Jump to content

Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

Disputed edits by Solnsta90

Solntsa90 I think you need to stop editing the article and talk about it some more. You seem to not understand several policies and your edits are not acceptable to me and no-doubt others. Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an entirely vitriolic personal attack I will not respond to, except to say that I'm sure my edits are acceptable to myself and no-doubt others. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that that source - which is generally reliable - is a "hit piece" is your own personal opinion. The question is whether or not the source satisfies criteria for WP:RS and yes, it does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek's revert of your edits, I was in the process of doing the same thing. I've now finished re-adding the bits I thought useful.Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I vehemently disagree, and call for a second opinion. volunteer Marek, to his credit with many good edits, is mighty involved with articles related to Russia and Ukraine, so I'd like an an editor (such as myself) of whom that isn't one of their primary topics of interest.Solntsa90 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You have added un-sourced and poorly sourced highly POV content to the article. You have added new info to the lead that isn't covered in the article, and not IMO significant enough to mention. Other edits seemed to be attempts to downplay criticism or just superfluous. There might have been the odd useful edit in there but they got lost in the crap. I hope someone comes along to offer a second opinion but if it is an experienced editor I doubt it will be an opinion you like. Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I did keep on bit you added [1], oh and of course now you've removed the criticism summary from the lede giving a carbon-copy justification that has been shown to be incorrect at least half-a-dozen times already! Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no justification for a criticism section in the lede, especially if a similar organisation like the BBC, DW, or Voice of America lacks a similar criticism section in its introduction, Why should RT have a criticism section, why should all the sub-sections be renamed with bias, and why should RT be an different from a similar organisation in the treatment of its material?

As for your tone, it is very rude and personal, and makes me wonder whether or not you have a neutral, level-enough head to actually be editing the article here on RT, since you seem to be taking a very strong personal interest in the outcome of how this article reads, to the point of being insulting and rude on a personal level. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no "criticism section in the lede". There is a summary of article content. And as pointed out a million times already, RT is NOT comparable to BBC, DW or VoA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Because you say so? Because direct competitors and rivals to RT say so? BBC World News, DW, and VoA are all state-funded broadcasters meant to project their spin on the world, the only difference being RT admits it in its charter, whereas the others do not (though the VoA in congressional legislation was always considered propaganda).

So again; Why are they different? Is that a matter of opinion? Because I certainly think it is. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Because, for starters, RT does not satisfy the criteria as laid out in WP:RS, while the others do. You should read that. It's not about the "ethnicity" of a source, it's not about whether a source receives state funding or not - it's about whether the source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (or to flip it, whether or not it's an obnoxious propaganda outlet whose primary purpose is misinformation). BBC, DW etc have this reputation. RT does not. Not even close.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's a summary of all the negative opinions and reflections on RT, not a summary of the article. Big Difference, it's almost as if you're out to paint RT as something other than a legitimate news organisation (which is most certainly is). Solntsa90 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

These questions have been discussed many times on this article talk page - please check its archives (above). Yes, it is a legitimate news organization because it operates under Russian law, just as TASS and Pravda were legitimate organizations. The summary does not tell that RT is an illegal organization, it tells "RT has been called a propaganda outlet for the Russian government[11][12][13] and its foreign policy[11][12][14][15] by news reporters,[16] including former RT reporters.[17][18][19] It has also been accused of spreading disinformation". That has been supported by multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The difference is simple. Competent news organizations understand that publishing obviously fabricated material and pretending the opinions of idiots are significant will only make them look very bad. In the case of state-funded broadcasters this also damages the image of the country that funds them. RT revels in this kind is behavior, so much so that people are asking if it is actually intended to fuel Putin's internal "look how much the west hates Russia" propaganda. All news organizations face criticism from people who don't like what they report, but it usually balances out with views from both sides of an augment that the coverage unfairly favors the other. As this article clearly shows RT is frequently and widely criticized for essentially one thing - fabricating the news to suit the Russian government. As have been expressed by many editors, many times it is correct to summarize the criticism in the lead in this case. If you have a problem with the content of other articles, you are discussing it at the wrong talkpage. I fully support returning that section to its previous location as soon a possible. And Solntsa90 it doesn't matter how many people turn up here saying the don't agree, all that counts is what it says in reliable sources. Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
On the subject of reliable sources I imagine Columbia Journalism School's RT watch project will come in handy.Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
What about this Daily Beast article? Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A tumblr page that was last updated 8 months ago? really? Completely unverifiable, not to mention, tumblr is not considered a suitable source here at Wikipedia. Also, admin locked article for a reason: he wants us to set new precedent, not to argue back and forth about what is otherwise out-of-date material (I mean, the reference of OFCOM is at least 2 years old). Solntsa90 (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think Tumblr and Daily Beast are more suitable than academic studies and legitimate resources on the topic, I don't know what to say other than that this may take a while. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What are these "academic studies" and "legitimate resources" you refer to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism's study of RT's output isn't academic enough for you,[2][3] I'd like to hear what is? Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this research paper on RT's YouTube operation by Elizabeth Nelson, Robert Orttung, and Anthony Livshen? Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, according to the first source "By pretending to be real news, RT is much better than your grandfather’s Soviet propaganda". True. Actually, the expenses by Russian TV are now significantly higher than they used to be. This is because some "events" are staged, very much like movie fiction. Making movies costs a lot more money than reporting. That is what some Russian pundits tell.My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: a US foreign policy think tank (probably the most legitimate source you have, but still lacking), a tumblr page, and the daily beast are your sources, correct? No actual studies? No actual metrics taken? Just opinion and vitriol, describing RT as "not your father's propaganda"?

Also, the Ponars Eurasia source never calls RT propaganda--it just says it pushes a 'pro-Kremlin Ideology', no different than VoA pushes an American ideology and BBC pushes "British Values".

Seeing as RT admits as much on it's "about us" page, that doesn't warrant an inclusion as a propaganda case. The sources that stand aren't strong enough to condemn RT as propaganda. My condolences if that was what you wished for. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally Marek, I noticed you never answered what made RT different from the BBC World Service, DW, or VOA, all external broadcasters with the intent on shaping public opinion. You haven't told me how RT is any different from these organisations, except that they're Russian and in a lot of people's minds, that just conjures up biased stereotypes of authoritarianism. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did answer that, although now that someone split the discussion and moved things around I don't know where it went.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Here it's right above. You just didn't bother reading it because you appear to have a problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that, while My very best wishes is editing this article here to remove mentions of the CIA from the lede of an article on Voice of America, he is vigorously and simultaneously attempting to introduce the same bias he's attempting to get rid of in a pro-American station's article into the RT News page. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my edit on another page. Someone reverted it already. You are using false equivalence argument. For example, Soviet democracy was not democracy, and newspaper Pravda (literally "the truth") was not the truth. Neither that was a reliable news source. By the same token, RT TV is something entirely different from RFE/RL or any other reliable news source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


"What are these "academic studies" and "legitimate resources" you refer to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)"

You're the one who wants to call RT propaganda, you find them. They should be out there, if your position is indeed the correct one. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who implied that there were some "academic studies" and "legitimate sources" which contradicted the current text in the article. I asked you to please actually provide these. Apparently there are no such "academic studies" and "legitimate sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Solntsa90 has commented on my talk page, I think I ought to summarise my position here: I believe that legitimate criticism of the RT network should stay in the article, although I would say that the amount of text given to criticism in the lead of this article before it was moved further down was undue. However, I would not be against a sentence or two noting alleged propaganda issues, as well its airing of conspiracy theories (i.e. general controversies).

We should be wary when using sources which would otherwise be considered reliable, as there may be conflicts of interest in their coverage: geopolitics, business competition, xenophobia, etc etc. However, it's clear to me and the majority of editors here find that most reliable sources claim RT is not equivalent to DW, VOA, the BBC or other similar state broadcasters (all of which have their criticisms too). Unfortunately, the personal opinion that any of us have as editors isn't really relevant, and Wikipedia's policies state that the article should reflect what is published in the majority of English-language reliable sources, which lends itself to inherent bias; it is not our place as editors to "right great wrongs". There also seems to be significant POV-pushing by editors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by the talk page. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 18:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Having passed by this page on occasion previously and never really commented as far as I can remember, I would just second some of that. Yes RT has been controversial in some respects, and there's evidence of that – eg Ofcom issues here in the UK, regular criticism in other media outlets, reporter resignations etc – but reading the page itself and the discussion above, there's far too much reliance on what appear to be interested editors citing interested and marginal sources in a bid to "prove" how terrible RT is. Half the current Criticism section is just vague negative comment sourced to op-eds and hostile politicians. You can do that for any media outlet, especially a state-sponsored one, and ten times over for one from a country with which Anglophone countries currently have a fractious relationship. Trawling the web for negative comment, stacking a page with it and then defending its inclusion on the basis of "it's in an RS" is common practice on controversial pages, but rather transparently sidesteps questions of overall balance and the contexts in which sources are being used. Such content certainly should not automatically be flagged up in the lead. Established media outlet X may be a "reliable" source in WP terms for reporting of events; commentary from it about a rival media outlet is not necessarily. There must be better, more objective sources, preferably academic or quasi-academic ones, that offer an overall appraisal or analysis of the station and the issues around it on a more objective and disinterested basis. N-HH talk/edits 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Given the huge size of the "criticism" section on this page, briefly summarizing its content in introduction is hardly "undue". Most of the quoted comments are made by political scientists or other experts, not by rival news outlets. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This is completely wrong. There are 18 - eighteen - sources provided for the claims in that paragraph. These "marginal sources" include Columbia Journalism Review (you wanted academic, you got it1), Der Spiegel, CBS News, The Guardian, the BBC, CNN, Business Insider, Time, Accuracy in Media, and others. So, excuse me if I put it in plain language: Are you fucking kidding me? Marginal sources???? "Controversial in some respects"??? "Trawling the web for negative comment"??? This info comes from a wide variety of reliable sources. It is trivial to find criticism of RT. No, the situation is NOTHING LIKE with other state-sponsored (sic) outlets. The sources in the article *already are* the objective sources, so your demands are disingenuous at best.
Additionally, this issue has been discussed to death, here and at WP:RSN, with the version by Galassi [4] being the consensus one. If you (or Solntsa, or whatever drive-by-throw-away-newly-created account shows up here to edit war) want to change that then it's up to you to get new consensus and to show that it has changed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Finding RS with negative content about RT doesn't require trawling. @Solntsa90 and anyone else: that the criticism should be mentioned in the lead really isn't up for debate, there is far too much RS out there clearly demonstrating the widely view, and every conceivable argument against has been tried and failed. The text we have makes it very clear who is making the accusations and unless someone suggests a better version it will be returning when the article is unlocked.Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes and if you return it when there is still unverified, non-neutral information in the article, I'll revert it and get it locked again as fast as I did the first time. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Between Trappedinburnley and User talk:Volunteer Marek ("other drive-by accounts"? my account is a year old) being extremely rude and insulting throughout with name-calling and insinuations, I think that they're no longer editing in a manner of WP:GF and I give up trying to respond in kind; Rather, they seem to have an agenda (especially Marek, who if you look at his contributions, edits a lot of articles on Russia to reflect a certain POV) to the point where they're getting angry and belligerent.

