Jump to content

Talk:Press TV/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

lies

A couple of lies spread by pressTV should be mentioned (like that Israel paid 50.000 mercenaries to fight for Gaddafi) in order to illustrate the propaganda-character of this outlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.45.164 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Panorama - BBC TV - 11 April 2011 - Living with the Ayatollah - had some information about this propaganda outlet - it looks like the article at present is the work of propagandists for the state. This has OWN ership and POV problems and the community should address it. 92.4.48.5 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
...& Talking about "propagandists" and others working for governments or special groups: See this article by the Los Angeles Times :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.6.113 (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is about Press TV , not Hollywood.92.4.125.84 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Content balance

In no way is this article neutral. Large portions of the text have been added or changed by Press TV themselves. Spiral2525 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone

Just to update the page, Ken Livingstone is not a 'former' presenter of Press TV, he is still hosting 'Epilogue' with his latest appearance on Monday May 2nd 2011, the episode is available on the Press TV archives http://www.presstv.ir/section/3510504.html in "A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axisanchor (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 42.109.173.133, 9 August 2011


42.109.173.133 (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


lakharam jakhar barmer rajasthan

No request made--Jac16888 Talk 03:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

James Whale - "Former Presenters"

James Whale who was wikilinked in the "Former Presenters" section died in 1957. Possibly James Whale (radio) was the former presenter. However, I have no way of determining that connection.--TGC55 (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

criticism

You need to make sure what you place in that section is not your own criticism but ones that have been published in reliable sources. Blogs are only reliable as to the opinion of the author, and if the author is not notable it does not belong. Taking random things not reported as a criticism and combining them into one in the text is synthesis of material to advance a position. Please make sure that the criticisms are supported by the sources as criticism. nableezy - 07:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's one reliable source that doesn't seem mentioned: Press TV fabricated stories about US drone attacks in Somalia Open4D (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please mind WP:SYNTH and WP:OR

We, as Wikipedia editors, are in no position to put together/cite a bunch of primary Press TV articles, and make any sort of conclusions based on that. This would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. So please mind the relevant Wikipedia polices when editing this article. There are many valid criticisms of Press TV on all fronts that can be backed by secondary reliable sources, there is no need to resort to original research here. Kurdo777 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

UK situation

Has the channel actually stopped broadcasting following the removal of its licence? If so I guess all the "current presenters" should be moved to the "former presenters" section... Mezigue (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to move 'current presenters', Press TV's presence on the internet is unaffected. Philip Cross (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal from SES Astra

According to the news channel it self, BLM has failed to justify why it was taken off air, which due to it being a news channel, may have to do with PressTV's alternative view to world affairs. Here's the link http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/05/20/242168/blm-fails-justify-press-tv-ban/ --Da Dashz (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What about A Simple Question?

That program which lasts for a about half an hour where Phil Rees asks several members of the British public about current issues in the political world and domestic affairs. Should I add it in or what?--78.151.53.200 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone going to answer or what (It's me,logged in)? --Da Dashz (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2012

this page needs to update! like as channel logo, frequencies and contact emails 217.218.67.253 (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the logo is done, not sure about the rest...--Da Dashz (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

PressTV on 2011 Libyan war

PressTV is also very biased in the case of 2011 war in Libya. It overtly supports the pro-western rebels, labeling them as the revolutionaries and spreads many lies about Colonel Gaddafi and his supporters; many such claims are almost directly copied from the Western media and press. Any comments that condemn this biased reporting is not posted on the PressTV website or even removed after being posted and displayed on the website. However, the Iranian protesters who swarmed the streets of the Iranian cities were immediately labeled as the infidels who may be sponsored by the CIA, etc. Double standards, anyone?

So - is PressTV a genuine Iranian TV network or is it just another deception tool of the Western or Zionist elite designed to deceive the people just like the well-known Al Jazeera is doing? Zupi (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the section you inserted, but invite you to re-insert it if you provide a reliable source (→WP:RS details reliable sources). The big issue here are the people you described as "the commentators" in the section you inserted. Who are these "commentators" exactly? I have checked the link you provided, and was unable to find these "commentators". Where are they? If you are "the commentator" (based on the above, you clearly feel strongly about this) or they are other people commenting anonymously (e.g. in typical comment sections below articles), it falls far outside WP:RS and does not belong in a wiki article (WP:V). If, on the other hand, these are commentators from serious sources, e.g. articles, scientific papers, books or alike, it is reliable, and you can insert it with that source. RN1970 (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So you agree with Gaddafi's slaughter of his own people do you?--Da Dashz (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Press TV Correspondents

Press TV has more than 60 TV correspondents (independent freelance journalists) working for them in more than 45 countries. I have locations and details of at least 12 of them. This section be an important resource to audience members who wish to contact these reporters or who wish to know how wide the area of coverage is for this news organization.

