Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Restart

Gunnermanz, do you have any specific concerns about the article, beyond the broad assertion that the subject isn't being treated fairly? Do you have any specific changes in mind? Content added, removed, or reworded? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note Focus on article content and concrete suggestions for improvement please. Editor conduct can be addressed on user talk pages or if necessary, WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Gunnermanz, can you please raise your concerns here instead of interjecting in the middle of a year-old discussion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Not what was asked for. --NeilN talk to me 12:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am extremely busy at the moment and this response is therefore written in some haste. I thank you, sir, for no longer immediately and arbitrarily deleting my every comment on the false pretense that it is not relevant to the content of the article, which is nothing more than your subjective judgment. Specifically, you and your ideologically allied editors engage in the false pretense that issues I've mentioned are of no relevance to understanding this critically important topic - critically important for two overpowering reasons, first that, outside of independent journalists, RT is virtually the only mainstream source communicating to the West the viewpoints of both the Russian people and the Russian government, a point of key relevance in either exacerbating or ameliorating the appallingly dangerous tensions between two world powers, either of whose nuclear arsenal would if used almost certainly cause the extinction of the human species on this planet. Given the importance of this topic, this Talk page should by rights be five times its present length and filled with the views of a diversity of users, but given the undemocratic domination of this Talk page by you and your ideological allies, one can safely assume that any such views have been subjected to the same sort of authoritarian censorship that mine have. Again, specifically, I've made two important points which by any reasonable judgment are of vital relevance to the monumentally important topic I mentioned, namely the hijacking of Wikipedia as yet another vehicle to further the campaign of anti-RT, anti-Putin and (given what neutral sources have repeatedly shown is far greater popularity in his own country enjoyed by President Putin among his own people in contrast with the widespread unpopularity of Western politicians in theirs) anti-Russian propaganda and the manufacturing of anti-RT, anti-Russian and anti-Putin hysteria in the West by what Washington veteran Mike Lofgren has called the "Deep State" [2016]), and hence this article, namely that (1) reputable scholars from top American universities, namely Princeton (Professor Martin Gillens) and Harvard (Professor Lawrence Lessig), and others, have pointed out in scholarly papers and lectures that the United States is no longer a functional democracy but an oligarchy "captured" by those whom Ferdinand Lundberg long ago referred to as the "super-rich" and that (2) they do this through a process Professor Lessig aptly calls "Tweedism" (and I would also add the dual citizenship (which would be unthinkable here in Japan, which President Theodore Roosevelt called "a self-evident absurdity," which allows foreign billionaires to effectively buy US citizenship and then exercise far more power than untold numbers of native-born Americans who like myself can trace their descent all the way back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony). This point is of vital relevance to this article because it is only with a full understanding of this wider power context that any fair judgment of RT can be made, and you know it. The latter point in particular has been highlighted among others by Japanese former ambassador to Ukraine Mutsuo Mabuchi, an ultra-conservative by the way, who in his book 「世界を操る支配者の正体」Sekai wo Ayatsuru Shihaisha no Shōtai [The True Nature of the Rulers Controlling the World] among others) says it is precisely what the Washington regime did in Ukraine and the reason why the constitutionally elected former president of that country was nearly assassinated and violently overthrown, amid abundant proof of U.S. covert involvement (never mentioned in the corporate media), and replaced with a billionaire. RT is virtually alone as a source through which Americans can learn the Russian side of this critically important issue, but nowhere is that important fact mentioned in this article or even allowed on this Talk page. Former National Defense Academy professor and equally conservative former ambassador to Uzbekistan and Iran Magosaki Ukeru, whom I know personally, has made similar points (as in 「日米同盟の正体」Nichibei Dōmei no Shōtai (The True Nature of the Japan-U.S. Alliance), focusing especially on the long history of false flag and other anti-democratic foreign interventions which the "deep state" has perpetuated abroad while blatantly lying to the American public. To pretend that these issues are not relevant to understanding the rabble-rousing against RT by governments and corporate media sources with a long history of deceiving their own public is disingenuous and borders on willful mendacity, and to use such pretense as a glib excuse to censor other Wikipedia editors one disagrees