The reason why the article was locked in the first place is because we were told to discuss the changes to the page, not to constantly reference old precedent in an effort to push our POV.

Finally, contrary to TrappedInBurnley saying that "there is no debate" about the inclusion of such content on the article's lede--that's why the page was locked, so we can freshly debate this. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and speaking about your "18 sources", most of them are bunk. A tumblr page purported to be by undergrad students not updated in 8 months, Accuracy in Media (who's own wiki page says they have a "Conservative" editorial stance), etc. are not unbiased sources. They're meant to push a certain policy, idea, etc. and aren't independent studies about the nature of RT.

BBC? I don't remember BBC ever declaring RT Propaganda, just reporting that Ofcom warned them of violating neutrality--vastly different.

I'm sure all the rest of your sources fail under similar scrutiny. It's impossible to find a source from an academic, neutral, non-biased study or institution, because RT isn't a propaganda channel anymore than BBC World or Voice of America are. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

AGF isn't a suicide pact. This article has had a constant stream of throw-away-single-purpose accounts coming here to mess with it. You may not be one (and I never said you were) but the article did get locked because of actions by such an account (which is actually why it should've been semi-protected not full protected). And when you dismiss obviously reliable sources (even if you don't like Columbia Journalism Review and AiM, there's still The Guardian, Time, BBC, etc. etc. etc.) you are pretty much using up the reserves of good faith that editors can muster. So NO. "rest of your sources" do not "Fail". You just made that up. To push POV, to derail the discussion on talk page, to be generally disruptive. Your own opinions about BBC World are noted, but are irrelevant. If you think that BBC is "as much propaganda as RT" then in addition to a serious reality check, you need to bring that up at WP:RSN. Except that has already been done and it was laughed out of the noticeboard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
And this isn't a tumblr page, so will you please stop making stuff up? Neither is this, or this or this or the dozen other sources that were in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
And of course it's ridiculously trivial to find additional sources which say the same thing. Just a two minute search [5], [6], [7], [8] etc etc. You literally cannot go on the internet and look for info on RT without stumbling on sources which call it propaganda. You may not like what reliable sources say about RT, but you cannot ignore it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Amid all the ad-homs about "throwaway accounts", comments such as "are you fucking kidding?" and your citing yet more op-eds and media commentary, you seem to have missed the basic point I made about objectivity, context and balance when it comes to sourcing, while simply asserting the objectivity of your preferred sources and viewpoint. And I didn't say mainstream media sources per se are marginal – especially for news reporting – but was suggesting that the named writers involved often were, as well as not being disinterested. I was indeed suggesting though that a student-project tumblr page, as cited with great fanfare in the discussion above, is absolutely a marginal and non-objective source. Never mind, no one comes to pages like this for measured, rational or open-minded discussion. N-HH talk/edits 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Really all you're doing is making excuses and some back-pedaling. You called obviously reliable sources such as New York Times, the Guardian, etc. "marginal". When it was pointed out to you what these sources actually were (I'm guessing you didn't actually bother looking at them in the first place) you began to now claiming that you didn't mean that those institutions were marginal only that... the people who wrte for these newspapers are "marginal". Ohhhhh-kkkkkkay. And what does "disinterested" have to do with anything? And what proof or argument do you have that any of these writers are not "disinterested"? Are qualifications about "disinterested" in WP:RS policy? No? Then why bring it up except as a rhetorical excuse?
And as has been repeatedly pointed out, the tumblr page is NOT the source being used to source the information in the article. I actually don't know where that came from, I think somebody mentioned it on the talk page or something and now ya'll are busy pretending that the article is sourced to tumblr stuff. It's not. Please cut it out. Those kind of tricks are fairly transparent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
All I hear is no source is good enough to say something you disagree with. Solnsta90 wanted more academic sources, so I brought them. The tumblr page: A long term study created by graduates as part of course at the probably the top journalism school on Earth? Obviously "marginal and non-objective". An in-depth analysis of RTs YouTube activity by Prof Robert Orttung and assistants at George Washington University? Published through a "US foreign policy think tank", so no. Obviously we can't use ex-staff because they're involved. No experts working in the media because they're rivals. No-one working for a (non-Russian) government for the same reason. Nothing from anywhere with links to someone Russia has declared a criminal, or a country they've fallen-out with. I don't think we've done it yet but I presume if I tried to cite a book not freely available on the web, that would be a problem too? RT op-eds on the other hand? Well I'm sure they're fine?
The sources we have are the sources we have! If you don't like one then you're going to have to bring others to contradict it. If people wish to add content I don't agree with, based on sources of similar quality to what we're already using in the article and not twist it into something it is not, I will tolerate it. If something significant enough turns up to justify altering the lead I'll accept it. All I expect is competent Wikipedia editing. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I find it amusing (to say the least) that the same Volunteer Marek who, in the Human rights in Poland article's talk page describes the Norwegian human rights organisation Human Rights House as "WP:SPS and not representative", does not take exception to any of the sources cited here. Göndul (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, gee, what is the difference? That source is a self published source. These sources are not self published sources. There you have only one cherry picked source. Here we have, now, more than twenty sources, which represent a very wide variety of institutions. It's not that hard is it?
Now, you want to tell us which account is your master account sock puppet? You had like ten edits when you showed up here, you're obviously not new to Wikipedia (pinging users, formatting refs, you know how to use automated editing tools, and you know Wikipedia lingo and nomenklature), and you immediately jump into an argument on this particular page. In other words, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to take anything you say seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Tumblr Page was SUPPOSEDLY (as there is no verification) created by undergrads at Columbia School of Journalism. Why is it so hard to find an abstract from a SCIENTIFIC study calling RT propaganda? Solntsa90 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making shit up about the tumblr source. There's more than fifteen sources provided in the article. I don't even know if that tumblr page is even used in the article or was it just briefly mentioned here on talk. Additional multitude of academic and other sources have been provided here. Drop it. You're being deceitful. You're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games which is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, I have numerous reliable sources. I see that lacking any valid argument, you resort to wild accusations and ad hominem attacks. I will tell you the same as I told Ymblanter above: I don't know Sointsa90 at all, but my edit happened to be removed along with his. Again, I find it ironic that no source is good enough for you in Human rights in Poland but here, so long as they support your POV, you find them all impeccable. Göndul (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright, let's see these "numerous reliable sources". So far I have seen zero reliable sources and last time I checked zero is less than "numerous". And it's not true that "no source is good enough" on ... a completely different article, it's just that ONE source there is not good enough. And as far as what you call "ad hominen", well if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it's a WP:DUCK. I find it notable that you haven't even bothered to deny that you're not a sock puppet (I guess it's sort of obvious anyway).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are numerous an concordant highly reliable sources, but let's discuss that in the proper talk page. As for your accusation, it is a very wellknown tactics in politics: you launch a wild accusation at a politician (let' say you accuse him having an account in Switzerland) then, every time he wants to intervene in the debate, you ask him to deny the accusation. Result: he cannot speak about anything else. As for my learning too quickly to use Wikipedia, it might have taken you years but I don't see any difficulty. We do not all have the same learning curve. Göndul (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to note that, quite predictably, Göndul was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is RT unlike Voice of America, BBC World Service, France24, DW, etc. and why should it have such heavy criticism in the lede?

This is going nowhere. It is reliably established that RT is biased and used for propaganda purposes. That is what the sources say. If you genuinely conclude, based on the consensus of independent sources, that RT is of a standing comparable to the BBC World Service then you are probably not competent to edit the article. Prolonging this discussion will lead nowhere other than riskign sanctions for one or more of the editors involved. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why? I've asked at least a dozen times why, and haven't got an answer, so why not a separate sub-section? BBC World Service is probably the least propagandic of them all, but Voice of America was such propaganda, that they weren't even allowed to broadcast it to American citizens until recently.