Can I proceed to create the section on the main page?

spartymantz (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can. You don't need ANY permission from anybody. Just follow the RULES of Wikipedia. 173.213.240.252 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Added a list of journalists I got from Press TV's Video reports section.

spartymantz (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Double standards

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.

this youtube video summarizes the view about this article and how Iran's sensitive articles are treated by some people. Cuisine/Culture/History/Art/Economy/Science/Education and many other topics are treated DAILY by PressTV's correspondants around the world; including criticism and exposure of many problems in Iran and its government's policies. See PressTV's "Iran Today" program as a good example. Reducing PressTV to a "political machine" as is done in the lead section is over-simplification and therefore erroneous. I am not trying to suppress controversial info here but please keep these topics within the context, in its main related article (i.e. Press TV controversies), not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.68.104.180 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2012 (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.

Edited out CounterPunch as anti-Semitic

Seems like a stretch, although it has a...disturbing tendency to ally with certain people. 67.81.0.164 (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Potential Source

I am not involved with this article, but I just stumbled upon one of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables that discusses Press TV -

(S) While lodging complaints at the ITU has symbolic value, Turner said her government recognizes the body has no enforcement authority. Therefore, HMG is looking at other ways to address the issue. HMG is exploring ways to limit the operations of the IRIB's Press TV service, which operates a large bureau (over 80 staff) in London. However, UK law sets a very high standard for denying licenses to broadcasters. Licenses can only be denied in cases where national security is threatened, or if granting a license would be contrary to Britain's obligations under international law. Currently, neither of these standards can be met with respect to Press TV, but if further sanctions are imposed on Iran in the coming months, a case may be able to be made on the second criterion.

This is a SECRET diplomatic cable, and I do not know if there is a Wikipedia policy against the usage of this. Discuss. http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=10LONDON257 KingHiggins (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is no objection I will use it in the main article under "London Bureau". Thanks.67.83.61.108 (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect edit request

A lot of unsourced additions has been done, lots of editions on heading is done and still continuing. It is focusing on management. lots of unsourced pages were linked by unknown accounts Azirann (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — LeoFrank  Talk 06:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect edit request

Various non-constructive edits ranging from unsourced, messing the page. user Bearcat violately has removed Category "Category:24-hour television news channels" from Presstv page. Please Add them to this page.
User Randy2063 and user SSZ added unfounded claims,wrong information by adding:" but is said to be close to the country's conservative political faction, especially the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution|elite revolutionary guards". It is not correct. They are giving wrong information. please remove these statements.
user SSZ added wrong information and unreliable quotation which is focousing on managemrent. " Its head is appointed directly by the supreme leader, Ayatollah [[Ali Khamenei." Please Remove that and change to "Presstv management is appointed by Irib management commision. It is not appointed by Islamic republic leader."
it is many times added wrong and untrusted information about management of presstv, which are not true but they insist adding them. wrong information are added by Xenophrenic which is targetting its management is as follow, please remove them:
"IRIB is independent of the Iranian government]], but is said to be close to the country's conservative political faction, especially the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution|elite revolutionary guards. Some media analysts and critics have questioned the purpose and effectiveness of Press TV given the repressive environment towards media. Attempts to establish private, independent media outlets in Iran have been restricted or banned, and Reporters Without Frontiers has declared Iran to have the highest number of jailed journalists in the Middle East. According to the 1979 Iranian Constitution, all broadcasting must exclusively be government-operated, and in 1994 the Islamic state banned the use of satalite television."
Also Xenophrenic removed a citation from last part of coverage: User Hayek added Unfounded claim, unreliable quotation which is targetting its management: " its head is appointed directly by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei" please remove it and change to:"Presstv management is appointed by Irib management commision. It is not appointed by Islamic republic leader."
Again recently user Xenophrenic editted and violately removed "Criticism" part from this page.