with would be shameful behavior for anyone who truly believes in government of, for and by the people. Thus far, you and your ideologically allied editor have not given other users even the opportunity to consider the relevance of my suggestions so that, following the input of a wide variety of users, I might modify or refine them so they do conform with the consensus view -- once it is reached. Instead, you glibly arrogate all authority to yourself and immediately censor them, an action I do not perpetrate against you even though I obviously disagree with you. It is abundantly obvious that the building of that consensus requires that comments on this page, including this one, to remain long enough for a variety of editors to consider and provide suggestions on. What you and your ideological allies arrogantly ignore is that the issues of relevancy and the interpretation of what sources conform to Wikipedia's requirement of reliability are themselves precisely the kind of issues which require exactly this kind of good-faith consensus to be built. You, sir, do not have the authority to make that call on your own as if you were the judge in a courtroom and the rest of us mere observers entitled to offer our views only by your leave. To smugly arrogate the authority to make this judgment yourself and immediately and delete and glibly dismiss the comments of other editors acting in good faith instead of waiting for input from a variety of viewpoints is undemocratic and anti-intellectual behavior which by any judgment disqualifies a person as a Wikipedia editor. As I noted in a comment which you or your allied editors immediately censored, it is precisely for this reason that I have never - ever - engaged in such behavior in my fifteen to twenty years of using Wikipedia. You ask me to make specific suggestions, and I most certainly promise you I will do so. For the present, however, since I am not quite retired at the age of sixty-four and must still work for my living, I have a mountain of work due Monday morning which I must immediately get back to and must also address the fact that I've received warnings that someone has made failed attempts to log into my Wikipedia account and my main computer (I'm using a backup system now) has just the other day mysteriously become unable to access the Internet and the company which provides the routers for the building I occupy is at a loss to explain or solve the problem even after attempting for half the day. But in answer to your question, I will mention a couple points which I will elaborate on in coming weeks when I have a break from work and have certain surgery completed which will put my left hand out of commission for a couple weeks. The first point includes reaffirmation of the point made by editors such as one unsigned editor and Editor Reollun, namely that an double standard is being applied with RT which is not being applied to the Western corporate media. I don't have to tell you that Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal and Jeff Bezos (who like other tech billionaires has close ties with the Pentagon) owns the Washington Post. Virtually all of the "reliable" Western media outlets are in the hands of billionaires. Above you've dismissed my input as an interpolation into a discussion initiated one year ago as a justification for deleting it. But as I've noted above, it takes time and the input from a variety of editors before a consensus can be built regarding relevance and reliability. It is therefore obvious that such input will be added over time. Your argument that my comment concerned an issue already "settled" is therefore false. But it is false for yet another important reason, namely because the above editor's concerns, despite being abundantly reasonable and relevant, have still not been reflected in the body of the article. The second point I would raise is one I alluded to above, namely that in the context of this dangerous revival of Cold War hysteria being created by frenetic politicians (even though Russia is no longer communist and Putin is openly supporting a vibrant renaissance of the Christian faith in Russia after decades of communist oppression), RT is virtually alone in providing the Russian point of view. This latter point is specifically relevant precisely because the ignoring or distortion of this revival of Christian faith is one of the best examples of the biased coverage of Russia and Putin. When the female punk rock group "Pu**y Riot" engaged in disrupting and obscene behavior while trespassing the inside the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, a shrine holy and sacred to Christians, what was the universal reaction of the Western corporate media, pundits and politicians in the U.S. and the West but to totally overlook the illegal and blasphemous behavior of the members of this punk group (one of whom participated in group sex in a pornographic movie) even as they insulted the Christian religion and infringed on the precious rights of Christians to worship at the shrine. Amazingly, the Western corporate media went even further to attack the Russian government and Putin by characterizing their defense of the rights of Christians to worship at the sacred shrine as "suppression" of the free speech of these criminals. Yet there is no mention in this article of this appalling example of bias by the corporate media, nor so much a peep about it or the many other examples on this Talk