So why the exception for RT, unless a group of editors made a personal decision that they didn't like RT and therefore must make these edits? Solntsa90 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've already answered that (and no you didn't ask that "at least a dozen times"), then answered it again, then pointed you to the place where it has been answered. If you can't be bothered to read the talk page or if you're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, that's not my problem.
And this has nothing to do with "personal decision" or "personal dislike". It's simply reflecting what reliable sources say about RT. Again, if you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT what reliable sources say, that's not our problem. We've gone over this over and over and over again, here and at various noticeboards and the version which you started messing with (with help from single-purpose-newly-created-throw-away accounts) was the consensus version. If you want to implement changes then you need to persuade others and change that consensus. To do that you need better arguments than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I have already answered also [9]. As I've said previously to others, arguing that other articles don't do something so this one shouldn't is flawed. I'd refer you to Criticism and controversies section specifically my comment [10].Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
A Criticism section which many people might think rather overblown, as it happens, and based mostly on comment pieces in other media decrying the station as propaganda rather than objective, disinterested analysis. You think you couldn't fill the BBC page with such content, sourced to "reliable sources" such as the Spectator, Telegraph etc? You wouldn't get away with that exactly of course, even though, as it happens, the BBC has a whole page dedicated to criticism of it, which is just as dumb and cack-handed as the approach being taken here, speciously being presented as "based on reliable sources". N-HH talk/edits 11:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Please check the policy. All these sources are absolutely reliable, meaning there are no doubts that publication by person X in Telegraph was indeed a publication by this person. Should something published by person X be included and given certain weight? Yes, if this person is a well known expert on the subject. And it does not matter that much where she or he had published. Once again, authors are people, not the outlets or journals. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree and co-sign what N-HH says. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a SCIENTIFIC study done by a truly independent media group (like Ofcom, for example) that has studied whether or not RT is propaganda? I think at the moment, that is the only such source that would be valid for such an extravagant, bolsterious, far-out WP:WORLDVIEW violation of a claim. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You have previously edited the article to say "The United Kingdom's government media regulator Ofcom" [11] implying they are not independent. As it says Ofcom are a regulator i.e. they police the UK's (fairly light) broadcast regulations. They do not decide if a broadcaster is propaganda. I think we both know that no matter what anyone brings it won't be satisfactory to you. But guess what? That doesn't matter, we got by before you got involved and I'm sure we'll be just fine after.Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Demanding "SCIENTIFIC study" (sic) is ridiculous - it's not what policy requires and it's not even clear what that would be in this context. All we need is reliable sources which we have a plethora of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
And really, it's not that hard to find academic studies which say the same thing as The Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, and all the other sources we already have. For example: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you just throw sources at people hoping nobody will read them? I literally read the entirety of your last source, "THE LEGITIMIZATION OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE THROUGH CONSTRUCTED EXTERNAL THREATS: RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA DURING THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS "and it doesn't mention the channel RT even a single time. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. "Thus, during the television program “Genocide in Eastern Ukraine”, screened on the 13th of July 2014, Russia’s propaganda network RT accused Ukraine of carrying out beheadings, rape, ethnic cleansing, systematic genocide, of using weapons of mass destruction, and of engineering international conspiracies – to name just a few atrocities". So much for that. It seems not that I "throw sources at people hoping nobody will read them" but rather you have a problem with actually reading the sources provided. What you're doing here is PROVING to everyone that you do indeed have a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Neither does your source [18]. "Mass-Mediated Ukrainian Conflict". It doesn't mention RT or Russian external broadcasters to the rest of the world at all. Have you even read your own sources? Solntsa90 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Pages 55 and 56. Read the goddamn source before you start throwing out false accusations. I'm getting sick and tired of this. It's obvious that no matter what and how many sources you're presented with, you will persist in your disruption.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Source [16] is an opinion analysis and cites no studies about whether or not RT is a propaganda at all. source [17] is a military policy analysis. As for a book titled 'Putin's Propaganda Machine', I'm not certain you are aware of what constitutes a trustworthy source. Have you familiarised yourself WP:CITE (and I truly ask you that, not trying to be insulting)? Solntsa90 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

All these sources are reliable, your opinions not withstanding. The book is from an independent think tank. The other sources are academic. Look, I am not playing this idiotic game where I waste my time finding reliable sources over and over again just so you can dismiss them out of hand or pretend dishonestly that they don't exist. A shitload of reliable sources - including academic ones - have been provided. Yes yes yes, we know, it's all an evil western conspiracy. Too bad. You either actually read the sources provided and refer to them per policy and provide some serious sources yourself or this conversation is settled. You don't get to waste other people's time just because you WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As for me changing it to state that Ofcom is a media regulator--what of it? That's what they do, they regulate the media in the United Kingdom.. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is technically possible that I could have made myself clearer, as you wrote it I'd have thought you could figure it out, but no. The key change you made was to add the word "government" to the existing sentence. In case you don't remember it was part of your 'the government are trying to shut us down' series of edits that started the edit-war. But at the same time I think this conversation has run its course, you've brought next-to-nothing useful just ridiculous claims and opinions. Unless you can bring some new source to discuss I think I'm done talking to you. Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A single reference to RT as a propaganda network in an off-the-cuff remark doesn't equal a valid introspection by a legitimate, 3rd party body exploring whether or not RT is an independent network, or a propaganda thinktank.

You have a great propensity for attempting to pass off opinion articles as unbiased, I'll give you that. And the Ukraine source you posted STILL doesn't mention RT.

Where are the studies? Where are the university studies? Where is the scientific analysis? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So let's see - first you claim the source doesn't mention RT at all. You get called on that and I quote exactly where it is mentioned. So you back track and now you're trying to pretend that "oh, it's just an off the cuff remark". Nonsense, the whole damn source is about Kremlin propaganda in Russian state run media so, no, it's not a "off-the-cuff remark". Do you really think other people are big enough morons to fall for these kinds of tactics?
Like I said. It's clear that no matter what source is shown to you, you will come up with SOME bullshit excuse for why it shouldn't be used. And like I said, I'm sick of it. I've presented more than twenty sources. You have done nothing except make stuff up. This isn't how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The source ""THE LEGITIMIZATION OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE THROUGH CONSTRUCTED EXTERNAL THREATS: RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA DURING THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS " makes no mention of RT, at least in the abstract; and the article is otherwise behind a paywall, so I don't know what you're trying to do.

Where are the studies, the unbiased university studies that show RT is propaganda? It's not like there aren't places that just study media all day, creating scientific data out of what they gather from the ether of the media.

Why do you keep coming up with opinion articles? Why can't you find something that has more substance than a passing blurb referring to something ONCE in an entire article as a 'propaganda station', then you give an opinion analysis as scientific data! That is quite slanderous, and subject even to libel.

Finally, I think you're way too emotionally invested in this article; Given your history of editing Russia-related articles, I think that is troublesome that you're so invested in editing this particular article. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I find Volunteer Marek's edits to be unemotional and soberly realistic. Attempts to whitewash RT won't wash here.--Galassi (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
These are "university studies". You're just calling them "opinion" based on your own personal WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And yes, they do talk about RT (as pointed out explicitly above) or Russia Today which you'd see if you actually bothered to read the articles (not just the abstract).
And btw, my edits, commments and editing history are fine, unless you're accusing me of something. "Given your history of editing Russia-related articles" definitely sounds like you are, so at least have the guts to be explicit about it, rather than engaging in this weak ass insinuation.
Oh, and you're now making legal threats. I think it's pretty much time you got a block here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • We discussed this before, but I think it's still missing on the page: according to many sources (like here or here), RT TV was actively "helping Russian military and intelligence operations" meaning its involvement in active measures and hybrid warfare. This is one of the differences from Western news outlets which are usually criticized only for having some political biases, such as "liberal" or "conservative". My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

RFERL is the American East-Europe equivalent to RT, and I've been cited for using Politico as a source before.