Please semiprotect this page. RegardsAzirann (talk)

THIS IS A LIE. I did not edit as said above by new editor Azirann. In FACT I have ONLY edited/added a source to the Guardian (UK) article. SSZ (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible COI

The biggest changes recently to this article are the series of edits[1] by Dr Shakespeare, the creator of a related article Ismail Salami. That looks like a COI to me. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is enough of a justification. These seem minor edits that, in the end, did not substantially alter the article: there have been many edits since then - some of which either inserted the deleted material or reworded it (and other editors have also removed some of the the same material removed by Dr Shakespeare and then reinserted). This seems to be to be just an ordinary content issue, with nothing that points to a conflict of interest issue. Are you saying that you believe Dr Shakespear to be Ismail Salami? And the basis of this belief is that of the editor's name and that the editor claimed Ismail Salami to be a Shakespearean scholar? Even if it is true, I find nothing in the content of either article that justifies the tag. If Dr Shakespeare has had only minimal influence on the current content of the article there is no need for the tag tobe there. What current content (or absence of content because it was deleted by Sr Shakespear) did you find that justifies it? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I was skeptical at first, but actually looking at the edits, I agree the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that there's a COI here, in the form of someone who either is, or is pretending to be, a specific PressTV employee. Can we get a volunteer to clean it up to NPOV standards so that the tag can be removed for now? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I will have a go at doing it. BTW, I hope there will be no more edit summaries that include highly inflamatory words like "Jew Baiting". Words like that are hardly going to help getting to a npov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
His July edits had a major influence and I've got agreement. Maybe take this to WP:COIN. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Edixon55 looks very much like another COI editor, unless the two are the same. Edixon has made no edits outside this article, and added some highly slanted stuff in July — certainly not minor — which I have just removed, including the charming observation in Wikipedia's voice that "Press TV later learned that the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) -- an agency of the US Treasury Department headed by an Ashkenazi Jew called Adam Szubin -- was behind the pressure on Intelsat."[2] I'd have warned Edixon strongly if I'd seen that, but there seems little point now. Clearly this article needs eyes on it so it doesn't again turn into an embarrassment. Not sure I've cleaned it up enough, I've mainly looked at the Coverage section. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC).

What did Dr Shakespear add/remove, and how much of an impact has his edits had on the current state of the article? Looking at the diffs [3] it seems that he deleted content in the lede and in the funding and management section. However, all that removed content is now back in the article. He also deleted a number of names listed as "current presenters": Lauren Booth, Max Keiser, Yvonne Ridley, Amina Taylor. There are references found on the wikipedia articles to show that Lauren Booth and Yvonne Ridley have both done presenting/reporting work for PressTV, but nothing for Max Keiser. There is also nothing for Amina Taylor, but unreferenced content on the article says she does (I will fact tag the claim in the hope of getting a source). So I think it best to restore the Lauren Booth and Yvonne Ridley names but not Max Keiser or, for the moment, Amina Taylor. I will go ahead and do it because I don't think it is a controversial change. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The other bit of content removed was in the North American Staff section: the "For instance, the discussion program American Dream is produced in Washington, DC by Atlantic Television News (ATN) which is based in Denmark.[32] It had previously been hosted by Mark Levine, who quit the show after alleging editorial interference.[33][34] Hank Flynn in New York and Ashantai Hathaway in Washington DC are freelance video journalists for Press TV in the US.[35]". There are problems in restoring this content unchanged - there are various versions of the text that says PressTV has no North American staff but just "maintains a presence in the United States through intermediary companies" - so I think this section should be deleted and merged with international correspondants, especially since "international" includes USA in this context. The alleged reason for Mark Levine's departure seems off topic for that section and should be moved. Probably put it in the controversies section for now. (I see a number of issues and problems with the "controversies" section. Is not the chief controversy the station's removal from various satellites? And why is being "pro-Palestinian, anti-sanctions against Iran, and critical of Western foreign policy" defined as being "controversial". But that's content issues and nothing to do with getting rid of the COI tag.) What I propose is restoring that deleted content, but moving part of it into the controversies section and the rest into a merged international correspondants. And when that is done, all the effects of the edits by Dr Shakespear will have been removed and so the COI tag can be removed. Any objections? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Some additional "North American Staff" individuals were removed by me (see this edit), not Dr Shakespear, after I reviewed each of the citations to purported links and discovered not one described these people as "staff". Some were "interviewed" by PressTV, and others submitted "commentary" printed by PressTV, but no indication that they are or were "staff". That section is now empty, so perhaps your suggestion to delete that section has merit. As for the controversy section - that should be summarized, as it begins with a pointer to a whole detailed article already written on that same subject. There does appear to be a blurring between "controversy" and "differing perspectives" in that section, but I'm not familiar enough with reliable sources on those issues to make significant edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
We should put the article into a state where there is consensus that it is NPOV, and then remove the COI tag and patrol the article to make sure it stays NPOV. This reduces the risk of the COI editor deciding to return under a different username, rather than declare his conflict of interest so that he can continue participating under the current username. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
But COI and NPOV are different issues. The COI tag is there as a result of a specific set of edits by one editor, and so that tag can be removed after all issues to do with those particular edits no longer exist. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
COI is a neutrality issue. One of the issues is that the edit to the lede by the allegedly COI editor was NPOV. The article clearly needs an NPOV cleanup in its current state. The NPOV cleanup will solve the problem. The alternative would be to get consensus that all the COI edits had been fixed, and then see if it's still NPOV, and if so change the COI tag to NPOV and then get consensus that the NPOV tag if fixed. I don't think there's any point to the extra steps. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
?? But the supposed coi editor made no impact on the lede. He added nothing / removed nothing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The edit [4] included an attempt to change the lede. It sounds though like you want to start by examining the COI edits rather than article as a whole, so we can do that instead. I guess where I'm coming from is that I'm more concerned about NPOV than the COI per se. Tiptoethrutheminefield Go ahead and make the changes, and let us know when you're done and we can see if there's consensus it's no longer COI. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, what I meant was the coi editor has made no impact on the lede AS IT NOW EXISTS. There is no justification for a continuation of the COI tag if none of the edits made by the suspected editor still exist in the article - so consensus is not needed to remove the tag. I also think a coi tag is not a reason to blindly exclude content - just because edits were done by a coi editor does not mean they all had no merit. Rather than just sticking a coi tag on the article, I think it would have been better to have started discussing any alleged npov issues those edits, and other edits, created. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If the edits don't exist now of course the COI tag can be removed. But COI tags are there to invite discussion and to inform the readers of a conflict or possible conflict of interest. It seems to have worked thanks to you all. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
A month has passed. I think all the coi issues have been settled and I am removing the tag. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Uncited and weakly-cited material need to be removed

