Talk:Russia Insider

About notability

I think that Russia Insider is indeed notable, since RT has reported it non-trivially (cf. [1] & [2]), and RT is a reliable source, though some people and organizations accuse it of spreading propaganda and disinformation, this does not mean that RT is unreliable since if RT is unreliable then NYT is unreliable as well as it has been spreading propaganda and disinformation (e.g. claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al-Qaeda, agreed with Barack Obama that Syrian government conducted a chemical attack in 2013, denied that Viktor Yanukovych's ouster was a coup d'état. For more see [3]).--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Russia Insider is notable in itself enough for Wikipedia to keep an article about it and the fact that RT has reported on it says very little in this case, giving that that source in itself has been heavily criticised for being biased and on its own a propaganda channel for Russia. (The argument brought forward regarding the reliability of RT is groundless and another discussion altogether.) It doesn't make much sense to keep an article about a controversial media outlet that seems written like an advertisement for the most part. However, considering the context, such as the traffic on the page for the past year, the fact that the subject of fake news has gained a lot of attention lately due to political circumstances and particularly the controversy at play, there could be value in keeping the article, mark it to be rewritten to follow the Wikipedia's quality guidelines and to reflect the nature of interest surrounding the subject. Plinuxs (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I came here to see if they still have a German site, but there's no mentioning. They had once started. I also find it probably a little overblown that they have their own page here but I go there often because I find the 'juicy' tone refreshing. They should probably be on a list page for 'alternative' media where several of these are listed. None of them have the whole truth, not the pro-Western ones, not the pro-Russia ones. One needs to go to both (all) sides.

The MSM are a sad thing these days (I used to be a journalist). As an example, you might remember headlines on front pages about a Russian submarine type vessel angering Sweden. After it was milked for anti-Russian sentiment the Swedes discovered it was one of theirs and that certainly did not appear in headlines. And so we must continue to monitor RT, Russia Insider, Consortiumnews - you name it. 2001:8003:A928:800:54E5:9521:5D63:7A2B (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's by no means unnotable. It has over 700,000 subscribers on its YouTube channel and 357,000,000 total video views. I'll remove this seemingly obsolete maintenance tag, but if anyone objects from now, they are welcome to re-add it. SUM1 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I purchased a subscription to this periodical, so it's not entirely crowdfunded; is part of the US Economy. Boxofmatches (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

RT (Russia Today) response

@Philip Cross, about this diff. Why do you think that RT response is relevant? I think that RT response is irrelevant because this article is about Russia Insider, not RT. The problem is not how it sourced.--Renat (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This passage is about RT's response to Bausman's Russia Insider article and the accusation RT has not fully broken with Bausman and his website. Editors' make use of what is said about a subject which may well refer to the policies of another media organization in relation to the article's topic. The degree to which Kremlin-affiliated outlets are interconnected in Russia's disinformation campaign (the existence of which reliable sources do not doubt) is an issue in the media and is covered elsewhere in the article. The removed passage citing The Daily Beast is no different. Philip Cross (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either that it's relevant to the article. Plinuxs (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Philip Cross, I think I understood your position. But in that case we need to improve the para, structure of its narrative. Because now it only looks like this:
"RT said there is no association between them and they blacklisted Bausman 2 years ago → Russia Insider posted RT content → Google said about their policy → Russia Insider kept the content".
It looks broken to me. Maybe we need to transform it into this?
"RT said there is no association between them and they blacklisted Bausman 2 years ago → RT claimed it directed Russia Insider to remove all its content → Bausman said he wasn't blacklisted and there was no takedown requests → Russia Insider continued to post RT content and kept the old one"--Renat (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

Why does the current version of this article not mention Bausman's participation in the events of January 6, 2021, as well as the fact that he turned up in Moscow a day later? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Content always depends on the existence of reliable sources. In any case, assuming you are referring to the 2021 United States Capitol attack, it is difficult to see how Bausman's supposed involvement would belong here. Philip Cross (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

An article on the Southern Poverty Law Center website on Bausman's movements during 2021 is worth reading.

References

Philip Cross (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Bausman is clearly visible in video footage of the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol insurrection, walking around amongst the chaos inside the Capitol building and holding up a mobile phone to film the events. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Phillip Cross I proposed making a Charles Bausman page. He was also involved with "The Right Stuff," Lancaster Patriot, ReOpenPA, and StopTheSteal. Jgmac1106 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding Bausman Page

I went to add a page for Charles Bausman and it redirects to here. I propose creating a separate page for Charles Bausman given his key role in conspiracies leading up to Jan 6th Jgmac1106 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No longer active?

As of 2024, the website seems to be inaccesible from any IP and cannot references to any content. 2001:4C4C:126E:6000:C5B0:2B22:D796:CF82 (talk) 10:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)