Once again, where are the scientific metrics and academic studies? Solntsa90 (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep citing [WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT], Marek, but in reality, you haven't given a single source that is a university study or scientific source, despite saying so above--Upon closer scrutiny, all of your "studies" turn out to be opinion analysis and author polemic from places like Politico and The Daily Beast. And of course, I expected Galassi and My Very Best Wishes to agree with you: Their edits are the ones I reverted in the first place. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about this page? Which my edits did you revert, exactly? My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally, what is a "weak-ass insinuation" to you? I fail to see any "weak-ass insinuations" coming from me on my part. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

" I think you're way too emotionally invested in this article; Given your history of editing Russia-related articles" <- that right there. I am neither emotionally invested nor is there anything wrong with my editing history, which is far far far more extensive and longer than yours. I've been here for ten years and have tens of thousands of edits. I've written Featured articles, Good articles and DYKs. What makes your insults "weak ass" is that you're not even willing to come out and make the accusations explicitly but rather resort to vague, unspecificed, weaselly suggestions that I'm doing something wrong. Which in addition to being a personal attack is a pretty cowardly way to personally attack someone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
"Nor is there anything wrong with my editing history"! My, my, Volunteer Marek does have a short memory, or assumes others do. However plenty know about his very active involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List scandal, a group of editors who were engaged in manipulating Wikipedia articles to add anti-Russia content and manipulating Wikipedia procedures in order to get rid of any editors who opposed the group's aims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
First of all, you're full of it. Second of all, apparently an account created in March 2014 to make highly POV edits on certain topics is quite familiar with some obscure ArbCom case from 2009. I call bullshit. Care to tell us who YOU are sockpuppeting for? (and yes, I know there's lots of accusations of sockpuppetry flying around, but hey, so far they've all turned out to be true, Mr. WP:DUCK).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I won't say anything about the topic, since I am not familiar with it. I just want to say I am shocked by the hostile rhetoric (I think it's pretty much time you got a block here) and the clear attempts to WP: RAILROAD an editor who makes very reasonable requests for university studies or scientific sources. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Reasonable request should align with the policies. The request you mention contradicts the policies and the guidelines, in particular, WP:RS, and is thus unreasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but their "reasonable requests" have been accommodated. There is *already* more than a dozen reliable sources in the article. I've provided close to a dozen more here on talk page, including academic studies. But that editor keeps moving the goal posts or coming up with ridiculous reasons to dismiss sources. That is the quintessence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Oh, and this discussion has been had multiple times previously and we're not exactly covering new ground here. All that is happening is that that editor is wasting our time. And I don't know about you, but personally I don't like having my time wasted by someone who's not acting in good faith anyway. It's disruptive and it is sanctionable (and making legal threats in particular is subject to a block).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
While I wish I could say I'm shocked that yet another shiny new account has appeared to throw a policy at us, I'm not. Assuming developments from this ANI stick, it seems the debate is coming to an end. As I'm sure others are, I'm frustrated by the waste of time and it seems a shame not to use some of this research. So I plan to work on this article in the near future.Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have unarchived this thread. It seems to me to be about an ongoing content issue, the issue does not seem to have been settled, and I see no justification for closing it. If as Trappedinburnley says the debate is coming to an end (in the sense that nobody has anything more to add) it can still be left as a normal discussion thread and eventually archived like any other ordinary discussion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And I have again had to unarchive this thread. It seems that there are certain editors who not only want to close the thread, but by archiving it, want to indicate that the matter is settled for all time. This thread is not an RfC or in any way different from every other other discussion on this talk page so it is not appropriate to discriminate its content from that of all other discussion threads by closing it. In all seven archives there is only a single example of a thread being closed and then collapse archived - and that was because the discussion in it was not a content issue. This discussion, regardless of the validity or not of the points made, is clearly about an article content issue. If the discussion has reached the end of its active life, then it simply ceases to be added to. There is no need to close and archive it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
If multiple editors are archiving this thread it's probably for a good reason. I'm guessing it's to preempt pointless trolling like your own comment from 16:10 1/21 above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Mouthpiece of the Kremlin"

@Zumoarirodoka, twice now you have changed the a heading in the Propaganda and related issues sub-section of Criticism from Mouthpiece of the Kremlin to Relationship with Russian government. I did not revert it by accident, but there may be a better choice. "Mouthpiece of the Kremlin" means that the Russian government speak into it and out come their words recreated into news stories. "Relationship with Russian government" and "biased in favor of the Russian government" do not carry the same meaning. Biased is what RT admits to being (because they argue everyone else is too), what it is accused of is worse. While I research new content on this issue, do you have any suggestions to resolve this problem? Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that, but all this is alleged, so WP:NPOV still needs to be kept in mind. I think that "mouthpiece of the Kremlin" is way too POV to be used in a subheading personally, although the opening sentence probably could be changed back to "mouthpiece of the Kremlin"; I shouldn't have changed that as that is what the sources allege (although we both agree that there could be a better choice of words there). If anyone reads that section, then it's clear to any reasonable reader/editor that this bias is not like the biases of other networks, so I don't think it's parroting their line that they're biased in X direction because all other stations are biased in Y direction. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 17:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We're talking about sub-section heading inside Reception\Criticism\Propaganda and related issues. That it contains allegations should be obvious, we are reporting the POV of people whose views could be reasonably considered significant. The primary concern is that the title accurately reflects the content of the section. However as I didn't particularly like it before and have other issues with that part of the article, I'm going to read some sources and wait to see if anyone else has an opinion.Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
My memory has caught up with me! There was a previous discussion about this (Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 6#Wikipedia Mouthpiece of the State Department), @Zumoarirodoka you wouldn't happen to know that user? Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Trappedinburnley: What exactly do you mean by/are you implying with that? I have no idea who Γνῶθι σεαυτόν is, never met them or even heard of them until just now. And as with any discussion on this page (or so it seems so far), that didn't really address the issue of the wording properly – just a shouting match and plenty of false analogies thrown in for good measure.
I do agree that it's difficult to strike a balance. Report what the reliable sources say about its propaganda and association with the regime by all means, but stand-alone phrasing such as "mouthpiece of the Kremlin" as subheadings should definitely be avoided IMO. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that such a heading, even if it comes as a sub-heading under a "Criticism" section, is inappropriate. That would have been rather obvious, one would have thought. Beyond that, dedicated "Criticism" sections as a whole are deprecated anyway; such content – assuming it is cited to authoritative and ideally disinterested sources (see debates above, now conveniently and unilaterally shut down) – should be incorporated with more coherence and balance across the page in relevant themed sections. As for the constant sniping about other editors, that really needs to stop. There's a poisonous atmosphere on this page, being propagated by long-term editors with fairly transparent biases and objectives here, presuming to take the moral high ground about policy etc while actually twisting and misapplying WP rules and standards, and insulting and intimidating other editors. N-HH talk/edits 10:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Whether Criticism sections are "deprecated" or not depends on the topic. There's no general rule, except perhaps for BLPs. And even there, it depends on the person. And please, don't make personal attacks or use the talk page as a forum for personal opinions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been giving it some thought. Options I've considered include returning to "Mouthpiece of the Kremlin" or changing to "Propaganda bullhorn" or "Distortion machine". However I currently think plain old "Disinformation" is probably the best choice. It will require some modification to the content, but it will better connect to the lede, which contains four refs to get started with. I feel most of the content is suitable for that title even if it doesn't explicitly mention the word, and I'm sure finding a few more sources won't be difficult. Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is disinformation. I just found this from here... My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
While I could only find a couple of RT mentions in that one, it seems the disinformation review is now a weekly product. This rather interesting briefing gives more info.Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be the site to read more disinformation reviews EU vs disinfo Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Trapped in Burnley, when you provide sources it would be helpful if you named the source and pointed to the text that supports what you claim. The source is the European External Action Service, which is the diplomatic wing of the EU government. The only reference its November 2015 briefing provides for misinformation is a "Spanish-language RT article (since withdrawn)

speculated that the US may have been to blame for spreading the Ebola virus." It actually was not a news article but an opinion piece published in November 2014.[18] It seems odd that they would have to go back a year and pick an opinion piece - that had been withdrawn - in Spanish RT rather than just look at today's website and pick out the five or six most outrageous news articles. This is just cherry-picking. I could find third party sources that say certain presenters on Fox News Channel and other U.S. networks have promoted conspiracy theories Obama's place of birth, health care death panels, FEMA concentration camps, etc., yet we still consider Fox News a reliable source.

It might be better to make the point the EU article does: "RT brands itself as a platform for provocative and original perspectives (its slogan: 'Question More'), raising sometimes legitimate concerns – for example over fracking, austerity policies, the EU's democratic deficit, NSA surveillance – that resonate with a heterogeneous mix of environmentalists, civil liberties campaigners, eurosceptics, far-right parties, and various disaffected groups. Its reports feature the Occupy Wall Street movement, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and Scottish Nationalists – precisely the kind of dissenting voices whose counterparts within Russia are ignored by the Russian domestic media."

TFD (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent summary from a reliable (if not exactly neutral) source. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 23:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It was a response to the previous post, rather than supporting what I claim. I thought I already explained that I think there are sources already in the article and the content of the section would broadly fit a heading of "Disinformation". Also the EU vs Disinfo link is published by EEAS, the briefing is created by the European Parliamentary Research Service [19] for European Parliament staff. Although not suitable for the section we're discussing, if you want to work it into the article I won't object. It reminds me of RT vs fracking and useful idiots, but those subjects will have to be for another time, I've got enough to do at the moment. And FWIW, although Fox IMO is a lot, lot better than RT, I don't really consider it reliable. Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything in their news reporting that differs factually from that in CNN[20] or PBS[21]? TFD (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It's beyond me that you can't see it, but as I said, "another time". Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry y'all, but I can't let you have a section called "Disinformation" or something like that. We cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that this or that network spreads lies or whatever. You can call something "Accusations of" or some such ugly thing, but this isn't something you can state as a fact. ("Controversy" sections are deprecated but like someone--Marek?--said, it depends on the context; in this case, I doubt it would be hard to get agreement on it.) I'd love to expand on this, but the ZiL is pulling up right now, and a night of state-sponsored fun is about to begin. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Trappedinburnley and Zumoarirodoka that EU source above [22] is good, and it does provide the appropriate context. For example, it tells in its Summary: Coverage in Russia's largely state controlled domestic media bears the hallmarks of a sophisticated disinformation campaign. Internationally, multilingual news channel RT is Russia's main media tool, projecting the Kremlin's narrative to a global audience. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks My very best wishes. And Drmies has pretty much conveyed what I was trying to say all along in a much better way; stating in Wikipedia's voice that the RT network is a "mouthpiece of the Kremlin" is completely unacceptable, so having that as the subheading is inappropriate and unencyclopaedic. I also admitted that I was perhaps too hasty in changing the first sentence (as it was discussing allegations), but I still think that it is contentious wording (unless "mouthpiece of the Kremlin" is a direct quote from one of the sources, in which case it should be in quotation marks), and as other users have found issue with that wording it's probably best to change it anyway. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
"Mouthpiece"...such a powerful word... Drmies (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by Drmies, always nice to see you. However this time I'm a little confused. If you say "Disinformation" is not going to happen then that's good enough for me. I don't want to add "Accusations of" to every subheading in that section. Nor do I want to spend the next couple of years edit-warring my way through integrating the criticism into the rest of the article. Surely there must be a succinct and acceptable title that means 'accusations of fabrication/distortion for the benefit of the Russian government'? If not maybe the answer lies in removing that subheading completely? Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the current phrasing fine? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If RT was just biased I wouldn't be here for a start. Governments, academics and journalists wouldn't care about it. Everyone is biased, fabrication/disinformation is the most serious crime in journalism.Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I personally don't have much of a problem with the current set of titles. "Propaganda" isn't a very bad word for me. I just wanted to say ... well, what I said. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

