Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about RT (TV network). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Criticism and controversies section
The constant vandalism of structure of this article is shameful. There should be a section dedicated to "criticisms" or "criticism and controversies". Examples for this are these articles Wikipedia, BBC, Press TV, Communism, Facebook, and list goes on and on. There are some that repeatedly remove this section and place criticism in the introduction section of the article. Please stop doing this. Have respect for neutrality and logical structure of article. 209.59.105.237 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you had bothered to familiarize yourself with the history of this article, you would realize that your view has been covered here many times and is strongly disputed. If you had ever watched RT, it should be pretty obvious that we are not being unfair to them at all.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- "If you had ever watched RT, it should be pretty obvious that we are not being unfair to them at all." Your opinions of RT, whatever they may be, do not give you the right to push WP:OR on Wikipedia. We describe the neutrality dispute - we should never participate in it. - Anonimski (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is no neutrality dispute. Nobody is coming to this article with new independent reliable sources that fundamentally disagree with the views already prevalent. Apparently they think I don't like it, claim it doesn't represent a neutral point of view (because it doesn't say what they want it to say) and then start trying to remove or hide content. This issue has been thoroughly covered already on this talkpage. We can't be expected to keep repeating ourselves, going over the same ground again and again. The alleged "constant vandalism" is being carried out by experienced editors, who all have at least a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies. In the event someone actually points out a real policy violation they will likely be willing to compromise. Either bring something new to the discussion / article or go and do something else with your time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Stop trolling. You're trying to say that there's no neutrality dispute, inside a neutrality dispute? Just look at the previous sections of this talkpage. As for the content; we have groups of media from two sides of a conflict that dispute each others' reliability in certain war-related topics. I'm suspecting that you're trying to push your POV by stalling possibilities of work on neutral media representation by creating situations where people have to spend time explaining rudimentary stuff "this is a neutrality dispute" inside a neutrality dispute. If the history of pro-invasion arguments in media is represented in unbalanced ways and it correlates with political blocs, then it's a breach of NPOV (this issue has been mentioned earlier). And just to make it clear, I don't condone any edits that would totally erase all descriptions of RT's problematic sides. We simply have a problem with WP:UNDUE weight. - Anonimski (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't refer to other editor's comments as "trolling". There's a contrived "neutrality dispute" which is really a couple editors (yours and an anon IP who's looking more and more like somebody's sock puppet) WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Stop trolling. You're trying to say that there's no neutrality dispute, inside a neutrality dispute? Just look at the previous sections of this talkpage. As for the content; we have groups of media from two sides of a conflict that dispute each others' reliability in certain war-related topics. I'm suspecting that you're trying to push your POV by stalling possibilities of work on neutral media representation by creating situations where people have to spend time explaining rudimentary stuff "this is a neutrality dispute" inside a neutrality dispute. If the history of pro-invasion arguments in media is represented in unbalanced ways and it correlates with political blocs, then it's a breach of NPOV (this issue has been mentioned earlier). And just to make it clear, I don't condone any edits that would totally erase all descriptions of RT's problematic sides. We simply have a problem with WP:UNDUE weight. - Anonimski (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is no neutrality dispute. Nobody is coming to this article with new independent reliable sources that fundamentally disagree with the views already prevalent. Apparently they think I don't like it, claim it doesn't represent a neutral point of view (because it doesn't say what they want it to say) and then start trying to remove or hide content. This issue has been thoroughly covered already on this talkpage. We can't be expected to keep repeating ourselves, going over the same ground again and again. The alleged "constant vandalism" is being carried out by experienced editors, who all have at least a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies. In the event someone actually points out a real policy violation they will likely be willing to compromise. Either bring something new to the discussion / article or go and do something else with your time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- "If you had ever watched RT, it should be pretty obvious that we are not being unfair to them at all." Your opinions of RT, whatever they may be, do not give you the right to push WP:OR on Wikipedia. We describe the neutrality dispute - we should never participate in it. - Anonimski (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what impressions you get watching RT. It irrelevant. The introduction section should be neutral to subject. You are vandalizing the article to place what you think is important where it doesn't belong. I'm right in the middle about RT. The have a bias, but so does most of the reliable sources used in Wikipedia. Stick to the principle of neutrality and that no one wants to know what an individual editor think on wiki. I suggest all the vandalized to creat their own blog pages where they can pour the highly sough opinions in. I will warn and report every attempt to break the structure and neutrality of the article. If you believe RT is a propaganda machine, only by allowing people to read a neutral article and make their own mind you will achieve that. Other wise you will set some off like me who is appalled by your what being done to this article WP:UNDUE 209.59.105.237 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- We say what reliable sources say. This