page, obviously because any such comments will be immediately censored by you and your ideological allies. At last resort I appeal to your own self-interest: You yourself and all those you love will not survive if even one of Russia or the United States are tipped into a nuclear war, perhaps an accidental one precipitated by the dangerous tensions created by the hostility against Russia which saturates the Western media. Thus one vital addition needed in this article is the point that RT, with the exception of independent journalists still accessible online or on YouTube (even as "Big Brother" Erich Schmidt of Google (notorious for his "If you have something to hide [maybe] you shouldn't be doing it" quip threatens to censor RT and other Russian content on Google and YouTube), is that RT is virtually alone in the West not only in providing the Russian viewpoint but a platform for reputable Western voices who question the amid the vast archipelago of billionaire-controlled media and billionaire-funded "think tanks" churning out vast mountains of what can only be described as anti-Russian propaganda (as painstakingly documented in Lofgren's book), propaganda for precisely the same reasons this very article as it currently stands is just more anti-Russian propaganda. Importantly, now that the U.S. government has censored RT as a "foreign agent," RT videos on YouTube, for instance, are virtually the only place where Americans and other Westerner citizens can listen to President Putin's speeches and interviews so they can form their own judgments of him. Using the expression "Western partners" to describe those who insultingly characterize him as a "thug" or a "dictator," he never fails in my judgment to conduct himself as a gentleman and, in my view, far more like a statesman than any Western pundit or politician. You may disagree, but even as the Western corporate media gives many hours of airtime to all those Western politicians who vilify Putin, RT is virtually alone in providing Western citizens with the means to hear Putin so they can formulate their own judgments about him. But of course, this is precisely why RT is being censored and Putin vilified by Western politicians and the billionaire-controlled media. This important point, like the other objections I've raised above, goes unmentioned in this article because you and your ideologically allied editors consider it "irrelevant." I have no doubt at this point that if I were to attempt to edit the article to this effect my contribution would immediately be censored in the same way that the corporate media would and doubtless does censor any attempt by staff reporters to dissent from the "Putin-as-dictatorial-thug" narrative. So I will touch on these and other points in future comments as soon as I finish this pile of work I have, solve this mysterious problem with my Internet connection and get out of the hospital for hand surgery. Meanwhile, I am an editor of many years standing and do not make comments lightly. I've made many lengthy and thoughtful contributions on other pages that are many years standing and take my responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor seriously. As I mentioned, I have never even once arrogated the authority to immediately delete comments by other editors on the Talk page even when I disagreed with them. No individual or small minority of editors has the right to arrogate the authority to censor this or my other comments on this Talk page until a broad consensus has been reached regarding their relevancy. I note that you appealed to a Wikipedia Administrator whom you call by first name, characterizing me as being completely in the wrong. I'm afraid I am not as technically inclined as you and in any case have never before felt the need to work my way up in the Wikipedia hierarchy or appeal to an Administrator whom I address on a first-name basis. I hope it does not come to that. Gunnermanz (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC) To save others the pain of reading this TEXTWALL, absolutely none of it is relevant to improving this article. Just a particularly rambling version of the usual pro-Russian stuff about the corrupt West and the political / corporate media conspiracy to vilify the wonderful Vladimir Putin, with the odd threat of nuclear holocaust. Gunnermanz I don't know how many times this must have been explained to you over your "fifteen to twenty years of using Wikipedia" but the (more complete) articles are the product of content published in reliable sources and written in a way that complies with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, the quality of different articles varies according to skill level of those who contributed to it. Generally the more important the subject, the more experienced the editors who get involved, therefore the more stringent adherence to policy. As article talkpages are not forums for our opinions on the world, the removal of your previous comments is justified. If you want is article to change significantly you are going to need sources about RT not opinions. And finally we have heard it all before, is talkpage currently has nine archives!TiB chat 10:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Uhhhhhhh thanks Gunnermanz. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Thank God this was "written in some haste"! — JFG talk 06:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Publicly funded broadcasters