Non-notable material that fails WP:WEIGHT needs to be removed, per Wikipedia guidelines. This will also bring us in line with the Wikipedia page for CNN, which only lists *notable* presenters and programs. Thus, this edit: [5]. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Press TV. 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.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Presenters lists

Personally I would get rid of the whole presenters list because, given the low page-view count for this article, it's unlikely to be kept up-to-date. If it stays the entire current list should be sourced as a list, presumably to the press tv website somewhere; I assume the list is noncontroversial. I took the liberty of removing three unsourced "former contributor" links. IMHO we can remove the "former contributors" section at least, and move "Andrew Gilligan" and "Ken Livingstone", which are well-sourced, to their own section for 'notable former staff.' Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I have gone ahead and deleted it and the entire section (from the same section I have also deleted the content that referred to a 2007 statement on where personnel are stationed, given that will now be dated information). Only two of the wikilinked presenters actually had articles. If there are notable presenters they can be mentioned in the program list. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Press TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Press TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"Supporters" passage

I don't see how an unsourced/poorly-sourced passage about Western bias [6][7][8] is needed (somehow, claimed by "supporters") is needed in a paragraph that already describes how PressTV "bills itself." If anything, the "critics" portion is already extremely brief. This unbalanced addition comes across as too pro-Islamic regime and is not neutral. El_C 23:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

PressTV FACT?

NOTE: Don't intend to re-open closed discussion but would like to make you aware that linked (& deleted) video which has been watched by everyone below apparently has been edited across Youtube accounts (including the BBC and others) to remove the portion about this topic. Only Google/Youtube who is "Jewish" by its founders and may be the NSA can do that!... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.30.191 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

result: no consensus

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.

Following my previous comment to the notice board incident, I was advised to take it to the talk page first (or bring it to the dispute resolution forum).