OK I've been looking at the history. The opening sentence in that section was originally created in Jan 2014 [23] before the split into the current sections. "Mouthpiece of the Kremlin" was the result of a later modification. [24] As it is a commonly used description in the press, I had been assuming that was ref'd content that had become separated in the reorganization. The section title obviously followed. I didn't really like it because I didn't think a lot of readers would clearly understand what it means. I don't like "Relationship with Russian government" because it's too vague (IMO it would be more suited to the "Treatment of Putin and Medvedev" section). But I admit I was not aware that section titles are included as stating in Wikipedia's voice, which seems to be making it difficult for it to be as clear as I would like. As the section doesn't require an opening sentence, it is effectively an unreferenced claim, and the rest of content would be fine without the subheading (making it part of the "Propaganda and related issues" section). I propose we just remove both. Zumoarirodoka do you (or anyone else) have a problem with that? Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: Sounds good to me. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 21:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Your proposal definitely gets a big "yes" !vote from me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
All right, as I doubt anyone else will care I'm going to do that, I can always be reverted. Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:16, 28 January 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)

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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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:

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

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Mistake in the article

In article:

Actually, this list includes news agency Rossiya Segodnya(="Russia Today"), not RT TV network. See cited sources: [1][2] 94.45.129.180 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Перечень системообразующих организаций, утвержденный Правительственной комиссией по повышению устойчивости развития российской экономики [List of systemically important institutions approved by the Government Commission on Sustainable Development of the Russian Economy] (in Russian). government.ru. Archived from the original (DOC) on December 27, 2008. Retrieved March 18, 2015.
  2. ^ "Правительство РФ приняло перечень системообразующих организаций". РБК.
Thanks! I've removed that sentence and sources from the article in this edit. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I already reverted this once because Rossiya Segodnya news agency wasn't created until 2013, and of course in 2008 RT was called (and still is widely known as) Russia Today. Now I'm going to revert it again.Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
"According to a report on the RT news channel, Rossiya Segodnya is "in no way related" to the RT news channel despite the similarity in name (RT was known as Russia Today prior to its rebranding in 2009).[1] However, a report by the BBC states that it "seems likely [...] that [Rossiya Segodnya] will complement the work of the state-funded foreign-language TV station, RT."[7] On 31 December 2013, Margarita Simonyan was appointed editor-in-chief of the news agency, as well as being RT's news channel editor-in-chief. She will serve in both positions concurrently.[8]".--Galassi (talk) 21:17, 5 March 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)
You hav ealso an agenda - you believe in a world conspiracy. Please prove your theory.Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

award

https://www.rt.com/news/341009-webby-social-media-oscars/ SaintAviator lets talk 23:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate to call it "propaganda" in the lede