@JFG: I don't think the Russian Government's overseas propaganda network can be categorised as publicly funded, VoA for example isn't. Publicly funded is not a synonym for government owned. This article could go in Category:Government-owned companies, or a new category created between the two, but the current situation in not acceptable to me. RT is not the Russian BBC. Thoughts?TiB chat 10:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the point. VoA is not in there but other projections of state media overseas are in there: France 24, DW (Español), Category:Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (which I just added, perhaps mistakenly given your remarks). I think the category should be renamed to "Public broadcating corporations" or something along these lines. The "publicly-funded" qualification is too broad. — JFG ^talk 11:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

More Lively Discussion Needed Here

Blatant violations of WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Friends, Hello from Japan in the summer of 2018. The fireworks and sounds of Japanese folk music blaring tonight from the festival in the distance make me sad that I must soon leave this country I love so much. Anyway, regarding my recent posts, I ask all of you to forgive the fact that, emotional as they were, the comments I made upon landing on this page for the first time expressed the kind of shock I felt many years ago upon hearing Rush Limbaugh on the Far East Network for the first time (FYI: FEN is a 'propaganda' radio station operated by the US military). Despite my curiosity as to why certain people seem to have unlimited time to instantly edit Wikipedia pages about Russia they disagree with while the rest of us have to work for a living, I will not raise such concerns here again and will instead pursue other avenues. But I do respectfully ask the Administrator in control of this page, in light of the gravity of US-Russia relations and the potential dangers to the survival of our species attending any further exacerbation of US-Russia relations, to allow much more freedom of discussion on this page. I have been using and editing Wikipedia responsibly for at least ten years and over that time I and many other users have made extensive comments and expressed a great variety of sometimes emotional views on Talk pages, for after all, that is what they are for. Over these many years, I have never seen comments on any Wikipedia Talk page deleted so instantaneously or freedom of discussion controlled so strictly as I have seen on this RT Talk page. I've made extensive comments over these years and I have never had - nor heard of any - comments on the Talk pages deleted. The Talk pages should be a place where users of Wikipedia can come to see the controversy behind the articles so they can read them in order to judge the article for themselves. Yes, I've been emotional in my previous posts. I tend to get emotional when the survival of our children, grandchildren and the human race itself is at stake. It means nothing if the US can flatten Russia with nuclear weapons 25 times over even if not a single Russian strike reaches the US since, as scientists warn, the environmental consequences from the US nuclear destruction of Russia alone will result in climate changes that almost certainly spell the end not only of America and the West but of the human species itself (excepting those billionaires who are building rockets to try to survive on Mars while leaving the rest of us to be destroyed here on earth). It is critical that we talk stop this hysteria about Russia created by irresponsible politicians and the billionaires whose slaves they are. All of the points I've made here are directly - directly - related to the issues raised in this RT article and many other Wikipedia articles like it. What we need is not simplistic, broad-brush dismissal of all comments as "disruptive editing" but freedom of speech, open and lively discussion. I sincerely welcome comments from users with different viewpoints, but we can't have a discussion unless we have it here and unless everyone can see it so that a consensus can be built. Please consider this. (I may not be able to post for a while since it's back to the hospital again soon for more surgery - but at least pretty Japanese nurses....) Gunnermanz (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) PS: In support of my view, I refer you to Jefferson's comment to Marc Auguste Pictet of February 5th, 1803: "the abuses of the freedom of the press here have been carried to a length never before known or borne by any civilized nation. but it is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use [. . .] of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth & falsehood. and hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-39-02-0391 Gunnermanz (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC) As you've been around for a long time, surely you know about our WP:NOTFORUM guideline. Talk pages are not a free-expression medium about article subjects, however interesting such discussions may be. Instead, the goal of talk pages is to sort out differences among various editors about specific proposals for article text and subject coverage. If you post along these lines, I'm sure your suggestions will not be erased. Enjoy what remains of Japan! — JFG talk 12:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC) >JFG. Many thanks for your kind comments and instructions. They are duly noted. You alluded to 'what remains of Japan,' by which I assume you refer to Fukushima? It is a big concern. Time will tell. Your points about editing this page are duly noted. Many thanks, and again I apologize for any violations on my part. My only request is that I think Jefferson's point was well made. As you know, Jefferson detested the media, which in this context means posts from anyone and anybody on this Talk page - provided, as you say, that they focus on improving the article in question in line with the goals of Wikipedia. I strongly support these values. My only request, as I poorly expressed in past comments, is that I beg everyone interested in the survival of our children and grandchildren, to understand the gravity of US-Russia relations and especially the background issues that are involved. We need to discuss these background issues on this Talk page. I strongly believe the vast majority of our human race are good people. Let us learn from each other. Let us practice empathy as the ancient sages East and West have advised. The factions (I use Madison's definition in Federalist X) that opposed Jefferson went way overboard with all the tricks of rhetoric that we are all familiar with and now becoming sick of. Yet, he understood that censorship of any views was not so much a denial of the right of the speaker but the listener. This point bears repeating. Freedom of speech is not just a right of the speaker but of the listener. Any scientist wants to hear the views of other scientists with contrary views. We should follow this scientific attitude. Jefferson trusted democracy because he believed that, if only citizens could be given a chance with a good education and a fair and viable system of electing representatives, they would be able to sort things out. But how can they do so if any citizen's speech is deleted immediately, or for that matter, if one powerful individual and his 'faction' are able to drown out all other opinions? So on this page, I look forward to hearing the those who vehemently oppose my views on this RT article, and I will answer them, and they me. Is that not what this Talk page should be about, and it can not be if we delete each others posts immediately. Again, many thanks for your instructions and I look forward to a lively discussion on this page. Gunnermanz (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting Other People's Comments