is what reliable sources say. That's neutrality. End of discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Don’t mix me up with anon.. I am editing from school and home. so it should only be 2 IPs for me. (disclosure: I have had an account in the past and for the life of me I cannot remember what it was - years ago). I am tired of making account for every website and keeping track. But Wiki may just be worth having an account in. I usually don’t edit unless there is something as bad as what I see in RT. I graduate student and very up-to-date on world affairs. My conclusion is that the biases (on all sides) create the political issues we sea and allows for groups of people to take advantage of majority of others. That’s why I am committed to neutrality. What I see here is either misinformed editors or editors with malicious intent. RT is what it is. Introduce it as neutrally as possible and then add related topics in well organized sections. So please stop breaking the logical flow and structure of article. I gave a few days to sea if this would be reversed and it is not.209.59.106.25 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia guideline on the introduction section basically says "the lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". Given that the sources in this article almost uniformly heavily criticize RT (to the point that this appears to be the mainstream view), it should be mentioned at the start. The summary of the criticism that you keep trying to remove, has developed in response to a number of previous attempts to remove earlier versions over the last year. It will not be removed. If you would like to change the wording, that is open for discussion, but I suggest you read previous talk sections, as offering ideas that have already been dismissed is likely to irritate people.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's interesting how to recognise a misinformed editor according to 209.59.106.25 . During the time of Soviet rules people were punished because they allegedly misinformed, so please don't use the Soviet langauge. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take back the wording and tone of my argument. Trappedinburnley, "will not be removed"? I respect your sense of self righteousness. It will be removed if there is a enough support for it. When it comes to articles like this, the group who is more familiar with Wikipedia policies and has more time on their hands get to dictate the truth. That is a fundamental flaw. Even the use of "main stream" sources. Every forget how main stream is owned by private entities with their own POV and agendas. I wonder what articles on slavery would have been back when the majority of people and "main stream" sources were okay with it. I personally am skeptical unless a verifiable documentation on subject is provided. Wikipedia has a lower standard. This allows POV taking hold. How? Editors who are biased one way will search and collect "main stream" sources only demonstrating their opinion. Based on Trappedinburnley point, if an editor loads the article with 50 statements and subjects that are favorable to RT, the lead section would have to reflect a pro RT view. That does not make sense. Look at press TV, as I mentioned in other sections, they are worse than RT, but the article is written neutrally. Paulthemonk (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's obvious that your viewpoint on RT greatly differs from mine. This is exactly why Wikipedia relies on information published in reliable sources, rather than just allowing us to write whatever we believe to be true. This is not a forum on WP procedure. Your idea to compare the content of other articles to this one is flawed. All articles are a product of the contributing editor's efforts and the sources available, they are all incomplete. As I said, if you or any one else can find a sufficient independent reliable sources that fundamentally disagree with the views already prevalent, then the lead should be altered to reflect that. The paragraph you keep trying to move is a summary of information already in the article, and is intended for the lead section. Therefore moving it to the (currently title-less) Criticism section is incorrect.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are right. Too many sections on the same subject in talks. I suggest continuing in the "I propose..." section as its more to the point. Response to above: I agree RT is %100 pro Russian and propagates russian gov POV. (Personally, which shouldn't matter, I gave up on relying on few sources for news. I assume ALL reporting is biased. By readying from many, mainly independent, reporting I try to make an assumption of reality.) RT being a propaganda for Russian gov is a no brainier. I argue the neutrality of tone, bot the content. I think a statement like: "RT is widely believed / understood to be a propagation tool for Russian gov .... citations" would be fine in the lead. But when specific examples are given, its not a summary like some have suggested. Paulthemonk (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's obvious that your viewpoint on RT greatly differs from mine. This is exactly why Wikipedia relies on information published in reliable sources, rather than just allowing us to write whatever we believe to be true. This is not a forum on WP procedure. Your idea to compare the content of other articles to this one is flawed. All articles are a product of the contributing editor's efforts and the sources available, they are all incomplete. As I said, if you or any one else can find a sufficient independent reliable sources that fundamentally disagree with the views already prevalent, then the lead should be altered to reflect that. The paragraph you keep trying to move is a summary of information already in the article, and is intended for the lead section. Therefore moving it to the (currently title-less) Criticism section is incorrect.