I don't think it's appropriate in the for an encyclopedia to POV push the idea that RT is propaganda all the way up to the last paragraph of the lede. Unless it's CLEARLY propaganda and there's no disputing it, that kind of information belongs lower in the article, under a "Controversy" type of heading. I watch RT news as well as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and several other online outlets and while they all have their own slant and bias, I don't think any of them qualify for actual "propaganda" status. Calling RT News propaganda in the lede feels "propagandaish" to me, as that allegation is thrown wildly around the internet for ALL news sources. And encyclopedia should have higher standards than that. If it's propaganda, prove it and give that assertion the full paragraph (or more) that it deserves and not a lot of over-used hyperlinked to questionable, biased and refutable sources. It wrong as it is, with the simple assertion in the lede, for readability reasons, as the assertion does not call into question whether or not RT News is "propaganda", but instead it calls into question whether or not wikipedia is being used to disseminate propaganda.66.25.171.16 (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the archives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I considered the possibility that this was the end-result of a long discussion. I don't think it matters. 2 + 2 does not equal 5, even if 100 people agree that it does. I'm an experienced wikipedia user and occasional editor, and I came here to this article for the 1st time ever and instead of being able to read the article, I stumbled over this problem of making the assertion that "RT News is propaganda" in the lede. Either do it or don't do it, and it doesn't matter how many people arrived at "consensus" in the cumbersome and time consuming and technologically deficient and backwards "Discussion Pages". The output of that discussion is still wrong, and it will remain wrong until someone fixes the article. As an aside, and as an American, I'd like to say that this article perfectly illustrates how and why a "strongman" type of government is in some ways superior to democracy. This article's flaws prove the point; that groups of people can frequently agree upon something that is completely wrong. Does wikipedia want to produce a high-quality article on RT News that serves the best interests of the Reader, or does wikipedia want to make a group of people feel good about the fact that their article is flawed. The fact that they all agree upon it's flawed nature does not explain-away or justify the wrongness, it makes it worse. Not only is the article flawed, but the people that created the wrongness seem quite content with maintaining and (I assume) defending it's wrongness.66.25.171.16 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, in addition to the archives you also need to read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a consensus can be wrong and yes I'd even agree that the article is not without issues. However you claiming a consensus to be wrong, doesn't make it wrong even moreso if don't really offer any evidence aside your personal opinion. Although propaganda is not a black and white issue and therefore amongst others I'm not a fan of oversemphasizing the issue, RT can nevertheless be described as propaganda outlet. You can get from observing its often severly selective and biased reporting first hand or by following the assessment of various (reputable) sources describing it.
The primary reason for the propaganda claim in the lead is not a consensus of involved editor but that it is properly sourced. So if you want to dispute the consensus at the very least you need to provide (enough) reputable sources explicitly denying the propaganda aspect. Simply not agreeing with the current description based on üersonal experience is not cutting it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to act as summary of content in article body; which contains such a section, making it suitable for inclusion within lede. Other entities referred to them as propagandistic--which is indeed also a form of propaganda, as noted--they're entitled to their opinions. Such claims must be presented and attributed as opinions of the entities or individuals and not as a matter-of-fact; which has been done. All journalism is biased, because it involves humans (even journalism by robots are subject to human created algorithms). Wikipedia does not care about the Truth™; we only care what is verifiable. If there is dispute among external entities, this may be noted in article with objections or rebuttals raised by reliable sources. Our job is to then balance those positions, within reason... exactly as WP:NPOV suggest. -- dsprc [talk] 23:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually WP cares about the truth, but since the truth is often complex and subject to debate WP mandates verifiability as a proxy for truth. The same holds in away for the other 2 policies, all 3 (and further policies) serve as a proxy for the elusive truth.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek and most of the editors who follow this page have strong opinions about Eastern Europe. The normal view about RT is that it is just another network. It hires liberals like Larry King, but he is no more outside the mainstream than conservatives like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Volunteer Marek however supports those latter journalists despite the lack of credibility of their shows. TFD (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
My opinions are neither here nor there. By calling them "strong" you're trying to insinuate bias without actually saying so. I.e. poison the well. Anyway, it is simply NOT true that "normal view about RT is that it is just another network". It is anything but. And that's not MY opinion, that's the opinion of a couple dozen reliable sources, all of which have been provided, discussed, etc. It's is ridiculous that we have to keep revisiting this every couple of months because people don't feel like reading the archies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh and also, your claim that I "supports those latter journalists despite the lack of credibility of their shows" is totally pulled out of your ass. Show me one place where I "support" these journalists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Have you actually watched RT a lot? The propaganda aspects or parts have nothing to do with Larry King's show and not every individual show of RT necessarily contributes propaganda. If you want to see the propaganda, check the regular news casts, Peter Lavalle, Max Keiser and few others. Also take a close look at the overal material selection (and its omissions).
I can't speak for Marek but personally I see Fox as propaganda outlet of sorts too albeit not state propaganda. The Fox moderators are certainly further from the center than King and certainly pushing more propaganda, Beck was so bad that even Fox fired him. But that is atopic for article on Fox and depends on the overall sources available that the issue and as I said above already, King is not the propaganda part of RT.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is fundamental difference between honest journalism and propaganda/disinformation. It is the same as the difference between science and fabrication/pseudoscience. RT TV does the latter. This is complex question, but one of the key differences is intentional fabrication of "facts" (that did not happen) and intentional disinformation according to the state agenda explicitly ordered from the "above". Someone like Bill O'Reilly may be biased, but he does not invent nonexistent facts and expresses his views. Many people who work on Russian TV were telling exactly the opposite a few years ago (such as that Crimea belongs to Ukraine and even thinking about it joining to Russia would be nonsense). Now they are telling not what they think, but what they were ordered to tell. This is not journalism. This is information warfare. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure there are people in Russia who say the exact opposite with just as much conviction, and consider CNN and the BBC to be propaganda outfits who toe the US/UK line, whether unwittingly or not, and RT to be doing it properly. It's also simply not true to suggest that RT is simply a disseminator of lies, while western media are paragons of journalistic virtue – yes it has a fairly obvious editorial line, some pretty opinionated anchors and some slightly odd guests from time to time, but it does plenty of perfectly normal and factual reporting too. On all those counts it's pretty similar to other outlets. That said, it is widely critiqued in the west, something which needs to be reflected somehow. The only other point of course is that editors with an axe to grind cite western media as reliable sources for that criticism; but when it is pointed out that RT and other Russian media make the same accusations against western media, we are told "yes, but that's not a reliable source for that or anything else". Perhaps people could think a bit harder about the extent to which this involves circular arguments and quite a lot of assumptions and question-begging. N-HH talk/edits 10:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It does not matter what people say. It only matters what sources tell, and not any sources, but RS meaning reputable sources known for fact checking. Certain sources (CNN or BBC) qualify as such, others (RT TV) do not. Yes, it is "reputable" for promoting disinformation. Reputation is everything. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
WP is an international encyclopedia attempting to following a sort objective/neutral approach (with reputable resources as a proxy). It not intended as an uncritical reflection Russian or American mindsets. If you are looking nationalist encyclopedia or religiously oriented encyclopedia, you're in the wrong project.
Nobody here is claiming western media (as whole) are paragons of journalistic virtue, but this is an article on RT and not a survey article on flawed western media. The problem with RT is not just opiniated anchors in some weird show, but that also normal news reporting is often rather questionable and contains misrepresentations, which makes it indeed somewhat unreliable in general. However that does not mean that alls its broadcasting is questionable ("breaking the set" and "politicking" are/were fairly decent show avoiding questionable inaccuracies). The problem is not such much circle reasoning here, but some people seem to apply a somewhat arbitrary relativism. If you compare RT to better (public) broadcaster in the west, let's say for simplicity the bbc, then it isn't simply a case of unavoidable national biases or "he said, she said"-scenario but RT has a lot more issues (or to greater degree) than the BBC.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
BBC World or one of the external services would be better comparison. Ironically, international external services are sometimes more balanced and less biased than internal domestic ones. (IRIB is a hot wire on both ends though; wild stuff) -- dsprc [talk] 10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not so sure whether BBC-World is the better example. Afaik it isn't as independent as the BBC, but whichever you pick it doesn't really change the statement above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(←) I agree. Was simply pointing out RT is an external service, so is more akin to BBC World than BBC proper is all. Is like CNN vs. Voice of America etc. -- dsprc [talk] 05:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, Max Keiser and Peter Levelle are not news anchors, they are talk show hosts. My very best wishes, some U.S. media hosts do invent their own facts, the most obvious being that evolution and global warming are hoaxes. They have also spread conspiracy theories such as birtherism, FEMA concentration camps, death panels, Obama is a Muslim/socialist/pals around with terrorists, not to mention Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. Glenn Beck in particular presented a false history of the U.S. founding fathers as devout Christians. What RT, the BBC, CNN and Fox have in common is that their news broadcasts are as far as possible accurate. TFD (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what gave you the idea that anybody here would consider Keiser and Lavelle as news anchors. However quality news channels do not just have reasonable accurate news casts but they also (at least normally) deploy similar standards to their talk shows, documentaries and political/news/science/culture magazines. This concept may appear alien to people watching too much Fox (or RT), but it still exist in quality news channels. Aside from the fact that RT fails here spectacularly (similarly to Fox), even its news casts are far from "as accurate as possible" but contain often enough dubious material and misrepresentations (something fox does to a degree as well). The BBC and various other "high quality" (and mostly public) news broadcasters although not without flaws nevertheless clearly differ from that. If you need other examples than the BBC take a look at pbs in the US, public broasdcasters in Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Austria, France, Arte, Sat3 or even Al Jazeera English).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Max Keiser produced 10 documentaries for al-Jazeera English and produced a series for BBC World News. CNN had both Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs as hosts. Fox News Network certainly does not have reasonable accurate standards for its talk shows (hosts include Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and formerly included Glenn Beck. You probably do not like current and former MSNBC hosts either. Certainly RT does not have the same quality as BBC or al Jazeera, but it has the same quality as other U.S. cable news networks. Speaking of Canada, the Sun News Network had Michael Coren and Ezra Levant as hosts. TFD (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A couple of points:
  • a)What documentaries are those that Keiser produced for Al Jazeera English and the BBC? And what did his part in the priduction entail? In general the fact that Keiser plays a clown on rt, doesn't necessarily imply that he is not capable of producing reasonable quality material elsewhere.
  • b)As far as Glenn Beck is concerned, I haven't seen what he has done for CNN, but i'm pretty sure they didn't let him air the same nonsense he did on Fox or later on his own.
  • c)I'm not quite sure what you want to argue here. That at least some of the mainstream (free) tv broadcasters (in particular Fox) in the US are essentially as bad as RT? Sure, I'm not suggesting otherwise. That there are other (private) mainstream channels being rather crappy as well - sure there are plenty and private free TV in Europe is often sloppy with regards to quality or accuracy, so is Globo in Brazil or Grupo Clarin in Argentina. There is no argument about that as far as I'm concerned. However this article is about RT and not those other broadcasters with potentially similar issues and all of that doesn't negate the well sourced propaganda label for RT and RT differs from those other bad apples in terms of being a state broadcaster rather than a private. Whether those other bad apples need their biased mentioned and possible a propaganda label as well, is primarily a discussion for their WP entries but not so much for this talk page.
  • d)Lastly the issue I had with some of the postings further up as well as with your "What RT, the BBC, CNN and Fox have in common is that their news broadcasts are as far as possible accurate."-line is the notion that they are somehow all the same (in quality, accuracy or propaganda) and just push different ideologies. That is simply not true as the examples I gave above clearly differ in quality, accuracy and propaganda. As you said yourself in your second post "Certainly RT does not have the same quality as BBC or al Jazeera,".
--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Obviously different networks have different quality. But your argument that RT is a propaganda network is based on your view that it has low quality standards for talk shows. But you appear to accept that it is in the same category as Fox News. When Beck was at CNN he praised Liberal Fascism and views of Cleon Skousen. Max Keiser, according to his Wikipedia article, presented a season of The Oracle with Max Keiser on BBC World News. He produced and appeared in the TV series People & Power on the Al-Jazeera English network. Another RT talk show host, Larry King, was the top talk show host at CNN. Are you saying that unless a network has the same talk show standards as the BBC it is propaganda? Incidentally, Jeremy Paxton was a BBC talk show host. TFD (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
"your argument that RT is a propaganda network is based on your view that it has low quality standards for talk shows" - no, it is based on sources. Though shitty talk shows and the regular featuring of Holocaust deniers and conspiracy nuts doesn't exactly help.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The sources you provided are poor. You are the holocaust deniers that regularly appear on RT but not CNN and Fox? Is your point that RT is a propaganda channel because it promotes holocaust denial? That's fascinating original research and please provide a source that makes the same conclusion. I only get the English version, but I have never seen holocaust deniers interviewed. Do they actually interview them about the holocaust? Can you name someone and I can look for it on youtube. I have been trying to factcheck your claim and came across numerous blog complaints about RT having Ryan Dawson, who has interviewed holocaust deniers on his show, as a guest. But Ryan Dawson has been many times on CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera as well. TFD (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
My personal assessment of RT as propaganda is not simply based an low quality talk shows, but on their news casts, documentaries and magazines as well (or even more so as I stated above). In addition also on their overall program (and topic) selection and the fact that they are state run. However in terms of WP this is at best a (personal) sanity check for the various sources claiming RT to be a propaganda channel. What ultimately matters for WP are those sources and not my independent confirmation of their assessment.
Keiser was an occasional pundit on Al Jazeera English news talk shows (like inside story) in the early days and his contribution to content and reporting of the People and Power series is minimal. Apparently Al Jazeera bought a couple of reports from him when they started broadcasting and hadn't created their own material yet. The quality of it is soso and apparently Al Jazeera dumped him quickly after that (and soon after as a pundit on shows as well). Rightfully so if you ask me.
Not sure what you want with Larry King now, who I further up described as example for a non-propaganda piece on RT (not every single show or broadcast of a propaganda channel is necessarily a propaganda piece itself).
And yes quality and accuracy wise RT is roughly in the same category as Fox News aside from the fact that Fox is not state run. And yes personally I'd rate Fox as a private propaganda outlet as well. But then again that's a discussion for the talk page of Fox News' WP entry, here we're discussing RT. If you want to describe Fox as a propaganda channel in its WP entry and have sufficient sourcing for that, be my guest I have no objections against that whatsoever. But then again that is something you need to discuss there and not here. --Kmhkmh (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Lot's of people think that Fox, CNN and MSNBC are propaganda. Others would include higher quality stations because they have a bias toward capitalism and liberal values. But the problem is that we need a reason to label one network we do not like as propaganda while not doing so for networks we like or at least hate less. TFD (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not and there is no problem here at all. As I repeatedly stated before the arbiter (and reason as well) for use of the propaganda label are reputable external sources using it for their description of RT and there are ample of them. The WP rules quite clear on that. Aside from having some (slight) ideological or world view bias isn't the same as propaganda. As far as Fox, CNN and MSNBC are concerned as I repeatedly stated as well you need to argue that point at their WP entries.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

(←) Those people would be correct, but media literacy is a different topic altogether. We've labeled nothing, merely stated other notable sources have done so. That is reason enough. -- dsprc [talk] 11:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it still doesn't seem to register that the description in sources is reason why we have it in the article and that the rest of the discussion is merely an illustration/explanation why those sources use that description or why their uses "makes sense".--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It's really just beating a dead horse at this point. Would be nice not to turn it into soap just so there is a box to stand on. -- dsprc [talk] 15:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Added Watching the Hawks in Programming

I added Watching the Hawks (Tyrel Ventura, Sean Stone, & Tabetha Wallace)[1]  in the programming list  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:656C:2F2:EA6C:7FBD (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Israel–Palestine dispute" versus "Occupation of Palestine"

There's been some back-and-forth editing regarding the title of this section. I'd like to establish consensus on the title to use.