To delete other people's comments without answering them with reasonable arguments is wrong. Please stop deleting other people's posts. This page should be about free democratic, intelligent discussion. Make your argument, if you have one. If not, then stop violating this Talk page. Gunnermanz (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If you make unreasonable comments it is certainly not wrong to remove them. You have been told over and over that your posts here need to be on the subject of RT, yet none of them have been.TiB chat 12:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Golden Rule

>Mr Trappedinburnley, thank you for your kind comments. Contrary to your assertions, Sir, my comments have been directly related to RT. The problem is that some unknown users, including you Sir, have deleted them instead of answering them. Do you not have the intellectual courage to answer me instead of deleting my posts like a... like a 知的弱虫 (intellectual weakling)? Address yourself to my points, Sir. I tire of repeating them 'over and over.' Gunnermanz (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I am at the point of blocking you per WP:NOTTHERE. Your last possibly useful contribution to Wikipedia was in 2016, and since then you only create disruption. I hatted the comments (not removed them) because they do not belong to this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I checked that you have previously been blocked for this behavior but have chosen not to change it, therefore I have blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Usage of scare quotes in the third paragraph?

From the third paragraph: RT is a brand of "TV-Novosti", an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, on 6 April 2005

Is there evidence to the contrary that it isn't an autonomous, non-profit organization? Also, I do not think quotes are necessary around TV-Novosti. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Cohen Statement

There is a paragraph quoting Stephen Cohen as follows:

Russian studies professor Stephen F. Cohen stated in 2012 that RT does a lot of stories that "reflect badly" on the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and much of Western Europe and that they are "particularly aggrieved by American sermonizing abroad." Citing that RT compares stories about Russia allowing mass protests of the 2011–2012 Russian election protests with those of U.S. authorities nationwide arresting members of the Occupy movement. Cohen states that despite the pro-Kremlin slant, "any intelligent viewer can sort this out. I doubt that many idiots find their way to RT."[145]"

This quote of Cohen is very unclear. The parsing of the quotes seems rather selective. Would the person who posted this please a fuller context to this quotation? I do not believe the footnote reference is sufficient. This Wiki article should stand by itself. Quotes must honestly represent the views of those quoted and must therefore be presented in full context. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.180.164 (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you actually read the referenced article? I've just checked and it is still freely available. As far as I can see the prose in the article fits with that published in the source and there doesn't seem to be much more add. Perhaps you could be more specific? TiB chat 16:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

With respect, "fits with the source" and non-selective are two different things. Selective quoting is an old and noble tradition of journalists with a point which is basically any major newspaper or news magazine. That said if 76.178.180.164 is going to want the article changed they are going to have to specify how. El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Syntax

Can this statement from the lead be improved? It sounds like the news reporters are spreading disinformation, while the point here is that it was accused by its own reporters of spreading disinformation.

"RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters."

