Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 1

Initial text
new channel, pretty reporters, mix of Eastern European and British accents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garmao~enwiki (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The idiots at RussianToday (the newspaper/magazine) think that this great channel is putin-powered. I think their just jealous. This channel is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.161.50 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I especially love their "interviews" where the vast majority of the time hardcore Russian nationalists or far-left/far-right academics or activists from the west are given a chance to say how much the US or Europe sucks and is out to get Russia. Notice in these interviews how the reporter never asks any probing questions, just questions designed to allow the extremist in question to take their diatribe in a direction where they can expound further on it. I remember a couple years ago how they "interviewed" professors who claimed (in two different interviews) how the bailout programs in both the US and the EU were proof that the US and EU were descending into fascism. Or the interview where the entire Cold War was blamed on NATO, a supposedly "evil" organization that was designed to screw over the USSR AND all the nations of the Warsaw Pact, who obviously wanted to be Russia's satellites. Or the interview w/the Russian guy behind their exploration of the Arctic seabed where he claimed that the USSR had nuclear powered icebreakers in the 1930's (and the reporter just shook her head in agreement)! What professionalism! What's really interesting about Russia Today is that the level of their anti-Western vitriol is in direct correlation to Russia's need for the West. When Russia really needs the cooperation of the US or EU (or when, as in two years ago, there was a summit meeting of past US secretaries of state in Moscow), the anti-western vitriol is virtually non-existent. When Putin is really ticked at the West, though, the vitriol flies off the shelves. Don't believe me? Watch for yourself. Leaders in the West should track the subtle jibes and rant levels on RT, for its a great indication of the Russian government's feelings.99.103.231.61 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What's even more interesting is that not once have they ran a story that would put Putin in a bad light. If stories are run that place the Russian government in a bad light, the problem is always the fault of others, and Putin always is shown coming in to set things right. Is Putin really that good or is it more likely that RT is a source of propaganda and not legitimate journalism?99.150.207.11 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree RT does have a few shortcomings, but it's certainly a breath of fresh air from the Anglo-Saxon propaganda machine. I like being in touch with the world's goings-on, but consistent one-sided view from the likes of BBC/CNN is just not interesting anymore, so much so that very few people in the UK can support an unbiased political debate; and yes, it's deliberately and explicitly anti-Russian. Watching Al Jazeera, RT, NewsAsia gives me much more rounded view. As for US channels - how can you show burning Tskhinval (South Ossetia) and claim it's the Georgian city of Gori??? So my personal choice is avoiding such nonsense...but, as is clearly evidenced here by the wide anti-Russian rhetoric, it works on others...Well done, RT, you must be doing something right if successfully ruffling those complacent feathers and breaking lies the west peddles about your country... 218.186.17.229 (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please. RT gives you a "rounded view", really? Since when does government-funded propaganda qualify as news or journalism? And you're giving Russia way more popularity than it deserves, Russia isn't big news here in the West and for good reason too especially judging by that country's drastically falling birth rate.....the only time it is news is when we catch some of its spies illegally operating here or if it suffers some terrorist attack. Sleetman (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo rttv.jpg
Image:Logo rttv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Brief description of notable controversies in the lead
User Russavia has removed a paragraph from the lead with the message "Removed entire "breathless cheerleader" section in lead - it is NPOV, and 3 sources do not support the synthesis raised - take it to talk page", so I have taken it to the talk page. The paragraph is NPOV because it balances Russia Today's view as being an alternative to the "Anglophone point of view on international news" with critics of Russia Today TV's neutrality. Russavia also asserts that the sources do not actually claim that Russia Today TV is a "breathless cheerleader" for the Kremlin and that it is synthesis. As such I have provided a quote from the sources (actually 4) here exactly in context.

Kasparov, a former world chess champion, is a fierce opponent of Putin. Kasyanov, a former prime minister, was barred from running in the March 2 presidential election.

"That's just bad, bad PR, and I'd add bad politics . . . for which no Ketchum contract, television network or foundation money can compensate," McFaul said.

Russia Today, a news channel set up in April 2005, is broadcasting in English and Arabic and planning to expand into Spanish. At first glance it looks a lot like CNN, but it can be a breathless cheerleader for the Kremlin.

Nikonov, of the new grant-making group, called the channel "too amateurish" and spoke dismissively of many of the other efforts: "Sometimes people spend a lot of money on nonsense."

The editor in chief of Russia Today would not agree to an interview without the right to approve all of her quotes, the channel's press office said. The Washington Post declined to accept those terms. Thrill talk 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

paragraph: However, criticism has been raised against Russia Today for being a "breathless cheerleader" for the Kremlin[4] and for being to much "in the hands" of the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin.[3][5][6][7]

relevant quotes from sources:

"At first glance [Russia Today] looks a lot like CNN, but it can be a breathless cheerleader for the Kremlin."

''The channel’s roots in the Kremlin staff, including the president’s briefer Alexey Gromov and the president’s advisor Mikhail Lesin were spotted off-the-record. ''

Dmitry Peskov, who is Gromov’s first deputy, confirmed to Kommersant “the idea of Russia Today was backed up and understood in the staff of the president.”

Besides, the channel’s founder is the state-run RIA Novosti and its funding is effected for the state budget’s account ($30 million for 2005).