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take back the wording and tone of my argument. Trappedinburnley, "will not be removed"? I respect your sense of self righteousness. It will be removed if there is a enough support for it. When it comes to articles like this, the group who is more familiar with Wikipedia policies and has more time on their hands get to dictate the truth. That is a fundamental flaw. Even the use of "main stream" sources. Every forget how main stream is owned by private entities with their own POV and agendas. I wonder what articles on slavery would have been back when the majority of people and "main stream" sources were okay with it. I personally am skeptical unless a verifiable documentation on subject is provided. Wikipedia has a lower standard. This allows POV taking hold. How? Editors who are biased one way will search and collect "main stream" sources only demonstrating their opinion. Based on Trappedinburnley point, if an editor loads the article with 50 statements and subjects that are favorable to RT, the lead section would have to reflect a pro RT view. That does not make sense. Look at press TV, as I mentioned in other sections, they are worse than RT, but the article is written neutrally. Paulthemonk (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Don’t mix me up with anon.. I am editing from school and home. so it should only be 2 IPs for me. (disclosure: I have had an account in the past and for the life of me I cannot remember what it was - years ago). I am tired of making account for every website and keeping track. But Wiki may just be worth having an account in. I usually don’t edit unless there is something as bad as what I see in RT. I graduate student and very up-to-date on world affairs. My conclusion is that the biases (on all sides) create the political issues we sea and allows for groups of people to take advantage of majority of others. That’s why I am committed to neutrality. What I see here is either misinformed editors or editors with malicious intent. RT is what it is. Introduce it as neutrally as possible and then add related topics in well organized sections. So please stop breaking the logical flow and structure of article. I gave a few days to sea if this would be reversed and it is not.209.59.106.25 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose adding a “Criticism and controversies section” please discuss
The article is on a controversial or provocative subject. It needs a section dedicated to all information related to this. As it is now, it reads like an opinion piece to bash the entity (which I am all for… out side of wikipedia). My 2 concerns are 1. Introduction should remain introduction and not an opportunity for propagation of editor’s POV. therefore the third paragraph “..has been called..”does not belong there 2. the term state funded is preceding the nature of subject. It reads: this subject is funded by the bad guys and happens to look like a TV network. The source of funding is very important, just like other state funded networks they tend to influence the coverage and tone of reporting. But maybe for the sake of the editors biases not being as in-your-face as it is now, it should be moved to the second or third sentence. I am not stupid and I’m sure the people who keep undoing the corrections are not stupid. This is being done to make a point…. Make that point with sources in the criticism section. Don’t ruin the article’s integrity.209.59.106.25 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- You want other people to stick to the talkpage whilst you add controversial content, and "This is being done to make a point"..? People around here will have little patience for such attempts at gaming the system, and might wonder what account you used before you started gaming. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- the title was bad. I get the point. Now: what content did I add that is controversial?? I added a section, moved a paragraph to it. I moved 2 words from 1st sentence to 3rd or 4rth. And added a sentence that RT is subject of controversy with reference. Which one of these are you referring to? I was caught by surprise when a group of editors started undoing these. Then I started discussing. Is that odd?209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- bobrayner, awaiting you response.Paulthemonk (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- the title was bad. I get the point. Now: what content did I add that is controversial?? I added a section, moved a paragraph to it. I moved 2 words from 1st sentence to 3rd or 4rth. And added a sentence that RT is subject of controversy with reference. Which one of these are you referring to? I was caught by surprise when a group of editors started undoing these. Then I started discussing. Is that odd?209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Accord a little respect to other editors, IP 209.59.106.25. You've had plenty of opportunity join in the multiple discussions of the proposed merger and/or tidy of the sections dealing with the content already in place (where the threads are still active, incidentally), yet are informing us of your executive decision on how you are going to "add" a section? Get with the programme: you don't WP:OWN the article, nor do you propose your own take on WP:BRD when others are discussing the details collaboratively. You're only going to get the article locked, yet again, if you persist with your WP:NOTHERE attitude. Per bobrayner: no gaming the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- No disrespect was intended! I did not get the article locked. Some other esteemed editor requested that. Lets discuss. I hope you are as good with facts as with undoing.
- The title was a mistake and was changed.
- 1) I did not have "plenty of opportunity to join" since I recently read the article in full and noticed the state that its in.
- 2) I am not trying to game anything. Let's discuss. Does the article need a section for "Criticism and Controversies" or not. It looks people are just adding what they find about the subject without following a structure. Just go through section 6. Look at 6.5... 6.5.1-4 do not match the title (Anti-israel).
- 6 Propaganda and related issues
6.1 Mouthpiece of the Kremlin
6.2 Putin and Medvedev off-limits
6.3 Anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism
6.4 Airing conspiracy theories
6.5 Anti-Israel
6.5.1 Response to critics
6.5.2 Choice of guests
6.5.3 Responses to RT's news coverage
6.5.4 Hanne Nabintu Herland RT interview
- Instead of (what appears to be) ganging up, let us improve this. Are there any standard of accusing people of gaming? Is there anything in my editing and talks that suggest I'm not willing to discuss? I don't care about POV. I agree with almost everything in the article (which should not matter). I'm trying to fix the structure and have become very alarmed by some editor's vigilance in keeping it broken.
- Here is an example of another "mouth piece" Press TV which is not any better/worse than RT.
- Contents:
1 Background
1.1 History of website and satellite TV launch
2 Funding and management
3 Coverage
4 Controversies
5 Removal from Western and Asian satellites
6 Personnel
6.1 Iran staff
6.2 North American staff
6.3 International correspondents
- When we are done with this, we can work on neutrality issues. But at least lets get the structure right.