I also agree completely with user:Xenophrenic's position here who stated "BBC meets WP:RS for someone's attributed opinion". 47.17.27.189 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to view the video, but for the sake of argument let's assume that some RT guy did indeed say most Press TV presenters are Jewish. Indeed, that does not pass WP:RS; Wikipedia should not imply that "most Press TV presenters are Jewish" in the absence of evidence. Therefore the text as proposed, "Yet, according to Afshin Rattansi, "most editors on PressTV are Jewish", probably fails WP:RS because the proposed text seems meant to imply that most Press TV presenters are Jewish, rather than that there's some Afshin Rattansi guy who says weird things.
An alternative formulation such as "Afshin Rattansi claims that most editors on PressTV are Jewish", would be better but would fail WP:UNDUE because it carries no weight; unlikely claims require solid sources. Technically such an alternative formulation arguably does not fail WP:RS, as long as you're talking RS for "X claims that Y" rather than RS for "Y" itself, but that's pointlessly splitting hairs. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW the current text should be reverted until such a time as there is WP:CONSENSUS to include it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all you say "Nobody's interesting in sitting through a long video to see if he actually says that at some point" while the link to the video was clearly given in my first edits (and the exact place in it (twice at "18:44"))
My bad, I didn't see the "location=" field in the edit. I shouldn't seen that and then reverted it for WP:UNDUE instead of reverting it under the mistaken belief no timestamp was given.
Second of all, you say that this information "has no weight". Yet Afshin Rattansi has himself worked at PRESSTV (so, I assume he knows many of the people at PressTV from the inside -- which should be a good source by any standard). I do not see any evidence that he has any "axe to grind" with his former employer or colleagues at PressTV (even though, I would not understand HOW such statement (as quoted by him) would help him in any way, shape or form). For information, he made his own documentaries broadcasted by PressTV and others years later (called "Double Standards").
It has no WP:WEIGHT, and is WP:UNDUE. Have you read the WP:UNDUE policy? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes I have (have been editing WP for 10 years). Please see also my remarks to user:Doug Weller regarding censorship by "mainstream media" itself (below). 47.17.27.189 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Third, Afshin Rattansi is a well-known "global" journalist who has worked for many reputable news agencies such as CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and RT. He is pretty well rounded IMO. He is also a British citizen of Indian origin as per his Wikipedia biography.
So my question to you here: Are you, Sir, suggesting that Afshin Rattansi did purposefully lie during this interview with the BCC? If so, what would be his motivation? (I cannot think of one presently.) Thanks. 47.17.27.189 (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a question; WP:UNDUE doesn't say "include obscure claims nobody can prove person might be lying or wrong." But since you asked: Rattansi might be intending to argue that "It's unlikely Press TV is anti-semitic, because most of its presenters are Jewish". Or he might be a conspiracy-theorist who believes Jews control all media. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
1."obscure" to you until a well-known journalist/INSIDER sheds the light on it (may be)? 2. &..."Nobody can prove". Simple statistics (it is verifiable indeed). 3. You are funny (no disrespect). How did he manage to work for the BBC, CNN, Bloomberg News, RT, PressTV all those years then? (and he still does) 4. "Shoot the messenger" isn't going to support your argument, IMHO. 5. PressTV is "anti-Zionism" may be but not anti-Semitic. 6. You cannot be a "conspiracy theorist" only if you believe that "Jews control most media" (despite them being less than 1% of world population), *UNLESS* it is checked (statistically) and proved untrue by a reputable source. 47.17.27.189 (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is a [(Redacted) link] to the video published by BBC, if you want to add it to the citation. You'll find the statement at the 18:30 time mark. The attributed statement by Afshin Rattansi, a former anchor for Press TV, is published by BBC so it indeed does pass Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements for an attributed point of view. As a clearly attributed point of view, there is no concern about readers confusing the statement with an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. As a suggestion, I would lose the word "Yet", which presents an unsupported juxtaposition. Also, if you plan to completely reword the addition, be sure to avoid loaded weasel words such as "claims". I'm curious as to what might make Rattansi's statement an "unlikely claim"; could someone point me to reliable sources that would clear that up for me? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, nobody did answer my previous 2 questions yet. If this statement by Mr. Rattansi would prove to be true, one thing we could agree on is that it would look like Iran's government is the "Controlled Opposition" globally (as per terminology used in the document entitled "Protocols of Zion"), since Persian Jews (while respected in Iran) constitute less than 1% of a percent of the total population as of 2016; and the fact that PressTV is one prominent Iranian government-owned media. 47.17.27.189 (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, one thing we can agree on is that is Mr Rattansi is talking using his rear end. Mezigue (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are entitled to your own opinion, Sir/Madam. 47.17.27.189 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone found any mentions of this outside the BBC programme? I've looked hard for something and came up empty. And that's where WP:UNDUE comes in. IMHO until this is discussed in other reliable sources it doesn't belong in our articles. It doesn't even seem to have been newsworthy. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked for other sources at all. I was treating the content as a simple observation on staffing by a former anchor (and still current content provider) at PressTV. I had not expected the brief comment to be newsworthy, and certainly not a subject of coverage in many sources, rather something more akin to "PressTV has a branch office on 8th Street..." After the flurry of recent activity focused on excising the comment, however, it's becoming more apparent to me that there must be connotations of which I am not sufficiently unaware. I'll defer to Doug Weller's recommendation, as he has looked into it more than I have and I trust his judgement. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic what makes it an unlikely claim is that Press TV is widely viewed as anti-Jewish state propaganda, and I would think if PressTV went through the trouble of recruiting a majority of Jewish people just in an attempt to parry that criticism, they would have mentioned it themselves in an official PressTV response to such accusations. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, Rolf H Nelson. By "widely viewed as anti-Jewish", do you mean that is a popular viewpoint, or do you mean that is an established fact? I'm just trying to get a handle on why someone described as working for Press TV in 2012 would say on a nationally televised program that many people working there (and specifically, editors) were Jewish, if that were not the case. Does that sound logical to you? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
& I might add (in a debate where neither party challenged him for this big statement). WP:UNDUE does not apply here. This is CENSORSHIP of an attributed opinion/fact, sourced to WP:RS. 47.17.27.189 (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, Doug, (not to mix the two) I have seen things with my OWN eyes that would boggle the mind of anyone. YET IT IS CENSORED (including in the West). I am talking about FACT only. VERIFIABLE facts. The question is HOW can we overcome this inside of WP? WP is NOT censored as I know. SO yes you can get a piece of information here and there as we did above MAY BE. 47.17.27.189 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't say what you think it does. Among other things, you (as SSZ) are adding a copyvio link, which we don't allow. WP:UNDUE still applies and you haven't addressed that. Please take it to WP:NPOVN if you think he comment is enough to include it. And stop editing as an IP and as SSZ on the same pages. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There is consensus? really? 1. First, you say that the BBC one debate makes no such claim by Mr. Rattansi. Yet 3 persons have seen the video (at least) and do not dispute anymore the allegation it was said as quoted in the reference (see the above) 2. The issue of BBC website and youtube in the citation is a non-issue since both sites were CLEARLY given See comment to the notice board incident
Afshin Rattansi (January 24, 2016). Is Iran a real threat? (Television production). 18:44: BBC One.{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: location (link).