RIA-Novosti created Russia Today with the aim of presenting the government's view on news about Russia

The Kremlin is already spending millions of dollars on the English-language satellite news channel “Russia Today.” 

several analysts say [Russia Today] will amount to nothing more than Kremlin propaganda.

Unless anyone can prove how these quote do not support the paragraph, I'm reinstating the paragraph again. ASN (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's all that important. Western media preaching to Russia about not being enough like the west, what else is new? I think we should be more concerned with facts rather than opinions, after all this is an encyclopedia. It's kind of like music and movie reviews, if someone wants to find out about it, they can just watch it and make up their own mind (it's even free). I don't see why you would be so hard pressed to put preconceived notions into readers heads using other peoples opinions. I don't think the general public is so stupid as to need an "expert" to tell them whether or not something is propaganda, and in an ironic twist, that could be seen as propaganda in of itself. Nevertheless, I left the criticism in, and added some additional information to balance it. However personally I think the paragraph should be removed completely. LokiiT (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Opinions do matter, and should be included, even if they do not sound new to you. It's important to know what has been said about any topic, from all sides. Even movies pages have "reaction" section which summarizes opinion about the the movie. ASN (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One sided opinions do not belong in the intro, please see WP:NPOV. When someone comes to this article, by no means should they be reading negative opinions before all else. That is ridiculous. Look at the BBC, CNN, CBC and Al-Jazeera articles. Criticism does not go in the intro. There is no self praise in the intro either, please quote what you're talking about, all I see is facts, stats and objectives. If it's going to be a problem, maybe we should just delete all opinions like I suggested earlier.


 * And further, that kommersant article doesn't criticize Russia Today at any point, please re-read it. Only western media has criticized it. LokiiT (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * there were both sides represented in the intro: critique about channel's affiliation to kremlin, and opposing statement from editors about their editorial independence. not much difference from what is at Fox_News_Channel, where criticism does go into intro. ASN (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What is an opinion other than one-sided? WP:NPOV says to present all significant points of view, not none. Criticism does have a place in the introduction, from WP:LEAD


 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.


 * It does not matter whether the criticism comes from someone "Western" or "Eastern", all that matters is that it is reliable. Thrill talk 08:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So would you prefer we move the entire criticism section back to the lead? Because it's certainly not neutral to just have negative points. The only reason I moved it in the first place was because it was getting too big. (Read what WP:LEAD says about length compared to article size, 4 paragraphs is too big. This article is 11,000 characters, so its lead should be 1 or 2 paragraphs.) And I think it is important to note that it's western media criticizing, the topic of Russia and media freedom is a touchy topic indeed when it comes to western media. LokiiT (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ideally, yes, because the criticism was brief (1 sentence) and well sourced, it was designed for a lead. The response to the criticism in the criticism section could be compressed to one sentence also, something like "Russia Today TV and the Russian Federal Press and Mass Communications Agency deny this."


 * The lead-to-article length relationship is a problem, but I think this is something that cannot be cut out of the lead for space reasons. The best solution would be to keep this in the lead and add a more detailed account in an existing or new section (not a criticism section, Wikipedia policy discourages criticism sections). Copying the criticism section verbatim would still leave some weight issues to be resolved.


 * A possible "third way" would be to compress the criticism stuff like one would for the lead and integrate it with the article without mentioning anything in the lead. This would be less helpful to readers, but marginally better than a criticism section. Thrill talk 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem with criticism sections is that they become "troll magnets", so to speak, where people just list endless amounts of criticism in what becomes an unfair POV attack against the subject. I think given the size, popularity and subject matter of this article, we shouldn't have any such problems. If it does become a problem I would be for removing the section and incorporating the criticism more evenly into the article, but for now I think the section is fine.