My proposal is that we use the title of the article Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There's been plenty of drama and lengthy discussions on that page, and deferring to that article could avoid the same here. Arbor Fici (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. "Occupation" is a POV approach and "dispute" is a weak word here. (So long as we don't have to go through the 19 pages of archives on the talk page on that article...) Mezigue (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Occupation is descriptive and Israel–Palestinian conflict/dispute are tendentious terms that are used to imply a spurious equivalence. Keith-264 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The opposite is true. Mezigue (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with using the NPOV name Israeli–Palestinian conflict, per the title of that article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Owner

This article violates WP:NOR. "Owned by Russian government, via ANO "TV-Novosti" — I wasn't able to find any sources that would confirm this. RT is not owned by the government of Russia. It is an Autonomous non-profit organization. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone's paying the bills. But I don't care and don't mind because the western media are not neutral information services (either). The selection of stories can often be used for creating emotions and generating influence - which is on all media. RT is an excellent source to check over 'what else is out there?'. These days, where the media companies make little profit, you need to make sure that you get a 'balanced diet' and RT should be in the mix from time to time. RT Deutsch is a lot more activist than RT English. 05:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.86.118 (talk)

Closing of foreign bank accounts

Need something about the October 2016 news that a bank in Britain and 2 other countries have closed the account of RT because of their propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.169.218 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we need some reliable sources: Simonyan was just lying and bullshitting about the situation, and RT is not a reliable source anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It does look like an invented story as far as the UK bank is concerned. I have developed a section in the RT UK article about this which uses reliable sources, and could be cannibalised for use here. The details concerning the other two countries are proving elusive. Philip Cross (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
In fact, there are conflicting stories in the British media about what has happened. For the main article it may be best to wait until the situation is clearer. Philip Cross (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That was my impression as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not "an invented story". Unless RT have completely fabricated the original letter, NatWest did indeed write to an RT company ("Russia Today TV UK Ltd") saying they would be withdrawing banking facilities, and closing all their accounts on 12 December. Simonyan's tweet was arguably misleading in that she appeared to suggest that "all" RT's accounts had actually been closed, and there's also some fairly exaggerated speculation about whether the UK govt had a hand in this, but this isn't just totally made up; whether RT have overplayed it and its significance is another matter. N-HH talk/edits 12:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, N-HH I wrote the first response before I had seen today's Times article. But British sources are in conflict with each other, and Mr Murdoch's papers haven fallen for scams in the past. I think The Times article is the only one with the explanation about Chris Wood's company so far. Philip Cross (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
And RT say it's their production company, or something like it, not simply a "supplier", as if it's a catering sub-contractor. The name of that company is also clear in the version of the letter I've seen; it is not redacted or blank as the current text here claims. I don't have time to do anything with it, but this Bloomberg piece has more detail, including this, which, FWIW, is cited to their own sources, not claims by RT:

RBS decided to cancel the banking facilities of RT’s U.K. service provider due to concerns over its compliance with so-called know-your-customer rules and and sanctions-related issues, a person familiar with the matter said.

The text here, as currently written, is also currently jumbled and simultaneously repetitive and contradictory. N-HH talk/edits 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I wish you would take up this issue on the talk page of the more appropriate RT UK article. In the RT coverage I have seen the recipient is blanked out, as 3rd party sources indicate. The British company is mentioned in the article, aheadof Simonyan's misleading tweet. Without saying where you have seen the letter unredacted, it looks like a "George told me in the pub" type comment, which you know counts as original research. You are right the RT UK article is contradictory, so are the articles of the last days. Philip Cross (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Er, this page, which is on my watchlist, is where the discussion was, and where you were discussing it, before I got involved. As for the letter, as I said the company name is and always was clearly visible in it, in the version released by RT. This rather basic fact should have been as easy for you to verify as it was for me to when I first looked at it, regardless of any bizarre suggestions that it is equivalent to something I was told in a pub. Anyway, I may go back and look at how to better write this up on the sub-page in question (which of course has been proposed for merger into this page). As for contradiction, different news reports across different days don't always say the exact same thing of course, especially as details emerge. It doesn't follow that the summary account on an individual WP page should be incoherent, self-contradictory and unclear. N-HH talk/edits 22:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Simonyan is 'lying and bullshitting' is hardly valid evidence for wiki. VonSternberg (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning of brief Facebook block

A Content ID system on Facebook went awry, declaring an AP feed RT was using to be a copyright violation of another Russian channel. So of course, the media is spinning this as a "Facebook is trying to block RT so they cannot post inauguration coverage". This stuff happens all the time (especially on YouTube), and thus the biased U.S. media had to add a political spin to it because of their animosity towards Russia. Facebook adknowledged that this was an error and unblocked them.

This is putting undue weight on what is ultimately a minor incident being spun by U.S. media for political purposes. I believe this information needs to be redacted or trimmed down. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues need major cleanup

Compare this page to that of it's counterparts like the BBC, which are just as much government run and just as much criticized for propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit, at least in the Programming section. It was full of anti-RT propaganda and lies. mixer (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There was a debate about the lede of this article which I started up again in December 2015 by moving the criticism area of the lede, however the debate has all but been removed and no conclusion seems to have been reached as the lede still contains the heavy criticism. There was 50/50 sided support for the move initially. My proposal was to include the criticism currently present in the lede in the Criticism section instead of in the lede, just like in the articles for many other TV networks, state-owned included. But I fear if I do that, my edit will be reversed again. At least there'll be debate on it. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe the consensus was to keep the paragraph in the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but RT is not the equivalent of BBC. The BBC is a public broadcaster which is run on an arms-length principle. This is increasingly being disputed by credible mainstream sources, in my view rightly, but Britain is not an autocracy, nor are western dissident journalists being murdered at regular intervals, unlike the Russian Federation. 10 Downing Street only intermittently has something to say about public and commercial broadcasts in the UK, but RT is run from the Kremlin, The BBC and the other broadcasters have comment from all the main political parties: RT and Russian national broadcasters ignore the country's dissidents, like the old days. In other words, it is not being disputed, except by people with significant conflicts of interest, that RT is not a conventional, non-propagandist, broadcaster, and the practically universal criticism should be mentioned in the opening summary before a section on the various responses. That would allow the minority viewpoint of RT's defenders to be articulated too. We are not supposed to give undue prominence to the defence over the majority viewpoint which is highly critical. Philip Cross (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, consensus was for the paragraph to remain in the lead. I've reverted the removal. Stickee (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
If we are talking about the "majority viewpoint," CNN is often referred to as "Clinton News Network" as noted on the CNN Controversies wiki page. On the main CNN page under the Controversies heading, it states that CNN deliberately lied to help Clinton; plus Time Warner, the parent company, is a major donor to her campaign. There's also the issue of their lack of Wikileaks coverage, suppressing anti-Hillary information. So, why is RT called propaganda in its intro while Fox is a softer "biased reporting" - yet CNN is considered legitimate and has no critique of its reputation in its intro? When the centrist mainstream media lies/omits fact/editorializes it is called "controversy." All three news sources consistently twist info or outright lie to promote an agenda, the definition of propaganda; all three are financially tied to a national political party. I would really like to know how Wikipedians decided that Fox at is anything but Republican propaganda; they filled the role for Bush that RT does for Putin. I think we should just note the biases (left, right, whatever) they are all accused of in the intro. In fact, since 2005, less than half the population trusts mainstream news outlets, and it is declining[2]. Even the Hill has called out CNN[3] as "compromised in favor of pushing one candidate's narrative in this election." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.230.47 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