You can remove the Youtube video (if you like -- for censorship also?) but please don't say "it wasn't said" as this may irreparably damage your credibility. For the rest, please refer to your own talk page regarding my response to WP:UNDUE. Cheers! user:SSZ, 23:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ok, talking about credibility, start by quoting where I ever wrote or even suggested "it wasn't said." As for removing copyvio links being censorship, censorship on Wikipedia means things like images of Allah - they may offend people but that's not a reason not to use them appropriately. Policy deletions aren't censorship. Oh, and thanks Xenophrenic for your comments.Doug Weller talk 05:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I ment censorship by the media. Sorry with my English sometimes, as for "it wasn't said" ment pre-emptively only (& I understand the issue of copyvio -- which isn't really the issue here, but honestly, I would prefer user:Xenophrenic NOT to have deleted his/her link to the YouTube video on this talk page so more people can make an informed decision.) You are ignoring FACTS. I was worried with where you go sometimes by not listening. For the rest, please read comments on your talk page and also read this (for the anecdote). Thanks, user:SSZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.27.189 (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh I listen. And I know he said it. We agree then that I never said he didn't. This is nothing to do with facts but with policy and guidelines. We have to have some way of determining what is encyclopedic - editors sometimes loose track of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
To clarify (again) I didn't mean censorship by you (or Wikipedia) but by the mainstream media (itself) who is supposed to reports those facts in the first place and be the WP:RS we need. WP:UNDUE is not an issue either because 1. It is simply an attributed opinion sourced to WP:RS. 2. We don't need anymore sources UNLESS you believe this fact/allegation is untrue on its face (which you did NOT say so far, nor anybody else (except one person may be)). So where is the consensus you speak of? I suggest you read WP:IAR. Read this also (for the anecdote). Kindly, 47.17.27.189 (talk) 23:28, 29 February 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.

Pro-Iran

As it is Iranian state funded and gives all news totally counter to all the reliable networks such as BBC / VOA / Fox etc etc etc I put "pro-Iran" on the opening few words. --Fake News Extinguisher (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The BBC and VOA are state funded. Fox is a large corporation. All have been criticised for bias in relation to particular stories and in general and all are pro the country in which they are headquartered. Jontel (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes they are state funded but none is PRO- its own country. If that were the case, how come BBC is reliable then? --Fake News Extinguisher (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Fake News Extinguisher: I've no idea why you are mentioning the BBC as it isn't state funded. But I think there are sources for your edit. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge on the grounds that SUMMARY form is unnecessary in this case, as is discussing similar ideas in two places. Klbrain (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I am copying below the IP's rationale added to Talk:Press TV controversies for their requested merge of Press TV controversies to this article: Doug Weller talk 16:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason for the content here to be separate from Press TV. Even a section within an article entitled "controversies" is difficult to regard as neutral; a whole article dedicated to negative aspects of a topic clearly doesn't meet the standard of a neutral point of view. The information here should be presented in a neutral way in the context provided by the main article. 51.7.34.203 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC}

