User talk:Valerylev

RUSSIA TODAY - Strange, when an untrue statement that RT is run by RIA Novosti, can stay on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today page whereas the truth that it's in fact not, has to be proven by a third source. Especially, when many third sources, namely foreign correspondents and journalists writing about Russia apparently refer to the Wiki page. How to break this vicious circle? BTW, Reuters is more correct in not mentioning RIA Novosti behind the channel: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-russia-assange-tv-idUSTRE80P0TV20120126 . So is BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102275.stm. Isn't this enough a proof? Valerylev (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of discussion is better to be kept on Talk:RT (TV network). As for the truth argument, core Wikipedia policy WP:V says that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true.. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to have third-party statements (see WP:RS) to support any material which is added; and keep in mind that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Ipsign (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]