Talk:Sputnik (news agency)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Beware of user 91.213.149.91

That user is making impartial edits regarding Sputnik News Agency and interestingly enough, when you search that IP address, it appears it is from the 1+1 (channel) studio. How professional of someone to be making such Wiki edits on the job!50.100.178.118 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

bias in "Reception"

Alexander Podrabinek is the sole source for this denunciatory paragraph. I am glad that Mr. Podrabinek's connections are supplied (in too much detail?), but even if he is a respected analyst in the field (and not the pot calling the kettle black), it is clear that more sources are needed.

Until then, this section smacks strongly of bias. EricClarion (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there's a strong pro-Sputnik bias. The section makes it look like there's only one person who describes Sputnik as a propaganda tool. Also whoever wrote that section went out of his or her way to make Mr. Podrabinek's opinion look untrustworthy. There should be more of the sources that describe it as a part of Russia's propaganda efforts. Sjö (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I also agree, and in waiting for us reaching some sort of agreement here I'll reorder it. Edit: Have also changed the text in question to be in line with that used on the RT (TV network) page. Previous text is there in editing comments. Hentheden (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Parking a link here for future use: http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/fact-check-sputnik-says-us-is-pivoting-to-central-asia/ Sjö (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

When it's Sputnik is "propaganda," when is CNN is a "reliable source of neutral information." Who is running Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.28.9 (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We go with what the sources say and there's an abundance of sources that call Sputnik propaganda. Sjö (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Strange that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty entry does not mention that it is a US propaganda medium...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.5.105 (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to improve other articles with sourced information. Sjö (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Radio Moscow - VOR - Sputnik

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.

---

The current Sputnik radio is the Radio Moscow (and then Voice of Russia) renamed (and had shortwave broadcasts ceased). Even the Russian Wikipedia's Sputnik article describes the service as a renamed station. It's similar to how Discovery Kids in the United States became (The) Hub Network, and then turned into Discovery Family. So, what about splitting radio service into Sputnik (radio network), and merging Radio Moscow and Voice of Russia into there? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry JSH-alive, I missed this section when I removed the template. My mistake. It sounds to me like Voice of Russia wasn't renamed, and rather these are two separate radio services, and they have no organizational continuity. If so, I don't think they should be merged, as they don't exactly share a history. As well, it seems that Sputnik radio is a part of the Sputnik news service. But I'm open to hearing arguments the other way on this. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Merging the three articles would make the result far too long. Also, while they are successor services, the three are quite distinct, Radio Moscow was a Soviet propaganda station and Voice of Russia was the external service of a different country which was only one component of the former Soviet Union and was completely distinct politically. Also, Voice of Russia was dissolved, Sputnik is a completely different entity (it's not a shortwave service and is operated by a completely different organization). Sputnik is more of a successor to RIA Novosti than Voice of Russia and is organizationally different from both of them. 142.204.27.54 (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Best to keep them each the way they are for now as their own separate articles, for purposes of describing each as they historically existed at that particular point in time. Sagecandor (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It does not warrant a separate article. Plus, there's already an article about a German radio with the same name, which will be confusing.--Satt 2 (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• I also oppose this move. Since this discussion has been going on since August I'm going to close this discussion. HelgaStick (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2017 (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.

Identification of (lower-level) personnel/employees

I just did some minor editing and format repair of a sentence with new information on Sputnik's Washington DC office, which specifically names that office's editor and bureau chief. Is this kind of detail appropriate, i.e., does it significantly benefit the article? This degree of detail would seem to be something that might require frequent updating; do Wikipedia editors with wider and longer experience find that folks are pretty good about updating information for lower-level personnel such as this? Also, assuming that this English-language version of Wikipedia is intended to serve English language users everywhere, and not just in the U.S., should the same information be provided for Sputnik's London and Edinburgh offices as a matter of consistency? While I don't have strong feelings about this, I do have concerns about providing specific names of people (in non-biographical articles) who don't represent top leadership in an organization. It's not that would-be harassers can't find the information elsewhere, I'd just prefer to not make it easier for them. Just throwing this out here for discussion. Sharl928 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Beware of user 73.241.63.107

This user is making impartial edits regarding CEPA (mentioned in the criticism & controversy section). Removing any references to CEPA's interests in Eastern Europe, or US/military funding - even where these references are properly & accurately sourced to CEPA's own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackinscotland (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

cepa

I think the intention is helpful but cepa redirects to allium, which is fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkhowarizmi (talk • contribs) 10:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks for that, I forgot to sign.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

IP removal of reliably sourced text

One IP number has now repeatedly reverted text on one Sputnik host.[1] The edits are baseless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Issues regarding bias in this article

One or two users in particular seem keen to alter the introduction of this article, they should take care to note Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not to present a viewpoint on, rather a neutral description of the subject matter. Those viewpoints can, however, be covered extensively within the article.