Cloud200 (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The only disinformation being spread is being done by the likes of you. This is bog-standard anti-Russian propaganda, which like Russiagate has no genuine substance. The atlantic council is a NATO funded organisation. Not providing unbiased and objective opinion. John2o2o2o (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

There is certainly a great deal of anti-Russian sentiment in this article, no doubt fueled by overly zealous pro-American(s) lacking in objective opinion, most evident in the ridiculous number of citations. Some are trying a little too hard to discredit this organisation, revealing far too much bias, greatly reducing their and the article's credibility. My Favourite Account  ^😊 18:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello my dear friends. I fully agree with these comments. I came here from YouTube after clicking on a Wikipedia link when I landed on an RT video. But why aren't there warnings on videos of MSNBC, Fox, CNN, WaPo and other corporate media that they are owned and operated by billionaires who are intimately tied to the NSA, the Pentagon and the national security state? Why are we not told that their journalist-employees are corralled by the ideologies of their billionaire owners? Why aren't there warnings that the interests of these billionaires are by definition different from those of common Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.180.164 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article ie RT (TV Network). If you have a problem with the content of other articles, you need to find some reliable sources and go to discuss it at the relevant talk page.TiB chat 16:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we raise this as an issue with YouTube? It is both, as 76.178.180.164 said, biased against state-owned or supported media and acts as a massive "you don't like us? Well go vandalise this Wikipedia article" sign. El komodos drago (talk to me) 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Aside from some drive by grumbling on the talk page I don't think this caused a problem. The channel's recent social media problems could be added to the body of the article, but this not the topic of this discussion. I note that none of the responses thus far have actually been about the question in hand. (WP:NOTFORUM)TiB chat 18:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

While neither my, nor My Favourite Account's edits were on the precise topic of this talk page entery they were both "on the task of creating an encyclopedia" as per NOTFORUM. Now I agree that my comments don't belong on this talk page but (I feel) this is a very real issue. It's just I'm afraid I don't know where else to put them so if you could please point me to a place where I could raise stuff like this that would be very much appreciated. As for My Favourite Account's NPOV complaints they belong on the talk page and I feel that they are justified. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cloud200: this could easily be rephrased to: "News reporters, including some former RT reporters have accused RT of spreading disinformation."? TiB chat 18:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2019

This is a viable and trusted news network. 108.56.242.23 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarity over the opening line

As a reader, I would interpret "funded by the Russian Government" to mean funded entirely by the Russian government which clearly is not the case. Can anyone clarify the phrasing around the starting sentence?

El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your "clearly is not the case" claim, but where are the cites to back that up? If you have them, be WP:BOLD, modify the WP:LEAD and add the cites. Mercy11 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you please stop using arcane Wikipedia gobbledygook and speak in plain English. The vast majority of Wikipedia users do not know what this foreign Wiki-language means. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.180.164 (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the bit about start-up costs ("half came from pro-Kremlin commercial banks at the government's request), I'm not aware of a single source in the article or elsewhere that details any other funding. One might presume that there is some advertising revenue, but that isn't necessarily true. Until someone can find a reliable source that details other revenue, there is nothing to discuss.TiB chat 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki-launguage is fine by me so long as you link it.

El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you for the advice Mercy11, could you help me figure out which of the following are reliable sources: Third Sector, AdAge, and The Daily Telegraph. Are they all or are none of them.