- And how would an agreement look like? Let's discuss. 209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- and created an account since this may take a while. 209.59.106.25= Paulthemonk (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The only reorganization that I can see is needed is to separate out the section on prominent resignations, per the discussion above. Otherwise, this article's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Great, make a discussion section about it and we will discuss that. Here I made a proposal and it seems you have not responded to it directly. I see a problem with the structure. would you explain why I should not correct it. I showed an example and more examples in the past. There is a dispute and it would be nice to concentrate on that. I do not disagree with you point though. Just make sure you don't undo your own edits accidentally.Paulthemonk (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The only reorganization that I can see is needed is to separate out the section on prominent resignations, per the discussion above. Otherwise, this article's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The majority of 3rd party reliable sources agree that RT has been involved in propaganda and occasional disinformation. There is no any controversy or serious dispute about this in reliable sources. Therefore, I do not think we need special "controversy" section. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- You have a point on "controversies". The title of the section would then be just "criticism" as there are plenty of them around and already in the article. your response? Paulthemonk (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
OK there seems to be some confusion here. Paulthemonk Please can we have one discussion about this issue not three, and try to remain calm and more importantly civil. Volunteer Marek: Do you not agree that the section headings are currently messed up? Apparently as a result of this edit [1] by Bobrayner. I see no reason why an editor can't immediately return the previous headings. Then the 'criticism can't be in the lead' argument that Paulthemonk is pushing can be treated as a separate issue. Hopefully Ymblanter will agree.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Im sorry if I have come across as uncivil. With all the undos efforts to improve this article I'm just frustrated. On the subject of whats in the lead section, I didn't see it as pushing. I truly assumed someone had just moved a paragraph from the content into the lead to make a point. It really reads like that. I also tried to separately fix the headings so people who disagreed on lead would not undo the correction to structure. No success there. Regardless of moving that third paragraph to content section or not, the article badly needs a criticism section.Paulthemonk (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, at the moment there's less than a day before the current lock expires. By the looks of the talk page, I wouldn't blame Mike V or Ymblanter for extending it. If not, edit warring is on the agenda again and it won't be long before it's locked again. I'd suggest that one issue at a time is addressed starting here, at the talk page.
- Im sorry if I have come across as uncivil. With all the undos efforts to improve this article I'm just frustrated. On the subject of whats in the lead section, I didn't see it as pushing. I truly assumed someone had just moved a paragraph from the content into the lead to make a point. It really reads like that. I also tried to separately fix the headings so people who disagreed on lead would not undo the correction to structure. No success there. Regardless of moving that third paragraph to content section or not, the article badly needs a criticism section.Paulthemonk (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is there at least a preference for what the most immediate concern is, preferably the most simply addressed? From there, the next issue on a list of priorities should be addressed. It appears that there's a lunge at complete rewrites, including section headers, on contributor's minds. A mass reworking is not an approach that will work. Baby steps, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like there is still some convincing to do in regards to the lead section and the criticism paragraph (3). So that can wait. I think the priority would be to fix the sections/headers (not adding or removing content). There are a lot of criticism in the article and they would fit nicely under the general title "criticism", then that section would have sub headers like "propaganda", "bias", "choice of guest". It just looks pretty messy as is. I haven't used sandbox yet, but if that helps I can attempt to make a sample. Paulthemonk (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a plan. I'm not sure as to whether Trappedinburnley has been developing an alternative in his sandbox, but, rather than disrupt the actual article, it would be far better to have sandbox versions to discuss proposals. Rather than posting the url to sandbox versions here, I'd say that pinging the editors involved in this article from the sandbox article's talk page for comment would be the least obtrusive method of working things out. Perhaps an unintuitive name for the sandbox article is the way to go (if not, it's likely to attract trolling). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've not done anything yet as I'm not looking to lead what I suspect will be a time-consuming project. But I do like the idea and would contribute. My concern is who else would be likely willing to help. As my several previous posts on the section titles have been virtually ignored, I suspect that people's stamina is running low. I again point to how the section titles looked before the last edit wars [2]. Undoubtedly an improvement to the current arrangement, and I see no reason not to return to them once we're unlocked.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- You've just described my own sentiments to a T. We can wish away the edit wars, but that's not going to change the reality and, as you've noted, regular editors are worn down and still suffering from PTSD and are 'discussed' out to the point of being 'disgusted' (or vice versa). Personally, for the time being, I'd be content to eliminate the 'Ad of the month' irrelevancy and slowly try to reconstruct a better presented, encyclopaedic article. Being worn out by POV warriors on various other articles I'm involved in, I'm on edge about major reworks as much as anyone else. That said, I'm also amenable to using an alternative venue to the article itself to work through any glaring problems. If Paulthemonk truly feels that s/he has the energy to create their own sandbox version from which to start, contingent on being prepared to accept both constructive criticism and PTSD regular editors on invitation, I am entirely amenable to such a strategy.
- I've not done anything yet as I'm not looking to lead what I suspect will be a time-consuming project. But I do like the idea and would contribute. My concern is who else would be likely willing to help. As my several previous posts on the section titles have been virtually ignored, I suspect that people's stamina is running low. I again point to how the section titles looked before the last edit wars [2]. Undoubtedly an improvement to the current arrangement, and I see no reason not to return to them once we're unlocked.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that's a plan. I'm not sure as to whether Trappedinburnley has been developing an alternative in his sandbox, but, rather than disrupt the actual article, it would be far better to have sandbox versions to discuss proposals. Rather than posting the url to sandbox versions here, I'd say that pinging the editors involved in this article from the sandbox article's talk page for comment would be the least obtrusive method of working things out. Perhaps an unintuitive name for the sandbox article is the way to go (if not, it's likely to attract trolling). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- It seems like there is still some convincing to do in regards to the lead section and the criticism paragraph (3). So that can wait. I think the priority would be to fix the sections/headers (not adding or removing content). There are a lot of criticism in the article and they would fit nicely under the general title "criticism", then that section would have sub headers like "propaganda", "bias", "choice of guest". It just looks pretty messy as is. I haven't used sandbox yet, but if that helps I can attempt to make a sample. Paulthemonk (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is there at least a preference for what the most immediate concern is, preferably the most simply addressed? From there, the next issue on a list of priorities should be addressed. It appears that there's a lunge at complete rewrites, including section headers, on contributor's minds. A mass reworking is not an approach that will work. Baby steps, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- That said, I have to return to the world of doing my best to moderate a lot of articles under duress (not waving but drowning). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 21 March 2015
 | This edit request to RT (TV network) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wanted to add a section on High-Profile Resignations because they are dramatic and very unusual for a major international news network. There is already a big section on Liz Wahl, and something on Abby Martin who didn't resign, but I thought there should be a bit more on Sara Firth, and importantly that they should be moved all together into one section, together with William Dunbar.