 * And again I must point out the fact that there are no other media broadcasting articles that include criticism in their leads, despite most of them having significant amounts of criticism in the rest of the article. I don't think we should hold double standards. Policies like what to include in the lead need to be looked at with common sense. We're talking about opinions on a media broadcasting station, not intellectual scrutiny over some sort of scientific theory or otherwise factually controversial topic. LokiiT (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't advocating a criticism section. I was advocating integration of the criticism. I also will say there are other media broadcasting articles with criticism in their leads, Fox News Channel comes to mind. Criticism is always opinion, and the lead policy makes good sense. The lead section should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. To force the reader to dig through mounds of text before learning about connections that could compromise RTT's journalistic integrity would be a disservice to the reader and more public relations than encyclopedic. Thrill talk 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried to insert politics in the lead again. There is no reason to add political commentary to the ownership of RIA Novosti there. Cliveklg (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jamestown Foundation
I would imagine that we can find more credible critics to cite than the Jamestown Foundation. They are extremely critical of nearly every aspect of present-day Russia. They are not comparably critical of other countries with similar problems. I'd really suggest that we would do better to cite criticism from international human rights groups with more of a history of even-handed criticism of propaganda and censorship. - Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you source some of this criticism of Jamestown from reliable sources? Thrill talk 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be taken to RSN ASN (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the habit of having to source my talk page remarks, but I'll see what I can find. My point is, though, that I think we can find similar criticisms made by sources that have more credibility. - Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that even a cursory reading of our own article Jamestown Foundation makes it abundantly clear that this is largely a neoconservative organization. I'm not saying that means they are reckless with facts - from what I can see, they are more responsible than many who share their politics - but this really is as if (to take an example from someone on the other end of the political spectrum) we had our criticisms of something drawn mainly from The Nation. It's not a bad source, and I'd trust them on facts (though not always on the big picture), but there are probably better - and, specifically, more credible - sources on this topic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The link isn't necessary anyways. There are enough links supporting that paragraph. Why so much controversy over something that most readers will never even notice? For the record though I agree that Jamestown is pretty anti-Russian. You'd be hard pressed to find anything positive about Russia in one of their articles, at least that doesn't end up being a back handed compliment. LokiiT (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
"Russia Today has received some criticism in Western media for its close ties with the Russian state authorities " "Chief Editor Anton Nosik, of a major English-language computer internet site in Russia (Mos-News.com), is one critic of the channel who is skeptical. Mr. Nosik says the idea smacks of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns, dating as far back as Joseph Stalin". That right there makes your wording completely untrue. I am reverting back. Ostap 02:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the sources?
 * And that was reported in Western media. Please stop edit warring over two simple words that you feel you must change (you accuse me of POV pushing, yet you're the one who initiated the change). You are one revert away from breaking WP:3RR. LokiiT (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because we use English sources on English wikipedia does not mean that all criticism comes from the Western media. There is no need for the "western" label to the criticism, especially since the criticism is coming from Russian journalists.  I am asking for a third opinion.  Please be advised that you are also one revert away from breaking WP:3RR, and since you already have multiple blocks for edit warring you might be blocked for longer duration. Ostap 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's Russian or other non-western media that criticizes RT then please by all means add it and this will be settled. I personally haven't seen any non-western media criticize it, so I think it's noteworthy that this is one type of media from a specific part of the world calling another type from another part biased, rather than a world-wide consensus. Regarding my reverts, I'm well aware that I have reverted three times. what you wrote on my talk page is wrong though, your first edit counts as a revert as it technically reverted someone else's earlier edit to include that phrase. LokiiT (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an english wiki written through a US perspective. Of course half of the article will have a criticism section with no usable or reliable references. It's sick and stupid, but just go along with it.
 * Sort of like the reporting on Russia Today.99.103.228.194 (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

-G

The criticism section seems good, but it's way too long! It's almost a third of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.106.61.219 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
This looks to me to be improper synthesis. Unless there is some source that analyzes media criticisms of Russia Today TV, and explicitly states that these exclusively originate from Western media, it should be left out. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 10:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we need another third opinion or is this settled? Ostap 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that a good look at RT.com turns up some serious questions about the political motivation of RT towards the destabilizing of the United States Government, or its people. It should be mentioned in this short explanation. Here are a few worrisome articles from RT.com
 * And that is utter nonsense. Should anything happen to the US for factual reporting on real issues and situations, the US should take the blame. No one else. You're like Göring complaining about bad publicity.

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-07-10/oakland-manslaughter-police-riot.html http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-10-24/police-brutality-america.html http://rt.com/Politics/2009-10-30/american-empire-collapse-2020.html http://rt.com/Politics/2009-11-02/us-revolution-obama-dix.html

M. Felzien process.engineer@yahoo.com 76.102.125.111 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I just removed the following from the article:
 * During an episode of Peter Lavelle's Crosstalk that involved British journalist Douglas Murray, Lavelle asserted that "the people that perpetrated 9/11 were not even fundamentalists at all". RT also taped a news story that aired the views of the 9/11 Truth movement.  In July 2010 RT gave a platform to Daniel Estulin who alleged that the Bilderberg Group is seeking to "destroy Russian society from within" and that "the US government is building 13 secret bases in Afghanistan for the forward push to an eventual war against Russia."
 * At issue is not that these things are controversial but the original research. We need someone criticising them, not YouTube clips of the video itself. Gonfaloniere (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