El komodos drago (talk to me) 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@El komodos drago: You can first check THIS LIST and, for any sources not listed there, you can post a question HERE. Lots of editors watch that noticeboard. Mercy11 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you. A friend showed me that list in the past but I had completely lost track of it. I would rather avoid creting a RS/N debate but as the telegraph is on RSP I will cite that. El komodos drago (talk to me) 16:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Galassi: if you are going to revert my edit over this then please could you explain why an article dedicated to advertising on RT in a major newspaper is not a reason why it should be clarified that it is not solely funded from the Kremlin. Aditionally I get the impression that WP:WEIGHT is for points of view. That RT is funded by ads is a fact not a point of view. Am I wrong? Thanks for reading, El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have my own issues with your edit. Aside from Bill Browder's comment about "subsidising Putin's effort to subvert democracy and spread his criminal tentacles abroad", the Telegraph article you cited says nothing about the revenue received by RT. Again it is a presumption that because the advertiser has to pay that RT receives any money. As the article mentions the ads are acquired as packages of cheap advertisement slots through platforms and sales houses, who presumably charge fees. It is conceivable RT gives away the slots for a negligible amount so the brands will add to the veneer of credibility. This source (recently accused of being from a "NATO funded organisation. Not providing unbiased and objective opinion") [1] states "according to TV-Novosti’s official filings with the Ministry, it is almost entirely funded by the state budget, with the exact figure ranging annually between 99.5% and 99.9%." As I already said until someone can find a reliable source that details other revenue, there is nothing to discuss.TiB chat 18:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A clear case of WP:SYNTH. The source only says that one advertizer bought ads, not that there was any significant revenue.--Galassi (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The source list multiple advertisers and quotes someone suggesting that they are "subsidising" RT. That they aren't providing any significant revenue is on the other hand not in the text. Additionally is this a WP:WEIGHT issue or a WP:SYNTH issue or both? I am not sure SYNTH is a better fit, SYNTH seems to be about combining two sources. I only have one source but can look for more. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The Telegraph article repeatedly says that they were bought and I would assume that, given they haven't clarified otherwise, RT makes actual money out of the ads. The source provided seems somewhat problematic being a MEDIUM site (which I believe are blogs) of an organisation with a self-admitted bias which seems to lack any editorial oversight. The article itself professes to be based upon RT's balance sheets with three links. One is a dead link which turns up a search page with no results. I am struggling to understand the PDFs as I do not speak Russian but they seem to be filed for more than a decade ago. However, as they are provided by RT themselves I see no problems with e-mailing RT for an up to date English version which I will do tomorrow. Thank-you everybody for helping, logging off El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Galassi: Ok, I have e-mailed RT and while we are waiting for a reply could someone please reply to the above comments. At the very least I'd like to know what policy or guideline the edit went against. Is it SYNTH or WEIGHT or something else? El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Why does searching Question more bring me to here

Shouldn’t there be a disambiguation page for Question more? Every time when I search up Question more, it bring me here. Why is that? Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Question more" is RT's slogan. Disambiguation pages are only created if editors find more than one article that the term is relevant for. In this case I'm not aware of another article (aside from the RT variants) for which this term would be relevant?TiB chat 20:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Over half of the sources quoted are either RT themselves or Moscow based, government or former-government owned, most appear to be still controlled, even at arms length by the same. We need to find other reliable sources to verify all of these assertions. I suppose in many ways I am suggesting that this is, as per the above topic, mostly either propaganda or reads like it is, we need to provide other sources to ensure that this is balanced and remove everything that is self-sourced.121.99.108.78 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there specific portions of the article you're concerned about? I didn't conduct an exhaustive review, but most of the stuff sourced to RT is uncontroversial stuff about RT's programming and is appropriately sourced per WP:ABOUTSELF. However we shouldn't cite to RT or other media outlets associated with the Russian government for controversial content or other content for which those sources isn't reliable. R2 (bleep) 17:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Propaganda

I think it's time to add something about "propaganda" to the first paragraph and to state it in our own voice. It seems there's no dispute anymore among the reliable sources that RT is in fact a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. Quite a few sources these days are calling RT a propaganda outlet in their own voice, and I haven't seen any reliable sources that dispute it. R2 (bleep) 06:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

BBC is still wording it as "there have been claims" [2] and I personally would not say definitively that it was propaganda until the BBC (or some other neutral source) does. I personally think that it should be mentioned in the first paragraph, a paragraph in head, a subsection (criticisms of RT or something like that), and its own article (given that a 5-year-old tweet from Lithuania's foreign minister is verging on the indiscriminate)(given rules around PoV forking and ensuring said article is balanced maybe spin off rewards with it or something). El komodos drago (talk to me) 15:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of neutral, reliable, more recent sources that describe RT as propaganda, including the BBC. Here are some good examples:

• Warrick, Joby; Troianovski, Anton (December 10, 2018). "Agents of doubt". The Washington Post.
• Adee, Sally (May 15, 2019). "The global internet is disintegrating. What comes next?". BBC.
• Ward, Alex (March 12, 2019). "When a Dissident Becomes a Collaborator". The New Yorker.