Going back a couple of years at the Controversies article, pinging the active editors @Northamerica1000, DSmurf, and Philip Cross: - they also seem to be about the only active accounts for some time on this one. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Um. I just went to tell the IP and they are CU blocked for a week! Doug Weller talk 16:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
If they come back to the same articles they'll be blocked again, they are a longterm sock. As I've pinged editors I'm loathe to just delete this without agreement. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose suggested merge of a huge text. And quite opposite: per Wikipedia:Summary style, make sure that all facts from this article are included in the "Contro" sub-article, and text here trimmed of minute detail to mak a reasonable summary of each incident. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There is much overlap between the two articles and the controversies should be on the main page. If space is an issue, better to move the ever expanding Current programmes and Former programmes sections to a new article, just as musical performer articles do with discography. Jontel (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2019 (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.

Anti-Iranian Racist War Propaganda Cited Sources

Far too many sources in this article are to war propaganda or media that are known to create dubious claims about long-held targets of Zionist War Ambition. For example, does John Bolton, represent a sober voice on Iranian issues or is he someone with a clear monolithic war agenda? Thus, the citations for this article, which regard an Iranian state run news venue, should be at least be critical as to whether or not they have a bias towards the same agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.228.18 (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this contention. The entire header of this article is filled with non-neutral anti-Iranian racist propaganda from the "Jerusalem Post", which was featured as having an deekfake journalist at some point. See: [1] DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-deepfake-activist/deepfake-used-to-attack-activist-couple-shows-new-disinformation-frontier-idUSKCN24G15E

NPOV

This entire article might as well be a "controversy" section as that is what it has degenerated to. This article as it currently stands is not encyclopedic, but rather an out-and-out attack against Press TV. There is not even any attempt at balance. Laval (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I attempted to reorganize the article for now to reflect "Pros" atop and "Cons" on bottom. Let's review all of the sources. I think any "Jerusalem Post" citations should be removed as that is an IDF military censored newspaper and has been caught using even deepfake journalists: [1] DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-deepfake-activist/deepfake-used-to-attack-activist-couple-shows-new-disinformation-frontier-idUSKCN24G15E

Disruptive Editing

Philip Cross - please do not malign other editors in the act of removing bonafide edits. I am escalating this to admins. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not mention you in my edits. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Philip Cross (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There was no fringe or minority view here. You undid my revisions, so obviously your description of it inaccurately being "fringe" was insulting. You should allow edits to make it more neutral. Why does this article for a news venue read so inauthentically? One can go to PressTV's website and TV show and see none of this article's major critiques are reflected in the programming, nor were reliable sources used in the first place. The original edit was rife with grammatical errors and inaccurate summaries of citations. Most of the information hasn't been updated in years and was from pre 2010. There was an excessive restatement of external links in the article to provide more negative viewpoints. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Revising Press TV Article without Discussion

The article has been flagged for discussion prior to warring with undos. Relevant editors have been tagged and requested to discuss issues herein. The article was reorganized appropriately to create neutrality. What is the point of putting only negative information in the lede? The typical flow of an article should list the pros first and then the cons if there are going to be neutrality issues.

Please refrain from further ad hominem in debating these views. To call a reorganization of an article a "minority" or "fringe" view without any substantiation reflects, indeed, a non-neutral viewpoint by the editor making it and a poor accusation of bad faith in violation of WP guidelines against harassment. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I am asking that any wholesale reversions of meticulous edits in good faith made by me or others not be undone to prevent NPOV compliance. Please debate any contentions here by supply refuting reliable sources. The original article was rife with unreliable information, totally non-neutral, presented views of others as Press TV's, restated too much of the articles cited in the body for non-neutral effect without summary, and had tons of spelling and grammatical errors. Where are the objections? Please do not get into edit wars. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The onus is on you to justify your mass deletions of content. Wikipedia uses reliable sources for its content and citations are not required to have a positive (or negative) opinion of Press TV, but editors' summarise mainstream sources relating to a subject. Please do read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Philip Cross (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I did justify it in the comments as to why the changes were made. What is your contention with those justifications? You are just edit warring without even providing substantive debate after several requests to do so because me creating neutrality in this article appears to fit in the "I just don't like it" vein. Please provide specifics as to why my changes are "mass deletions". That's not at all what happened you. You are misframing this to achieve your objective and that is bad faith on display. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Changes - All Editors Chime In!