People: you've got to be joking! Take a look at the entry on Al Jazeera. Do you even get a clue there about its real bias (it was an open cheerleader for the recent war against Libya, but not a word on Wikipedia about that. Just a short blurb late in the piece about ONE PERSON'S contention that it is "anti-American"  LOL)  Meanwhile, a whole slew of late Cold Warriors are paraded in this very unfair characterization of RT, as if the whole world was facing a renewed Russian Menace. What a crock! Has any of you ever actually watched RT? If so, you'd see what blather these pundits are spewing. Yes, it's true that RT's slant is quite a bit different from the corporate media. But does that really make it "anti-American?" This obsession with America vs. the quality of its journalism is very telling, and unfit for a report that purports to give an objective rendering. Where are the plaudits for RT to give a fair and balanced summary? Nowhere (except that awards it has received are buried far BENEATH the promoted "criticism.") Clearly the editors of this section have an axe to grind with RT. This "controversy and criticism" section is blown way out of proportion and given way too prominent a place on this page.Kenfree (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Gone from Time Warner Cable?
Looks like the New York TWC Russia Today channel was just replaced with a "LaoStar TV USA - Coming Soon" message. Anyone know what happened and if it's anything permanent? The article's the first place I went to, so I'll look around the net a bit for some answers. - Tajik24 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today Forums
I've been reading RT Forums, ever since I've got embezzelled in the "Battle of Title" and although I found little there to support my arguments, I did find quite a lot of people, while critiquing RT's Coverage, calling RT's Forums truly Democratic. I've also heard others complaining that their articles weren't being published, or were heavily edited, yet these claims were actually published on RT Forums. Any idea on how to put that into the article? Should I try to write an article on the forums just to see if it works? Anyone want to experiment? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Attribution
Western State and commercial media should be identified as such. Voice of America and "Radio Liberaty" qualify as Western state media. New York Times and CBS News are Western commercial media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.38.178 (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RT now in Spanish
They launched a Spanish language channel. I'm not sure however how to name the new article - would "RT (Spanish)" be appropriate? --IJK_Principle (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be partly a front of American propaganda since many journalists in it are American
hence to force the viewer say "See, even Russians say Americans own". I wonder if there're sources supporting it. --Leladax (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're saying a broadcaster funded from the Russian federal budget is actually a front for US propaganda?? Please, run that one through the checklist. --Yablochko (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an extension of the Orange Revolution into Russia. Al-Jazeera and Press TV are similar operations. They have to deceive the Russian people and global population by appearing to be anti-American and pro-Russian, a trust mechanism. Ja, it's a collaborative effort between the Americans, Brits, Israelis, their intelligence agencies, and Neo-Cons in Russia. If Putin had approvals in the 20s, their mask would come off. Stay tuned for 2012.


 * 391 loser (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The website stream technically sensitive to the needs of all
The commercials and promos do not stall the programming as their counterparts on CBS.com did when I watched 60 minutes this past Monday. Choice of 3 resolutions allows me to continue watching and surf the internet at the same time. If not using my computer for anything else while watching the stream my dsl connetion of 746 kbps usually works with no stalling at the default medium resolutiion. If I am going to use another instance of my explorer8 browser I just click below for a lower resolution. Does anyone know of any other broadcaster on the internet that comes anywhere near to their consideration for their internet audience? I wonder how well the stream works for those using dialup.1archie99 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC) .

"Owned by Moscow Kremlin" stated in info box is not correct
To say that ownership is by the Kremlin and/or Moscow is no more correct than to say that the PBS network was owned by the Ford Foundation or the United States Government. In its early days PBS was almost entirely supported by these two sources. Here is a link from Google that translates the main part of the web page into English that is cited in the article regarding the proposed funding by the government in 2007 for Russia Today. http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ng.ru%2Fpolitics%2F2006-09-05%2F1_svobodaslova.html&sl=ru&tl=en I would like to see this url added to the original cite that contains no English at all. Also, we could use an update on the amount the government is spending to support RT. I remember there being more commercials on RT in its earlier days including that of a Russian oil company. 1archie99 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders?
Novazee added "... According to some American journalists and European heads of department "Reporters without borders", the channel is the mouthpiece of government propaganda." I think the sentence is slightly broken. Is the "Reporters without borders" in the addition Reporters Without Borders? If yes, then Reporters Without Borders is not a department and maybe the "department" in the sentence should be changed to "organization". --EarthFurst (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In Sweden, Reporters Without Borders are more known as Reporters Without Brains. All they do is defend the power of the media barons who rule, politicize and corrupt the news flow i the Western world. On several topics, news through the mainstream is more indoctrination than information. Of course reporters living on news-distortion and subjugation dislike when someone new comes through with alternative explanations. carl@lundstrom.com --95.152.68.207 (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reporters Without Borders are CIA funded. Do the research.

Impact of Simonyan as Editor?
Should we put in a bit more about the editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan? She's an interesting character, only in her mid-twenties and has been largely responsible for turning the operation from a BBC-wannabe into a Fox News-style political mouthpiece. (She has acknowledged publicly the role Fox has played as an exemplar). I would like to do a bit of work on this article but don't know where to start... -- Yablochko (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead
The lead reads like a description of their broadcasting avenues not their content. It also doesn't mention who owns them / funds them etc while it does mention the cost of operation. Is this normal for a channel like this? Also in the controversy section it seemed a bit funny that it was called 'controversial' to report on conspiracy theorists. Is that really controversial or is it just a demonstration of poor or good reporting? I mean if the theorists were talking about a likely conspiracy eg. Reichstagg burning, big deal ... it seems though they were talking about the Bilderberg group and 9/11 truthers ... but does WP really take a stance on that being controversial / good / bad reporting?--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the lead should probably look more like the page on CCTV, RT's Chinese equivalent. Its lead looks like this:


 * China Central Television or Chinese Central Television [...] is the major state television broadcaster in mainland China. CCTV has a network of 19 channels broadcasting different programmes and is accessible to more than one billion viewers.[1] Most of its programmes are a mixture of documentary, comedy, entertainment and drama, the majority of which consists of Chinese soap operas and entertainment. This station is one of the official mouthpieces of the Chinese government, and reports directly to high-level officials in the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) Central Propaganda Department.


