks of me yet? It appears that I am expected of being a puppet no matter what I do now. Is this the great "Free Encyclopedia" to you, Marek? I could easily make a case against you for all the personal attacks you made here but that would be a waste of time. Whatever. If you Americans so obviously feel the need to enforce your views on us Europeans then keep trying. I'm done with these absurdly political propaganda articles. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum about Russian propaganda

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/how-vladimir-putin-is-waging-war-on-the-west-and-winning/ Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

to improve the image of Russia abroad

The text of this article starts with to improve the image of Russia abroad. The RT isn't however a standard propaganda medium which improves any image like US 'Ameryka journal or Willis Conover on VOA used to do. Does this article define the goal?Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"to improve the image of Russia abroad" might be a stated goal but since every day something new happens, that is probably the wrong angle. It is necessary to have a counterweight to the western outlets who omit practically everything that does not fit into their aganda.

All media outlets have an agenda, since there's not so much money any more that you can make with them. The agenda is not pursued by inventing stories but by omitting those that do not fit into your agenda. Withholding a story makes it look in the public domain like it does not exist.

RT carries material that we do not find elsewhere. It is not invented propaganda like it was in East Berlin, but when you check it out with search engines you can find other networks, credible ones not blogs, who carry that news item. In addition to binning material that does not fit onto the agenda of the network's owner. there are also taboos that are adhered to by all networks worldwide. The code dislikes: Suicide reporting, questioning weapons spending in relation to social spending, publishing of secret service (e.g. KGB) dirt files of past leaders like Chancellor Kohl or present leaders like Angela Merkel, plight/homelessness of wounded veterans, veterans' suicides, questioning the validity and benefits of religiosity. Even though RT seems to obey this code like everyone else in this world, it is worthwhile checking them over to ascertain if there is an additional aspect. If anyone has doubts about the truth content, check it out. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RT (TV network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140827175105/http://www.theresident.net:80/category/the-resident-on-rt-2/ to http://www.theresident.net/category/the-resident-on-rt-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RT (TV network). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=458011#ixzz2CoOhEo9L

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)