Hello, please see the following diff with proposed edits by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Press_TV&diff=1001470989&oldid=1001470811

The reasons for the changes were as follows: (1) Inaccurate framing of the contexts; (2) Non-Neutral Headings; (3) Re-pastings of copyrighted content to give article false appearance of negative breadth; (4) Re-organization of article to list "pros" atop and "cons" on bottom; (5) Re-wording of terms to present more NPOV. For example, "Sanctions" have been changed to "restrictions". "Blocking" has been changed to "censorship". Although PressTV, like all USAGM programs and FCC approved US news media, has government filters, it is still a journalistic venue and terms like "sanctions"/"blocking" suggest a non-NPOV; (6) The fixing of several grammar and spelling mistakes; (7) The removal of unreliable sources like the Jerusalem Post, which was found to have entire deepfake journalists (see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-deepfake-activist/deepfake-used-to-attack-activist-couple-shows-new-disinformation-frontier-idUSKCN24G15E); and, (8) The addition of reputable sources to back existing content that qualifies as neutral and important for WikiPedia articles such as this.

Please review and cite the actual DIFF in order to support your reasons for accepting/refusing the edits, if you accept/refuse them at all. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. What you're stating doesn't seem to connect with the fact that you removed 17k information. There's still a lot of stuff you've omitted from explaining. Also, I suggest taking Jerusalem Post to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also, how are terms like "sanctions" not neutral? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Please provide a single example of anything omitted above. I cited the DIFF page showing all changes to the article. Jerusalem Post's reliability should be questioned based on the interceding information available like them using a deepfake journalist, especially re: subjects on Iran. The term "sanctions" is a euphemism for "economic warfare". Warfare is always a conflicted context. "Sanctions" are a euphemism for "censorship" when it comes to venues purporting to be journalistic. All journalistic venues of PressTV's caliber worldwide have sponsors paying into them with government filters. Thus, even though some here clearly disagree with PressTV's viewpoint, it does not suddenly undo them from being a journalistic venue subject to censorship by varying parties who deem their censorship to be "sanctions". DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said, you removed 17k information, I doubt what you stated would result in the removal of 17k information - heck, a quick glance at your diffs clearly shows that there was much more to it [9]. Also, I think you're looking too much into it, sanctions are just sanctions, nothing special about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
You don't provide substantive arguments, you just are basically saying you don't like it, which isn't a dispute of content or editoarial validity, but your personal point of view. And saying I just "deleted 17KB" without any scrutiny simply isn't an accurate or factual restatement of my edit, and you are accusing me of bad faith without proof. I removed significant portions of copyrighted text re-pasted from the links bearing criticism of PressTV's content to give the article a look of being bulked unnecessarily of negative content found right through those external links. The external links weren't even paraphrased, the bulk of the Press TV article was composed of text directly re-pasted from the external sources, among which, are biased and conflicted venues like the ADL and not "numerous" or credible ones. What substantive arguments do you have to support your points like that "sanctions" cannot be viewed as censorship? Are they not restricting PressTV's ability to broadcast what is, from an Iranian POV, a journalistic venue? To achieve neutrality, you can't just claim PressTV is "bad" and that censorship of it is legitimate under the euphemistic tenor of "sanctions". This is not NPOV. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Once again and for the record of me asking you repeatedly to no avail so that Admins can clearly see it: can you please cite the portion of the DIFF you disagree with and why? I'm asking for substantive discussions here in line with WP guidelines and not some sort of ad hominem or "I just don't like it" perspectives. This article has SIGNIFICANT NPOV problems. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I've said my piece, you're free to disagree, but that's how it's gonna be. It's not my job to analyse your whole 17k removal, please just come clean with what you removed. And oh, please, I accuse you of bad faith? That's rich [10] [11] [12]. Don't even make me start about the personal opinion part, ultimately you're in no position to make more unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they don't agree with you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@DeweyDecimalLansky: This administrator would like to point out that, based on what I've seen in discussions at other articles, it's hard to do a massive, sweeping change (and your proposed change clearly fits that description) in this fashion. Your proposals will gain more traction if you break them down into succinct, easy to analyze proposals. In other words, start small and be clear in the discussion. Also, go one at a time, rather than trying to push a bunch through at once. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds fair. Thank you for the helpful advice. For organizational purposes, I am going to separate the proposed revisions into new sections in talk. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Press_TV/Archive_3&oldid=1163922367"