 * As for the conspiracy theories, some of the stuff RT broadcasts is full-on political agitation...for example claims that Obama orchestrated the BP oil spill. It doesn't matter if the presenters themselves endorse the conspiracy theories or not, simply giving them so much airtime seems to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the US government with FUD. Yablochko (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is any credible secondary party (such as reporters without borders) making the allegation you're making Yabochko? If not, its not a valid view for WP. Also ... Perhaps ABC, BBC and CBC are more relevant, the state owned broadcasters for Australia, Britain and Canada. China is happy to be called a dictatorship and actually owns CCTV while RT seems to be 'funded' according to the sources by the Russian government, which claims its a democracy. They context of funded is not explicitly clear (eg. that they are funded completely or if they are funded in part). These things need to be established I think (humble opinion), both in the body of the article and summarised in the lead.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean, with all due respect, the amount of text in the criticism section for the main page of Fox News relative to the amount of text in the RT main page (excluding the criticism pages for both), is significantly more. I know that is not a perfect metric, but to an average, non-contributing user (me), coming from neither the US or Russia, that seems to imply in some subliminal way that therefore there is less criticism of the service. Considering the criticism out there (it does have enough content to spill over to another page) and the significance of the service, maybe adding to that section a few more sentences would be appropriate. Especially relative to the aforementioned CBC and ABC. 77.246.87.241 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I put this in the third opinion section above, but I just removed a good chunk of original research from the controversy section, not because having 9/11 Truth movement people isn't a crackpot thing to do but because we need someone else pointing that out. Gonfaloniere (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Transmission, Reception aresa and reception methods
There is a need for a proper list of satellites transmitting RT, as well as other methods used to transmit RT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.39.31 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We should stress freely available on the internet.
RT is one of the very few "television stations" or as I prefer to call them "television channels" freely available world wide on the internet. Also freely available are CCTV from China, PressTV from Iran, and France 24. Many others are available world wide but not in the U.S.1archie99 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Publicly funded"
I see the article cites RT about itself being publicly funded. Sorry, RT talking about RT is at best an opinion. RIA Novosti&mdash;the Novosti (News) Russian Information Agency, the RT parent, is the media outlet of the Russian state. RT self-comparing to the BBC is laughable. I see the identical gross misrepresentation in every RT related article I've done a cursory check of. Or is that Чехов. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for you to get excited as no one claimed that RT is a privately owned corporation. This is an encyclopedia. And as such it only deals with cold facts and the facts are RT is exactly like the BBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, CCTV and Deutsche Welle and so on and so forth. Nothing more nothing less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnigol (talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll need a Reliable Source that avers that RT is exactly "like".--Galassi (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about bringing some arguments for doubting the text, Galassi? I never saw you bringing arguments, only blindly reverting and interferring according to you political bias. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "You'll need a Reliable Source that avers that RT is exactly like" means. Galassi, you obviously are a person with limited English proﬁciency. You have a difficulty composing a proper English sentence that doesn't violate the elaborate NPOV requirements that Wikipedia sets forth. You have a delusional assumption that you have the right to construct any sentence and put it anywhere in an article as long as it is cited. But that just isn't the way Wikipedia works. Loginnigol (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Laughable or not, you need sources that support your opinion. What you provided was a source that says, "ITAR_TASS is now a joint stock company, but the government is still the majority shareholder, leaving some doubt about its independence" (Burton and Drake, p. 163)  It does not support your claims and in fact makes no mention at all about RT.  TFD (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right underneath the source states: "The state [press] agency is RIA Novosti, which is 100% government controlled." RT is RIA Novosti. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not know that. If that is true, I will propose a merger, because we should not have two separate articles on the same organization.  TFD (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think mother-daughter also works fine, Novosti has a much longer history; Russia Today/RT is relatively new and (for many) represents a case study for official Russia's dealings with the mass media and English language (the new lingua franca) audience in particular. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from my Talk Page, as per the advice below)" 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) 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) Valerylev (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see comments from Russian media experts on RIA Novosti and RT: http://en.rian.ru/agency_news/20120206/171179459.html. Hope this helps 14:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Valerylev (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When independent scholars assert "autonomy" from its parent and the Russian state, we can include that. RIAN complaining of unfair portrayals is not a reliable source. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear crowdcheckers, especially Galassi. Again, RT was founded by RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti was founded by the state. The state finances both the news organizations. But does that separately. Therefore, RIA Novosti doesn't run RT but is its founder. You can check the fact of financial independence in the official Russian Federation Budget 2012-2014 spreadsheet as published by Russia's FinMin at this link: http://www1.minfin.ru/common/img/uploaded/library/2011/12/Analiticheskoe_raspredelenie_po_GP_2012-2014_gg.xls Line 11648 is for TV-Novosti (ТВ-Новости) aka RT and line 11733 is for RIA Novosti (РИА Новости). Sorry, the spreadsheet is in Russian. The financing comes separate. Valerylev (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The key item is state owned and state financed. A separate budget line does not imply full separation; we can indicate in the article that the state budget has separate line items for funding. Any additional conclusion would be WP:OR interpretation of a primary source. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My key objection is that RIA doesn't run RT. In Russia, that's a well known fact. Valerylev (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

 * This edit is interaction ban violation. Please self-revert. Biophys (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

YouTubes
YouTube links: WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Russian;
 * http://www.youtube.com/user/rtrussian
 * English:
 * http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday
 * http://www.youtube.com/user/RTAmerica
 * http://www.youtube.com/user/RTDocumentaries

New Separate Articles
Please make separate articles on reporters Tesa Arcilla and Sara Firth. It would be much appreciated. Thank You. Homefry (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.96.11 (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV of "state-funded" and "state-owned" qualifiers
In American culture, the monikers of "state-funded", "state-owned", and "state-run" put the legitimacy of a news agency in question, especially if its a foreign state. Using these loaded terms in the first line of the article damages the article's neutrality. Articles for state-funded EU news agencies, like the BBC and AFP contain no mention of this in their introductions.