Sources don't have to be neutral to be considered reliable, but that's incidental. There are lots more sources that call RT a propaganda outlet. R2 (bleep) 17:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

While I'm happy to say in my voice that RT is part of the Russian government's propaganda operation, I expect the bar for using Wikipedia's voice is set somewhat higher. It certainly would need sources that clearly establish the mainstream view in detail. These and other similar ones are not likely to be enough. However I've never been overly keen with the current wording and would welcome a clearer and more irrefutable version. However I would remind that the WP:LEDE is a summary of the content of the article, not the place to add new content.TiB chat 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you think the bar should be for saying RT is a propaganda outlet? Personally I thought this was spelled out by WP:V. In any case, if the concern is whether something appears in the body then by all means, we can include it in the body too. R2 (bleep) 21:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm unsure which part of the verifiability policy you are referring to, but the key issue IMO is showing that this is fact and not opinion, per WP:VOICE. That some authors (or indeed many) have called RT propaganda in reliable sources, doesn't make it a fact. I'm not really sure what source would certainly prove this, short of an official admission from the Russian government. But I think we'd need several of the following, at least: academic studies, legal judgements and or in-depth reports on why prominent media organisations have taken editorial decisions to call it so. I previously included one study as a source, by Nelson, Orttung and Livshen, which might be useful. I'm not aware of much else that would help. I feel the place we are at now is about more clearly establishing the mainstream view, so we can achieve a summary with less qualification.TiB chat 21:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading wording about misleading content

The article states "United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality and of broadcasting "materially misleading" content" but only provides one source raising one case of a ruling of "materially misleading" content which is not independent of the article (its a BBC article about a complaint against the BBC) [3]. While the Press Gazette also complains about accuracy in their subtitle they go on only to mention Ofcom ruling that the reporting breached "rule 5.1 covering impartiality". I could not access TOL so if someone with access can confirm that they do list another instance of "materially misleading" content I will retract my complaint.

However, if nobody can come up with a source listing an instance of "materially misleading" content separate from their coverage of the BBC airstrike report then I would like it if the article could be rephrased to show that there was only one case of "materially misleading" content on RT. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• • Looks sourced and therefore the topic is closed? I also note in the same bulletin RT was in breach three further times and that the breaches and the upheld complaint was significant, repeated and totally unfounded, this sends warning bells for the whole article, regarding propaganda and self-sourced material. 2404:4408:205A:4B00:343F:34ED:3F92:6E67 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

There is some merit to El_komodos_drago's concern. Page 9 of this document provides a helpful summary of RT's Ofcom violations by year. There was only one "materially misleadingness" violation in 2014. However there were "due impartiality" violations in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016, as well as other violations in 2012, 2013, and 2014. On the other hand, on page 13 Ofcom wrote, Until recently, TV Novosti's overall compliance record had not been materially out of line with other broadcasters. There has been a total of 15 breaches over the period since 4 May 2012, which compared to other broadcasters of this type is not an unusually high number. However, as set out above, we have eight further open investigations into TV Novosti’s programming. I think this can be more accurately, neutrally, and comprehensively summarized than it currently is. R2 (bleep) 18:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Galassi, this is where you explain why El komodos drago and I are wrong, instead of edit warring. R2 (bleep) 00:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned in the AN/I, I think I understand Galassi's mistake. They mention how a source says 2nd time in 2 months. The Press Gazette contains the paragraph This is the second time in two months that Ofcom has found RT in breach of Rule 5.1 covering impartiality. Now the wording was intended to clarify that it was the breaches of impartiality that was repeated. However, I might have got this wrong and I'd much rather Galassi came here and talked about there problem rather than I have to play detective. El komodos drago (talk to me) 20:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Galassi's mistake is clear. They're conflating the "due impartiality" rule with the "materially misleading" rule. Multiple "due impartiality" violations, but only one "materially misleading" violation. R2 (bleep) 21:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)