There is currently a section on "responses to critics" with both Abby Martin and Sara Firth defending RT. I propose to leave those statements in but to put them in the section on resignations. The Abby Martin quote would be there as a kind of balance, showing that she didn't resign and RT allowed her to be very outspoken against the Kremlin.
Incidentally there is something clearly wrong in that because of the headings, "Responses to Critics" is currently a sub-section of "Anti Israel" along with three other sections. Really all four should be given the same weight as "Anti-Israel". But, as explained above, I propose to replace "responses to critics" with High-profile resignations" and put the responses in there.
PussBroad (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Having a separate section on high profile resignation is not a bad idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I feel they unarguably constitute controversy rather than criticism, as they all had to do with RT content. The Ofcom judgments too. However these proposals would be a good start. At the least we should tidy up the section titles. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- If there is such an agreement on creating section dedicated to different aspects of the subject, how come you guys keep removing a section on criticism.
- I feel they unarguably constitute controversy rather than criticism, as they all had to do with RT content. The Ofcom judgments too. However these proposals would be a good start. At the least we should tidy up the section titles. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The article on google does not go about how people accuse google of spying right in the introduction. RT is controversial and may very well be biased. I don’t know if we do the cause of neutrality any favors by being AS biased. On multiple occasions I have corrected the problem with the structure (Section on criticism and controversies) and it keeps getting undone without a logical explanation. Would you please discuss this?209.59.106.25 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that you did something wrong (moving the criticism paragraph from the lead), while doing something right (fixing the damaged section titles). As the article is locked because of editing disputes, it requires an admin to change. Unless an admin comes along it will have to wait until we're unlocked.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- You just tell me I moved the criticism paragraph (which is inescapably what it is) to the criticism section? Why is that something wrong? Don't you see my point?209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've given a relevant response to your similar comment in this discussion and see no point in repeating it here.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've given a relevant response to your similar comment in this discussion and see no point in repeating it here.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- You just tell me I moved the criticism paragraph (which is inescapably what it is) to the criticism section? Why is that something wrong? Don't you see my point?209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that you did something wrong (moving the criticism paragraph from the lead), while doing something right (fixing the damaged section titles). As the article is locked because of editing disputes, it requires an admin to change. Unless an admin comes along it will have to wait until we're unlocked.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Badget
Concerning this part that was re-added : [3]
Can any one explain what is the relevance of the comparison in this section of RT organizational budget. When the comparison to the BBC (which has different structure, financing methods and country of origin) it is like comparing salaries of people from different countries, while disregarding purchasing power etc. If needed it should be compared to other channels within the country that are financed by Russia, like everywhere else. --Elysans (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Also the information in that same line is incorrect. The source doesn't say that RT budget for 2014-2015 was $300mil (only that it was more than 300 by 2010, its BBC budget for that year). And according to this, RT figure is incorrect:
- "While RT had a budget of $445 million in 2014, based on an exchange rate of 30.5 rubles to the dollar, this year it will have only $236 million"
The roller coaster shows again that the superficial comparison to BBC budget is meaningless. --Elysans (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well the source which is given makes that comparison explicitly. Basically, the relevance is that it's huge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- First, the text in the article right now, is not supported by the reference and contrary to the source I provided. Second, many US\UK based papers made that comparison under titles like "Russia boosts global 'media offensive'..we need more budget" which has no place in the organization budget section (i.e. the POV i was talking about ). Third, in all other media articles I seen the budget is compared to other local outlets (e.g. BBC to sky news) --Elysans (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree that this is a NPOV issue, the content (or title) of the source doesn't have to be neutral to make it reliable. I also disagree that the comparison to BBC World Service Group (a division of the BBC) is improper. Both operate state-funded international news services in multiple languages directed to foreign audience (obviously the BBC does actual news not the made-up kind). However I agree that the current wording isn't an entirely accurate representation of the source, but the $300mil figure is common to a number of sources. This is the first time I've seen anyone claim $445mil, can you find other sources to verify that it isn't a typo? Also I must thank you for giving me a reason to read the source in more detail, who knew that Simonyan has a secure Kremlin phone on her desk?--17:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can you be specific how the reference does not support the text? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Me? The ref'd source says $300 mil per year by 2010 for RT and $376 mil for BBC WSG in 2014–15 in the prose, however I hadn't previously noticed the graphic next to it that does match-up with the article text.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- "The content (or title) of the source doesn't have to be neutral to make it reliable." - I didn't question the source reliability, only the relevance\value of that comparison to this section about RT organization budget. Noting that the only reason to compare RT with BBC (and not another local media as it done everywhere else) is linked to the 'Criticism' section.