Let's be honest here -- editors adding the weasel words "state-funded" and "state-owned" to the introduction are underlining the fact that RT reports news from a non-western perspective, setting a biased tone of the article from the beginning. Any "state" qualifier is associated with propaganda and unreliability of the news source in American culture, and while the allegations may be true, Wikipedia articles are not the place for forming opinion.

There is a right place for this discussion if there are proper sources, and that's lower in the article. A paragraph in "History" already discusses this at length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.250.5.41 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is using innuendo instead of explaining the degree of independence of the network. Cf. TVOntario, none of this jargon appears.  TFD (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean it should be rephrased (to look like TVOntario) to something like "It is operated by RIA Novosti, a news agency owned by the Russian Government"? I wouldn't object this kind of rephrasing. Ipsign (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Words "state-funded" etc. are coming from WP:RS, and as such are admissible (and BTW they don't qualify per WP:WEASEL). As long as claim is in sources, it can be used; if there are independent WP:RS sources claiming the contrary, WP:WEIGHT can be invoked and compromise wording may be necessary, but so far no independent sources claiming otherwise were provided. As of now, state-funded is an undisputed (in WP:V sense) claim; moreover, overall perception about RT in the media (both Western and Russian) is perfectly in line with this claim; the only one objecting is RT itself (and a few WP:SPA IP editors, at least one of them demonstrated to have WP:COI), but it does not count as an independent source (and as WP:RS). Ipsign (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The relevant policy is WP:NPOV not WP:RS. You believe that RT is a propaganda arm of the Russian government.  I get it.  But it would be better to provide sources that discuss this issue, rather than imply it through the use of pejoratives.  One could find similar sources for any government supported broadcaster.  TFD (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe in anything (BTW, assuming that I do is dangerously close to WP:PA), except that (as WP:NPOV itself says) that "[NPOV] means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.". It is here is where WP:RS comes in. As long as all WP:RS are consistent on the subject (and so far they are for RT's being state-funded) - article shall reflect them; do you have any objections? The only thing we have in Wikipedia is WP:RS, nothing more, nothing less. Find a WP:RS which says RT is independently funded - I will be all for adding it to the article (in some compromise form, see WP:WEIGHT), but as long as it is WP:RS vs opinions of editors - sorry, WP:RS clearly wins. Ipsign (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, just to clarify my involvement here: I don't really care about RT (it is not within my area of interest), but I feel that RT itself goes to great lengths to affect this article (see, for example, edits from IP which belonged to RT itself, and subsequent edits from different IPs, but IMHO extremely close to WP:DUCK), and this is one thing I cannot stand (per WP:NOTADVERTISING). Ipsign (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume then that you are unaware that language is nuanced, and that not all phrasing is neutral. TFD (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nuance argument is inherently possible to counter (we can get into a very lengthy discussion on it with no way out), but note that I don't have any objections to you (or anybody else) fixing the phrasing, while preserving the facts (for example, as I've said above, I won't have any objections to rephrasing it to TVOntario style, which says in the lead exactly the following: "It is operated by the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, a Crown corporation owned by the Government of Ontario."). So far all the IP edits tried to remove the facts, that's why I reverted them. Ipsign (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree largely with Ipsign, the description in question is factual, unbiased, and moreover is at the core of the television network's raison d'etre. The BBC's main customer base is the British public, while AFP serves domestic French media.  RT is most definitely not like BBC and AFP, as it doesn't broadcast in Russian.  We can only assume it is aimed exclusively at a non-Russian audience with a view to promoting Russia's political agenda abroad.  On that basis RFE/RL would be a more plausible Western equivalent, and that page states very clearly on the first line where it is funded. -- Yablochko (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IOW you think that we should use different words to describe the same relationship because you believe it is a propaganda station since, unlike the BBC, it broadcasts internationally. BTW, have you ever heard of the BBC World Service?  I suggest substituting the term "government" as more neutral-sounding.  TFD (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, "you believe..." is dangerously close to WP:PA. We're here not to discuss (and even less to make wild guesses about) personal beliefs, but to discuss the article; relevant quote from WP:PA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Ipsign (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you think there is some controversy here, I would opt for "state-" as opposed to your "government-" as I believe that is what is in the sources. I see no controversy or need to object to use the terminology used in a reliable source. That is your WP:OR, as is your comparison to the BBC. Feel free to bring forth reputable sources that both the BBC and RT should, per your contention, be described similarly. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OR " refer[s] to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It is not OR to compare the language used in similar articles or to re-phrase sources.  Do you believe that Russia has a government, or do you only apply that term to certain countries?  TFD (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Amusingly, RT TV's own Facebook page states "It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the state-owned RIA Novosti.". But we could go with the Global security: Russia, second report of session 2007-08, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence by Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee, which states on page 162: "An English-language satellite channel, Russia Today, was launched in late 2005. The news-based station is funded by the Kremlin and aims to present "global news from a Russian perspective.""
 * Or a scientific source. Central European Journal of Communication, vol 3, spring 2010. "Russian TV market: between state supervision, commercial logic and simulacrum of public service", by Ilya Kiriya and Elena Degtereva (both from Moscow universities), states on page 43: "Since 2004 we could observe establishing of new TV channels, which were not subordinated by VGTRK but were built into the system of the state owned media and executed the propagandistic function. They are: TV channel Russia Today (international English language channel launched in order to improve the image of Russia abroad), ...".
 * These were just a result of a few minutes of limited searching. I am sure that plenty more sources can be found. Amusingly, I also found that RT.tv internet address was bought and paid by the financial department of Russia, . Obviously, that is a forum, and not a reliable source.
 * -- Sander Säde 07:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (to TFD): Strictly speaking, re-phrasing sources can in some cases constitute WP:SYN, which is a sort of WP:OR (see example with wording about UN in WP:SYN); that being said in general, in case of RT I don't have strong opinion on "state-funded" vs "government-funded" (count me out on discussion on it - as long as at least one of these stays in the article). Ipsign (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging
The tags on this article have been in place for over a year, now, with no one here making any specific proposals or attempts to address the issues that whoever placed them might have had in mind. I've removed the "cleanup" part of the tag for that reason. If you support the remaining "NPOV" and "Global View" tags, please identify specific, actionable criteria you think should be addressed before they can be removed. Absent such a presentation, and consensus to support their retention, our tagging policies say they should be removed. Thank you. – OhioStandard  (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The criticism in the article all seems to come from similar sources, and therefore is not balanced. Accuracy in Media for example calls Fox News Channel "liberal" and "left-wing", yet we do not include their criticism in that article.  An article called "Reporters Without Borders Don't Fancy Russia Today" is used to back up a statement that the "channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda".  In fact the article does not mention "Russia Today" - it is referring to today's Russia.  And the rest is similar.  TFD (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article contains the following quote from Reporters Without Borders' Pascale Bonnamour: "The pressure of the state on the Russian mass media is still mounting,” Ms. Bonnamour goes on. She calls the setting up of the round-the-clock English-language Russia Today TV channel “another step of the state to control information”." Mezigue (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So let's fix the problems. Some of the criticism is rather old and could be shortened. Also, I'm trying to find a source about Senator (Lieberman? McCain? other?) last year saying RT should be taken off the air, or something similar. Plus I'm sure positive reviews can be found as well, including from worldwide. CarolMooreDC 15:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved, no longer an initialism (similar to KFC or NCR Corporation). Reliable sources use RT (as well as Russia Today). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