Accusations of pro-Russian bias, and perceived government control of Sputnik are mentioned in detail within the 'History' section, and there is a section exclusively dedicated to 'Criticism and Controversy'. That is not to say that controversy should necessarily be absent from the article's introduction, but to introduce the entire article with the sentence "...is a Russian government-controlled online news and radio broadcast service." is clearly an attempt to shape the reader's perception of Sputnik.

The following introduction is far more neutral and descriptive, and in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines:

Sputnik (pronounced spʊtnɪk) is an international online news and radio broadcast service, primarily focused on global politics and economics. The agency is headquartered in Moscow, with regional editorial offices in Washington, Cairo, Beijing and London. The service is geared entirely towards a non-Russian audience.

As a suggestion, to allow for the fact that there ought to be reference to controversy within the introduction - the following alteration could be appropriate:

Sputnik (pronounced spʊtnɪk) is an international online news and radio broadcast service, primarily focused on global politics and economics. The agency is headquartered in Moscow, with regional editorial offices in Washington, Cairo, Beijing and London. The service is geared entirely towards a non-Russian audience, and as such has been subject to accusations of bias, due to the service's close links to the Russian Government

This puts the issue of bias in the opening paragraph, without it defining the entire article (which would of course - ironically - be biased). It is important that the article should open with a simple, factual description of the subject. The issue of bias, government involvement and accusations of propaganda are covered in detail throughout the rest of the article. Blabber2016 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The bold text isn't covered by the sources and as far as I can see the agency isn't accused of bias and propaganda because of its connection to the Russian government, but because of its content.Sjö (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that neutrality in Wikipedia terms doesn't mean that Wikipedia should treat all viewpoints as equal. Our mission is to describe the article subjects as they are presented in the majority of reliable sources. E.g. for pseudoscientific subjects, we do describe them as pseudoscientific, and if a media agency is described in a certain way in reliable sources the Wikipedia article must reflect that. Sjö (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I'm not arguing that it shouldn't. But the opening sentence of an article should be a neutral description of the subject - after all, that's why people look things up on Wikipedia.Blabber2016 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's set one thing straight. The recent string of edits in this article by anonymous IPs and WP:Single-purpose accounts are certainty not geared towards neutrality. In fact, they all share one thing in common - attempting to bury this news outlet's Russian government affiliation as deep as possible, and to water down this government affiliation as much as possible (no doubt to give it an air of greater impartiality and credibility). But you see, RFERL has a ton of information in its introduction that talks about U.S. government affiliation, State Department and even CIA... So why is it wrong or biased to ensure that Sputnik's Russian government affiliation is clearly indicated in the intro?! It's not - our reader's deserve to have the facts up front.

If the present disruption by single purpose accounts continues, we may be due for a few Sockpuppet investigations - I don't think its a coincidence that all these users came out of the woodwork like this.--Damianmx (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

There is no attempt from me - certainly - to "bury" anything, I would agree with the above suggestion, which mentions quite clearly Sputnik's relation to the Russian government, and the criticism tied to that in the opening paragraph (far from buried). To attempt to define Sputnik by its ties to government in the opening sentence however, is not a neutral move. Sputnik is first and foremost (in terms of an encyclopedia definition, a media outlet. I would add, that Damianmx should be wary of hypocrisy, as this account seems hellbent on removing any and all balance from the controversy section - specifically by removing any mention to CEPA's funding sources. If sources are being cited over accusations of government bias (specifically due to government funding), their own funding sources are also relevant - especially if they include US govt. and other national govts. We should all be working towards improving the article and improving the information available, not hiding inconvenient conflicts of interest.Jackinscotland (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It is of course correct to say that "RFERL has a ton of information in its introduction that talks about U.S. government affiliation, State Department and even CIA..." - but it's opening sentence, describes first and foremost what it is (as a wikipedia article ought to): "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is a broadcasting organization that provides news, information, and analysis to countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East ". It's not complicated. Jackinscotland (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As @Sjö: already pointed out, accusations of bias do not stem from this outlet's government funding or affiliation as much as its content. Also note that Government affiliation was included in the beginning until you removed it. You were the one who was supposed to discuss these unilateral changes in advance, not the other way around. Both Voice of America and Rossiya Segodnya have their government affiliation noted in the very beginning; Sputnik, as an arm of Rossiya Segodnya, should also be identified.--Damianmx (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2

I think you're splitting hairs re govt affiliation vs content. Regarding the discussion of "unilateral" changes, can you please explain why you keep deleting sourced and relevant information in the criticism section? You are quick to accuse others of removing content, but slow to acknowledge when you do it yourself. So far as I can see, no attempt has been made to remove any inconvenient information about Sputnik (and thankfully Wikipedia keeps a record), merely to reword a contentious opening sentence. Information about all of Sputnik's critics however keeps getting removed.