- "Can you be specific how the reference does not support the text?" - Apparently I was wrong on that point, as Trappedinburnley pointed out, there is a graphic that I hadn't previously noticed, that state that.--Elysans (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- To answer the first question, Elysans, the budget comparison is highly relevant in terms of how much money the RF is prepared to throw at giving (what is essentially) themselves/their outlet a global profile, global penetration, and wooing an audience. The contrast between the entire budget for worldwide BBC news/current affairs/comprehensive analysis of global and local issues and RT is significant. It demonstrates that the RF has a serious agenda in creating a competitive profile as an 'alternative' outlet. If we were looking at election scenarios in the USA, for example, comparing the campaign budgets allocated to any party/party member for an election would be a significant issue.
- First, the text in the article right now, is not supported by the reference and contrary to the source I provided. Second, many US\UK based papers made that comparison under titles like "Russia boosts global 'media offensive'..we need more budget" which has no place in the organization budget section (i.e. the POV i was talking about ). Third, in all other media articles I seen the budget is compared to other local outlets (e.g. BBC to sky news) --Elysans (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- As regards your second issue, the difference between the text and the graphic needs to be cleared up. One or the other is wrong. The best recourse is to cross-reference against other RS reporting on the same issue in order to find out which figure is correct. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Iryna Harpy You guys making strawman arguments, all you said about the comparison is correct just not to a section detailing RT organization budget... Add it to background (i.e. "RT was created to..." and add all of that), but in here it is meaningless compression, especially due to fluctuation in conversion rates. And It is far more logical to note how much extra budget Russia allocates to its international channel on top of its domestic outlets.--Elysans (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- And you are making WP:OR arguments regarding fluctuation in conversion rates, et al. Any RS for this assertion? As to whether whether your personal take on where this information is DUE and UNDUE... well that's your personal interpretation. The only conflation of sourced content I'm seeing here is your own. While we're about it, please explain your 'observation' "You guys making strawman arguments...". Who are 'the guys' you're levelling this accusation at? Have you actually read through this talk page and its archives? Please don't personalise your objections when you're not familiar with the history of discussions surrounding the article's content or prior WP:CONSENSUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I already posted a source showing the fluctuation in RT budget based on the exchange rate of dollar to rubles, it is the second post here. As to your personal take on this information, this section provide a breakdown of RT organizational budget over the years, not about its "global penetration, and wooing an audience". Just the same while "The contrast between the entire budget for worldwide BBC news/current affairs/comprehensive analysis of global and local issues and RT" is significant to the article, it isn't to the topic of this section and we shouldn't use a useless comparison whose sole purpose is to vague imply that. Since this section mostly note changes in Government funding, it would be far more useful to put those numbers in context of russian budge and/or other media outlets there. --Elysans (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's reliably sourced, and offers an insight into the budget for the RT 'project'. Nevertheless, as it would need to include the cutbacks and cross-referenced in order to establish whether the written text or the (image) chart are correct, I'm reticent to retain this content as it currently stands. If any other editors consider that it's still WP:DUE, I'd suggest that they make their arguments as quickly as possible.
- I already posted a source showing the fluctuation in RT budget based on the exchange rate of dollar to rubles, it is the second post here. As to your personal take on this information, this section provide a breakdown of RT organizational budget over the years, not about its "global penetration, and wooing an audience". Just the same while "The contrast between the entire budget for worldwide BBC news/current affairs/comprehensive analysis of global and local issues and RT" is significant to the article, it isn't to the topic of this section and we shouldn't use a useless comparison whose sole purpose is to vague imply that. Since this section mostly note changes in Government funding, it would be far more useful to put those numbers in context of russian budge and/or other media outlets there. --Elysans (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- And you are making WP:OR arguments regarding fluctuation in conversion rates, et al. Any RS for this assertion? As to whether whether your personal take on where this information is DUE and UNDUE... well that's your personal interpretation. The only conflation of sourced content I'm seeing here is your own. While we're about it, please explain your 'observation' "You guys making strawman arguments...". Who are 'the guys' you're levelling this accusation at? Have you actually read through this talk page and its archives? Please don't personalise your objections when you're not familiar with the history of discussions surrounding the article's content or prior WP:CONSENSUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Iryna Harpy You guys making strawman arguments, all you said about the comparison is correct just not to a section detailing RT organization budget... Add it to background (i.e. "RT was created to..." and add all of that), but in here it is meaningless compression, especially due to fluctuation in conversion rates. And It is far more logical to note how much extra budget Russia allocates to its international channel on top of its domestic outlets.--Elysans (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note, however, that I don't actually see a problem with using both the "Time" source in question and the Moscow Times article in tandem. The Moscow Times article ties the budget cutbacks to the downward trend in the RF budget. Note, also, that we don't need to have a chart for the budget for all major news outlets around the globe as that is an article entirely unto itself (which would have to map the shareholder stocks, advertising revenue, etc. for commercial outlets), therefore WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:OR for the purposes of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've not really had time to get into this, but here are a couple more sources on funding. [4] [5] It does seem that prior to the rouble collapse, the budget had climbed higher than the article currently suggests. Also that someone was a bit premature adding German and French channels to the table.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note, however, that I don't actually see a problem with using both the "Time" source in question and the Moscow Times article in tandem. The Moscow Times article ties the budget cutbacks to the downward trend in the RF budget. Note, also, that we don't need to have a chart for the budget for all major news outlets around the globe as that is an article entirely unto itself (which would have to map the shareholder stocks, advertising revenue, etc. for commercial outlets), therefore WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:OR for the purposes of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the same position, Trappedinburnley. I have, however, found references for German and French language RT (both launched at the end of January this year). As regards the budget, I agree that they should stay as being pertinent, but merely in need of development. The allocated budget is relevant to the article's content, therefore being dated information is immaterial to its relevance. We are under no obligation to develop it immediately simply because it is dated; nor are we obliged to remove it because it needs updating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Urm Iryna Harpy, unfortunately I'll now have to take issue with your edit. As far as I have read, whilst there are now French and German websites, the TV channels have yet to be launched, due to weakness of the rouble. If you've got time to take another look, then great, otherwise I'll try to do something ASAP. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- By all means. I couldn't find anything to back up TV channels. I'm going to give myself a trout slap and boldly remove those two, plus the Russian language channel (again, I couldn't find anything to substantiate a Russian language version). Well, if we're really going to follow policy to the letter, whoever added these was being bold, so I'm removing them as WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks for pulling me up on this. I've become so irritated with this article that my attitude to it has become sloppy. The prospect of every syllable removed or added triggering off an edit war is enough to knock the stuffing out of the sturdiest Wikipedian... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Bias
I thought it went without saying that every news source has a point of view. Maybe that's just something you learn in Poly Sci class as an undergraduate. When you're 19 years old. So we can either plaster this warning over every intro to every news source, like we do with RT, or we can just skip it. What we shouldn't do is deface one media outlet's intro with warnings about how biased they are while shitty corporate media like CNN or British government media like BBC is introduced with no such warning. Since it took you all of 2 minutes to revert my last changes Winner 42 I'm especially talking to you. MarkB2 Chat 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- You don't understand the policy of WP:NOTAFORUM. You also might want to review policy on ownership behavior regarding this article. MarkB2 Chat 03:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have notified MarkB2 of discretionary sanctions regarding this topic area. MarkB2 if you wish to engage in discussion here about meaningful, non pointy changes, you are welcome to do so. Before you do, I suggest you actually read WP:OWN, followed by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Also WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE are also relevant. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I plead guilty to violating WP:CIVIL. But I'm not the only one. I actually have read WP:OWN. In fact I was editing Wikipedia long before you were. Though not as obsessively. You are aware you won't be paid for the thousands of hours of your life you've lost editing Wikipedia? And I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If I wanted to do that I would plaster citations to reputable sources about how biased this or that media source is all over the intro to CNN, the BBC, CBS, NBC, etc. Which I could easily do. I posted here to have a discussion about the issue instead of getting into a revert war. Which reminds me that neither of you have responded to my argument. And both of you are babysitting this article, looking at the edit history.MarkB2 Chat 17:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- You've expressed a personal opinion. Without new sources, without bringing anything new to the table, to a discussion that has been had numerous times. Hence all it was was just a personal opinion. Which is not what article talk pages are for. Hence, WP:NOTAFORUM (and honestly, it's just not my problem if you can't see a difference between CNN and RT - that has been explained numerous times and it gets tiresome, especially with people who don't listen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I plead guilty to violating WP:CIVIL. But I'm not the only one. I actually have read WP:OWN. In fact I was editing Wikipedia long before you were. Though not as obsessively. You are aware you won't be paid for the thousands of hours of your life you've lost editing Wikipedia? And I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If I wanted to do that I would plaster citations to reputable sources about how biased this or that media source is all over the intro to CNN, the BBC, CBS, NBC, etc. Which I could easily do. I posted here to have a discussion about the issue instead of getting into a revert war. Which reminds me that neither of you have responded to my argument. And both of you are babysitting this article, looking at the edit history.MarkB2 Chat 17:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have notified MarkB2 of discretionary sanctions regarding this topic area. MarkB2 if you wish to engage in discussion here about meaningful, non pointy changes, you are welcome to do so. Before you do, I suggest you actually read WP:OWN, followed by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Also WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE are also relevant. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- You don't understand the policy of WP:NOTAFORUM. You also might want to review policy on ownership behavior regarding this article. MarkB2 Chat 03:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
RT always has been and always will be Putins unfiltered mouthpiece. CNN sucks, Fox is terrible and RT is an abomination...just admit it my ruskie brethren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Really? You actually need citations of bias allegations against American news from reputable sources? Wow. I feel like I'm arguing with an 8th grader. OK, happy to oblige. Regarding CNN, how about Wikipedia's [6]. or [7], [8], [9], honestly, I'm getting bored. As far as the volumes that have been written in scholarly research on the pro-Western bias in American media: [10], [11], [12]. It seems there are many professional political scientists who have conducted real studies who disagree with you! I guess they don't listen either. MarkB2 Chat 15:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is the article about RT, if you have issues with other articles go and discuss them there. There is no rule that the lead of one article needs to have comparable content to the lead of another. The question is does this lead suitably summarize this article? The answer has been given many times before on this talkpage, it won't be hard for you to find.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. So we plaster the warning over every into to every news source, to answer my own question. After discussing the sources in the body of the article, of course. So the intro summarizes the contents of the article. And how is this "easy" to find? There are 75 pages of archived talk pages. MarkB2 Chat 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is the article about RT, if you have issues with other articles go and discuss them there. There is no rule that the lead of one article needs to have comparable content to the lead of another. The question is does this lead suitably summarize this article? The answer has been given many times before on this talkpage, it won't be hard for you to find.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point. My point is that although Western media is terrible, at least it generally isn't funded by the state. CNN might be pro-USA, but it is not above criticizing Uncle Sam all day long. According to countless RT defectors RT does not have the legal authority to criticize Russia and God-forbid they speak ill of Mr. Putin. To disagree with me on this is to ignore all relevant facts in favor of blind nationalism. You have been enlightened 74.77.42.58 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Involved in espionage?