RT (TV network) → Russia Today – WP:ACRONYMTITLE: initialism should be used if the subject is almost exclusively known by its acronym or is widely known and used in that form. What evidence of this? Compare many other entries for initialism "RT" at RT. Also, RT (TV network) is a title that is pointlessly abbreviated to ambiguity then disambiguated. Better to simply have it at its unabbreviated name, Russia Today. ENeville (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It changed its name. It changed its logo. If people type "Russia Today" into search it comes here. CarolMooreDC 00:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; Russia Today is clearer for readers, and there are other things called "RT", so why make trouble for ourselves? Also - whether or not they officially changed their name, there's no shortage of third parties that continue to refer to them as "Russia Today"...  . bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The company is now called RT. It is a no-brainer. Mezigue (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I'm generally against ambiguous abbreviations, the company has the right to choose its own name. If it's called "RT" now, that's what the article must reflect. Same with TLC, KFC and WWE. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per CarolMoore, Mezigue and Hulk. Steam5 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The redirect from "Russia Today" handles the name change in the appropriate way, already. Besides, it would be confusing to people, like myself, who've never known the company as anything other than RT. And any new viewer would wonder why we're calling it "Russia Today" when its news coverage is international rather than specific to Russia, and when he'll never see any on-air mention of "Russia Today". –  OhioStandard  (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Many people have commented to the effect that the company can call itself whatever it wants. True, but that doesn't necessarily indicate what we do on WP.  Please see WP:OFFICIALNAMES: "New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy."  What governs is WP:COMMONNAME: "abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation".  "Russia Today" is used on economist.com, nytimes.com, smh.com.au, and I don't know how many others. ENeville (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to know just when it changed it's name. Meanwhile, did those sites use Russia Today before or after it changed its name? And how many times? CarolMooreDC 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring on category
This edit reverting a reverted category is edit warring. Editor Hyperionsteel should know what WP:BRD means and should have come here to defend his categorizing this news entity as Category:Propaganda organisations. Please revert you change and discuss your reasoning here. CarolMooreDC 00:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As there are great many sources describing RT as "propaganda station", "propagandistic" and so forth, including the category is definitely not a problem. I see this edit as a problem instead. Hyperionsteel was just reverting which amounted more or less to a vandalism. -- Sander Säde 05:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Careful throwing around suggestions that an edit in a legitimate dispute is vandalism, Sander; that can get you blocked. I loathe Putin as much or more than you guys probably do, but go first and see if you can make the propaganda category stick at Fox News. If you can, then come back here and we'll talk. The two outlets are comparably biased, in my view, albeit in opposite directions. My point is that unless the characterization of a media outlet as simply propaganda is essentially universal, opponents have to live without inclusion in such category, since so including it is effectively using Wikipedia's voice to assert that's what it is. You'll just have to try to eke out some satisfaction from the attributed quotes in a "controversies and criticisms" section, as is the case with e.g. Fox. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Any time you use a specific term - especially one often seen as negative - like propaganda, you have to have a reliable source saying that explicitly, and identifying it as the opinion of the source. And that is true for a lot of articles under propaganda-related categories that do NOT do so but should. (Ah, if I only had time to remove all misapplied categories.) I do have time to contest this one until that info is supplied in the article. And that means Fox News can be called one, too, IF you get WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 16:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ( Reply by Sander Säde follows. )