I will leave the opening paragraph alone for now, as I don't think a back-and-forth edit war gets anyone anywhere. I have - however - restored the deleted information in the criticism section. Please do not delete it again without (at the very least) attempting to explain why you think the information ought to go. If you don't, one can only conclude that you are on a mission to make Sputnik look as bad as possible, whilst hiding any conflicts of interests its critics may have - making you guilty of the very same thing you purport to be crusading against.Jackinscotland (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The messages broadcasted by Sputnik News are actually nauseating and extremely biased. There's nothing else than bombastic pro-Russia propaganda. Honestly, the article in its current format does not render properly such fact to the casual reader. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps some examples of how it is biased may be more convincing that simply name calling and mudslinging. So far to me it seems like it is the Russian version of CNN or the NYTs. Both of which have been called left wing biased propaganda machines, by Americans not Russians. It seems that it is only the other guys who are biased and run an agenda driven publications not our own. How naive. It is almost impossible to find impartial truth based news sites anywhere. I find it strange to say this but Breitbart, which is admittedly right wing, is less biased that the rest of the US MSM put together. What a sad state of affairs. What has happened to the US MSM that Breibart is considered honest by the "every man." I know that most of you don't feel that way but that is not how the man in the street feels.49.206.8.1 (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

References

Radio Sputnik, Russian domestic edition

How do I add the facts that Rossiya Segodnya is running the Russian domestic edition of Radio Sputnik as a part of RIA Novosti, and that RIA Krim (a bureau in the disputed area of Crimea) is running Sputnik v Krimu radio? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor additions and edits throughout the article

Hello, I am a student who is part-taking in editing Sputnik (news agency) for a course. I wanted to notify wiki editors and general audience that I plan to make minor edits to the following sections: Foundation, European coverage and responses, International bans and restrictions, and lastly Twitter and Facebook. The edits I have made are still in my sandbox and I will slowly be editing the article. My edits are all additional details to the provided information and two grammar edits (as of right now as I type this talk message). They are not major edits, instead, they are contributions that will add on to the information and provide more citations/sources for anyone researching on the topic. Deanapol (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Update

I am making a new section for "Middle East Coverage" to provide a dedicated section to write about the fake news reported on Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. I know the event is sort of mentioned in the Sputnik article, but it is so dispersed and there is no dedicated section for the incident and how Sputnik dealt with the coverage.Deanapol (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologetics in the lead

My edit was reverted, so will attempt to explain it: while the body already mentions this, making it valid for the lead, my impression is that it's undue, portrays a false balance while also unnecessarily making the lead longer. It's also a very typical complaint so doesn't really add any information. —PaleoNeonate – 09:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. The response suggests Facebook correctly identified the issue which might otherwise be questioned. Like the reference to the Russian government following The New York Times accusation, it is far shorter than the passage describing Facebook's action. Inclusion is not dependent on whether the response is original or pro forma, but on the quality of the sources. As the whole article is 57,997 bytes in length, the opening summary is probably proportionally too short. Philip Cross (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of globalize tag

I recently removed the globalize tag, which says, "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." However, I was reverted by User:Philip Cross.

This article currently has 3461 words of readable prose, of which slightly less than half (37% or 1270 words) concerns countries outside the US. I don't understand why this tag was added back. Per the template instructions, "Please explain your concerns on the article's talk page and link to the section title of the discussion you initiate. Otherwise, other editors may remove this tag without further notice."

The globalize tag was added in April 2019 by a user who complained that there weren't enough non-US sources. However, as of September 2020, it appears that the majority of sources in the current article are non-US sources. Therefore, the original concerns of the person adding the tag have been sufficiently met and there is no outstanding reason to continue to have this article tagged. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not add the template, but still agree it should be there. Look at the languages in which the website publishes in the 'Online news' section. The list contains many languages spoken in countries which are former Soviet Republics or satellites, for which there are also services in Russian. The list includes services in Spanish and Portuguese (which are doubtless aimed at Latin America), as are the radio services in those languages. It also includes a Chines service. All of this, so far, does not have any or sufficient coverage in the article. The 'soft power' Sputnik uses against the United States is doubtless their biggest priority, and sources on this area may remain the most extensive, but your estimate that "(37% or 1270 words) concerns countries outside the US" is unsatisfactory when one considers only 4% of the world's population live in the United States. Philip Cross (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I will keep this very brief: the original rationale for adding the tag in April 2019 has been met. Maintenance tags aren't meant to be permanent or to be used as a badge of shame. I came to this article because I had been linking to it in response to Trump supporters who are citing Sputnik in their defense of Trump. Sputnik has been actively promoting propaganda in defense of Trump through conservative media outlets saying that Trump never denigrated and disparaged the military. When I arrived here, I discovered the tag. It does not currently belong here based on best practices and guidelines. Your argument up above for keeping the tag doesn't provide any useful or actionable task. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and this current article consists of a majority of non-US sources with 37% of the content devoted to global, non-US topics. That far exceeds what the globalize tag is intended to address in terms of systemic bias. Maintenance tags aren't intended as a badge of shame or used to hold the article hostage to the ambiguous, nebulous demands of a single user. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deanapol.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)