The FBI says they've caught some Russian spies, and the complaint alleges a Russian state-owned media outlet was involved (but does not name it) [13], [14]. Watching to see if this gets any traction in reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Such Little Understanding of Russia Today?
Is not the timing of all this (anti-Russia) dis-information more than a little telling? For on top of the US government and media rubbishing RT, the FBI are busy putting out its' silly 007 (type) stories. All this anti-Russian BS - just when Uncle Sam is attempting to contain Russia and start a new cold war. While this might not be the kind of evidence Wikipedia demands, it seems to be a reasonable indication of attempts to undermine RT. And yet, instead of giving the appearance of being a US Department mouthpiece, should not Wikipedia put out balanced and fair information about the Russia Today and its' news output? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.50.129 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Get back to Olgino and tell them to find a better online machine translator.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, looks like the allegations are aimed at Tass. [15]. Geogene (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- RT did this to themselves, and luckily for them, they got away with their propaganda for a while, when they were believable. They had more than enough chances to keep a good image, but their abuse can only go so far before being noticed. Too bad for them, they didn't quit while they were ahead. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
But only later was Tass was put in the picture. At first, the news spotlight was aimed at Russia Today. As the reasoning went, not only is the station state-funded, but-at around the time of the conversation was recorded-RT put out reports about the New York Stock Exchange. And yet, the legal complaint was careful to avoid naming any news outlet. Not that cold war style attacks could have anything to do with US policy towards Russian or its' media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.49.137 (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Recognition heuristic. RT is by far the best known Russian media outlet in the West. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it is. (Russian news got consolidated into the few state sponsored outlets there are) - Sidelight12 Talk 03:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
RT: innocent until proven Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.86.96 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I feel that pumping out disinformation around the world on a daily basis is a far worse crime than facilitating a bit of spying. I'm sure RT would do anything that TASS would, so it's probably only a matter of time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Who are you to decide whats disinformation and whats not? I have not seen any disinformation coming from RT. Most disinformation i see comes from the MSM and those wikipedia articles dont have any propaganda in the head. Kakabaku (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Russia Today: BOTH propaganda outlets?
“Since its foundation in 2005, RT has been widely accused as being a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. In an interview with U.S government-owned external broadcaster Voice of America, the Russian-Israeli blogger Anton Nosik the creation of Russia Today "smacks of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns." Criticism of pro-Russia bias within Russia Today
"In 2008, Tim Anderson, a senior lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney, said that Wikipedia administrators display a U.S.-oriented bias in their interaction with editors, and in their determination of sources that are appropriate for use on the site.” Anderson also said that Wikipedia "hides behind a reliance on corporate media editorials." Criticism of pro-American bias within Wikipedia
So perhaps both Russia Today and Wikipedia might be termed state information outlets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.181.232 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding what Tim Anderson is saying - he's not saying Wikipedia is pro-US politically or otherwise, he's noting an inherent bias to focus on US subject matter because the majority of users are from the US. The two accusations are entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.51 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, one is funded by the Russian Federation, the other is merely open to intellectual corruption. As for Wikipedia being U.S. oriented, there are a slew of pro-lots-of-interests. If anything, on major topics, Wikipedia has a bite the hand that feeds it anti-US bias. So, again, no. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The article doesn't describe the image of the world presented by RT
- Some basic problems are presented in criticsm secion, see "message of freedom and liberty". The basic values should be described in the main part of the article, they exists independently from the critics. The words democracy, liberal, orthodox, christianiity, homosexual, LGBT are not to be found. Christian is only the Science Monitor.
- Some of the pictures are old: 2007, journalists who already have left RT. Even if they are correctly described, they create unprecise image of the today RT.Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)