You raise issues which should be in the CNN and Fox articles, probably sourced. Wikipedia covers subjects based on reliable sources, the bulk of which tend to call out RT. Personal opinion is of no account here. When it arises, by perhaps citing excessively sources one agrees with, WP:UNDUE tends to be used in an ensuing debate. Philip Cross (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There are plenty of "reliable sources" saying CNN is biased, from Fox[4] to the Hill to HuffPost. I'm asking why all the reliable sources that support center-left American media (CNN) are not labeled for bias, while Fox is, and RT is "propaganda." I'm more concerned with the semantics, labeling RT propaganda vs biased (Fox) vs no label at all for liberal American news outlets for doing ultimately the same actions (CNN). I'm not saying RT isn't propaganda, it is; I'm saying that CNN has recently been exposed by Wikileaks (as has MSNBC) for colluding with the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and all the operatives who move between them, like Donna Brazile. CNN very clearly has a pro-establishment narrative with Democrat propaganda, just like RT is with Putin. The Washington Post has the same problem[5], and yet there is no disclaimer of its bias in the intro. The New York Times has been called out[6] as have various journalists from "reliable" sources for collusion.
There is a pattern visible of Wikipedia immediately labeling foreign propaganda for what it is, while Western center-left MSM like WaPo, NYT, or CNN gets a brief header at the bottom of the page ("controversy") instead of an immediate reference to verifiable biases. Different labeling isn't neutrality, it is using different wording for a reason. In the RT intro it says "critics and commentators" vaguely, when the reliable sources you linked to clearly says that it should be attributed, i.e. "Western mainstream media regard RT as..." The CNN "controversies" section includes a Harvard study that shows liberal bias. So, as a format, all three (CNN, Fox, and RT) pages should use the same language ("x & y have criticized them for z bias") in the same place (intro or subheader, or both). CNN's Democratic bias is buried and mislabeled, while RT's bias is foremost, called propaganda, and later repeated as a section. Fox's bias is called for what it is, yet is a reliable source whereas RT is not simply because the Republicans don't legally own it.
I also noticed that the Spanish CNN and MSNBC pages do not include the "controversies" section or liberal bias critiques, however the Spanish Fox and RT page includes the same sources, phrasing, and disclaimer of bias in the intro. The pattern if inconsistency on Wikipedia in favor of liberal media is obvious in format and two different languages. Jill Stein's page was a mess in August because Wikipedia of this center-left corporate bias and had to get flagged for not having a neutral tone; part of this is due to sources like CNN and MSNBC providing ample propaganda against the American left, which was also proven in the Democratic primary in their Bernie-bashing, reported by multiple reliable sources as well. Unless I'm missing some huge technical distinction between bias vs propaganda, I don't see why the wording is different or not included for CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.230.47 (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. The block of criticism in the lead section is completely unacceptable with regard to the body of the article. Several times it has been removed, changed or questioned, and several times it has been reverted with no conclusion reached, except by the criticism editors who seem to keep thinking "consensus" has been reached that it must stay. It's not just that the sources might be biased, it's also that it takes up over 1/4 of the intro to this webpage which is ridiculous. The edit which Gobonobo made (id=745459894) that included some criticism was fine. I actually campaigned about moving the entire criticism to the criticism section (now called the "Responses" section here) - no other state-controlled or state-subsidised news network article on Wikipedia has that level of criticism, if any at all, in its lead section. I accepted that the intro should reflect the article, however the current version first re-added by Stickee is ridiculous.
The Gobonobo version was also originally written better by referring to the criticisms as coming from "Critics" (implying not coming from any random person and with no history of politics education or article writing), and was also better by not throwing the words "frequently called a propaganda outlet" 2/3 of the way into the lead before average readers have a chance to confirm their hunch by reading more. It's simply bias. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@SpikeballUnion: I fully support the current version of the lede, but appreciate a healthy skepticism, so I will elucidate. First off, there is no state-controlled news network quite like RT, so "other stuff exists"-type arguments hold little water for me. Policy-based arguments do hold sway though, and I support anyone who wants to use policy to improve the articles for CNN, BBC, or any other news outlet.
I don't think that having three sentences of criticism towards the end of the lede is undue, in fact, I would support giving the criticism more prominence by moving it to an earlier paragraph. Many readers will move on after reading the lede, so it is vital that we clearly convey that RT acts as a propaganda outlet of the Kremlin. My personal take is that RT is a reliable source only when it is stating the official Kremlin line. Any time they are addressing issues related to Western governments, NATO, or Ukraine, the spin kicks in and their coverage quickly becomes apoplectic. I'd support a statement along those lines if we can find a source supporting it. (Full disclosure: I'm a regular RT viewer as I enjoy trying to deconstruct its snarky, campy bias and as it basically doubles as a master class in modern propaganda.) gobonobo + c 19:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
"First off, there is no state-controlled news network quite like RT" How did you get to that conclusion? Looks like a no true Scotsman to me. "...so it is vital that we clearly convey that RT acts as a propaganda outlet of the Kremlin." No. That is an opinion, not an encyclopaedic directive. "My personal take is that RT is a reliable source only when it is stating the official Kremlin line." My personal take is that no major news network is a reliable source especially when describing political matters. The bare base facts are usually there, but the icing, the way it's presented, is almost always biased, on any network. Regardless, the point is that the amount, and wording, of the criticism in the lead section of this RT article should be improved and, ideally (if we don't want 2/3rds of the lead to be inappropriately saturated with attacks which are claimed to be "frequent" and are not claimed to be from critics), reverted to how it was before Stickee edited it. The lead section should summarise RT for what it actually is - a news network - and not what critics think it is, a "propaganda" machine. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed that because you mentioned my username and an edit that I made, that you might be interested in my point of view. What you are characterizing as "attacks" are neutrally-presented, reliably-sourced statements that belong in any encyclopedic article on RT and certainly shouldn't be removed from the lede. You should expect strong opposition to any attempts to whitewash this article or water down conclusions reported by numerous reliable sources. I'm finding dozens of reliable sources that discuss RT's disinformation campaigns and propaganda in depth. Have you even seen RT's preposterous denials of Russian involvement with the downing of MH17? That should be mentioned here. The section devoted to propaganda is woefully inadequate and I support expanding it. Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the Internet Research Agency has been supplying sockpuppets to sanitize this article. I'm willing to check the edit history to see if other editors have been deleting sourced statements from the article. It will be very easy to restore them. gobonobo + c 22:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I mentioned your username and an edit you made because I supported the particular edit (its content) that you made. I say that clearly in my post. That was all. Now I can see you've half missed some major points in my post and half gone on a rant about the Russian Federation. The RT network is one of those Wikipedia articles that attracts Americans (especially the critical) in flocks, despite it not even being an American thing. It's one downside to the majority of the online (and Wikipedia) community being American and being unable to escape that lingering scepticism drilled into them from the media of the country they live in. You don't need to call me out on that, you'd say the same thing about Russians and their media. In fact, you already did. Anyway, the points in my post that you missed included the wording of the lead criticism; the proposed re-addition of "Critics argue" and the omission of "frequently" as it was in your reverted edit; just in general the reversal to the reverted edit you made. It's a good thing at least that I accepted that criticism should exist in the lead section. Obviously trying to argue this point to you in particular, now that I've seen your true viewpoint, will be impossible, so I now wait for some potential outside input into this debate. SpikeballUnion (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Accidental independent opinion (clicked-through from "Fake news by country#Poland"): I am assuming the issue is whether the lede must contain the paragraph about RT being biased. Well, the answer is pretty much straightforward: a prominent, factual and well-referenced section of the article covers exactly this. Per Wikipedia style guidelines, the lede must adequately summarize the article content. Therefore the paragraph in question does belong to the lede. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/
  2. ^ http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
  3. ^ http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/295377-cnns-stelter-fails-with-partisan-reporting-on-clintons-health
  4. ^ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/bias-alert-wikileaks-exposes-medias-secret-support-clinton.html
  5. ^ http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-on-bernie-sanders-in-16-hours/
  6. ^ http://observer.com/2016/10/no-consequences-from-media-peers-for-reporters-caught-colluding-with-hillary/

Quoted word

WP:Scarequotes doesn't apply when marking a quotation with quotation marks.Keith-264 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It does risk confusion though, also as to whether the quotation is directly from Ofcom itself. As noted above, I would prefer to just lose the word altogether (and indeed that whole level of detail about Ofcom from the lead, as it sits better in the body, with only a broader reference in the lead). It's a loaded term, and just because one source happens to use it, that doesn't mean WP has to. N-HH talk/edits 11:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Not just "one source". Many:
Stickee (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Fine. Please read my above comment as reading "just because one source – or even more than one source – happens ..." I mean, way to miss the fundamental point actually being made about language and sourcing. Although thanks for providing evidence of why WP leads end up with multiple-citation overload, due to pointless and point-missing arguments like this. N-HH talk/edits 12:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it would be better to dump the word but since sources were found that used it, altering it to show that it was a quotation and in ellipses seemed a compromise, unsatisfactory though it was. Does anyone know of published sources (books not newspapers etc) which describe RT and leave the ideological posturing and commercial point-scoring to journalists and other hacks? Keith-264 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264: How about expert evidence submitted to the UK parliament defence committee or an EU parliament briefing? I presume they are too political? Would you believe that someone once tried to convince us that the only RS for this article would have to come from the Russian government or RT itself? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:dead horse WP:appeal-to-authority-while-advocating.... You've made your bias quite clear, you don't need to keep digging. What I want you and the other editors to do is to stick to descriptive terms, avoid promiscuous adjectives and adverbs and remember that some turns of phrase are pejorative. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I was hoping to make my superior knowledge of the subject quite clear, but hey-ho. I have to admit my knowledge doesn't extend to knowing the difference in meaning between "repeatedly" and "several times" or why it couldn't have just been left alone once it became apparent that changing it is an issue.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:own Greater perhaps but clearly not superior. Do you deny that "repeatedly" has pejorative connotations? Keith-264 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it does particularly, but at the same time it didn't bother me when you substituted it (for "several times"). The word does appear in 34,886 WP articles [25] so you might have quite a lot of work ahead of you.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
They will be the ones written by Americans and illiterate English EngLit graduates. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RT_(TV_network)/Archive_8&oldid=1136375735"