 * Central European Journal of Communication, vol 3, spring 2010. "Russian TV market: between state supervision, commercial logic and simulacrum of public service", by Ilya Kiriya and Elena Degtereva (both from Moscow universities), states on page 43: "Since 2004 we could observe establishing of new TV channels, which were not subordinated by VGTRK but were built into the system of the state owned media and executed the propagandistic function. They are: TV channel Russia Today (international English language channel launched in order to improve the image of Russia abroad), ...".
 * Sidney Morning Herald "The Kremlin propaganda channel Russia Today..."
 * The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping World Politics. Philip M. Seib, 2008. "Political commentator Boris Kagalitsky said, "Russia Today is very much a continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services."
 * The Guardian. "The Kremlin propaganda channel Russia Today has..."
 * Columbia Journalist Review "What Is Russia Today? The Kremlin’s propaganda outlet has an identity crisis"
 * WSJ "The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today."


 * This was just a few minutes of googling. I am sure that in-depth search would bring far more results.


 * Frankly, I find it stunning that someone would actually consider RT not to be a propaganda channel.
 * -- Sander Säde 17:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, one edit hardly constitutes edit warring. Second, the comparison to Fox News doesn't apply - Yes, it is bias, but it is not run by the American government - it is run by private individuals who do not do the bidding of the government. Russia Today is funded and run by the Russian Government to promote their own view of world events. As other users have cited above, numerous publications claim that RT is a propaganda organization and their pro-Kremilin coverage on numerous issues has been well documented.
 * Regarding the appropriateness of Russia Today being included in this category, I will point out that other Government run media organizations, such as China Radio International, Voice of America and the Korean Central News Agency are included in the propaganda organizations category.
 * Finally, this category has existed on this article for quite some time and was removed with without any discussion, which is why I reinstated it (once).
 * As for CarolMooreDC eristic claim that I engaged in edit warring, I'd like to point out that I only engaged in a single revert (because no adequate explanation was provided for its removal). I hardly feel this constitutes edit warring. Please be more careful about your accusations toward me in the future.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Yes, HS, the characterization of your single reinstatement of your original October 2011 addition of the "Propaganda organisations" category as "edit warring" is indeed over-the-top. I used the phrase rather carelessly, myself, in an edit summary and have now clarified in a subsequent one. It's still true that your reinstatement didn't uphold wp:brd to the degree that ideal perfection would actually require - Carol's right you'd have done better to have posted here before reinstating - but your action can't really be called edit warring, either. Thanks, btw, for "eristic". I don't recall having seen the word before, but it's a useful one. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the new references. Now it helps to actually add one of them to the article to show who calls it propaganda organization.
 * Reverting a revert (which is what I complained about in beginning of this thread) is the beginning of edit warring, even if an early example. The next revert without discussion definitely would be well into it. I always bring things to discussion when I'm reverted and disagree. To avoid edit warring it's best to do that, especially when we are talking about more text than just a category. User:Arthur Rubin reverting again with the absurd note: Unless someone can produce a source that it is not a propaganda channel?) shows the edit war potential. (Obviously, that's not a policy we have to prove that ANY assertion is NOT true or we'd have all sorts of articles with absurd statements until someone proved it wasn't true!)  So this was getting ready to descend quickly into edit warring. I've just gotten proactive on the topic. CarolMooreDC 14:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nolan135 has again deleted the Propaganda Organizations category - One could almost call this edit-warring. This issue is currently under discussion on the talk page. Since RT was already in this category for a considerable period of time (it was Nolan's removal of the category that started this discussion), I will advise Nolan to discuss his views on the talk page before making reverts.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC))

As for Nolan's most recent comments (he compares RT to Al-Jazeera and Fox News), I will point out that neither Al-Jazeera or Fox News is owned, funded, or operated by a national government, and as such they are not applicable here. Both are independent news organizations (yes, they may be bias, but show me one media organization that isn't). In contrast, (and I am repeating myself here) numerous media organizations that are run by national governments such as China Radio International, Voice of America and the Korean Central News Agency are already listed in the Propaganda Organizations category. Given RT's status as a government owned and operated media organization, as well as it being cited as a propaganda organization be numerous sources, it certainly meets the requirements for this category.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Propaganda is not only produced by government owned or funded stations. And obviously almost all news stations worldwide "licensed" by governments who can pull licenses of any station they find offensive, on some pretext or other. So sufficient WP:RS calling any station propaganda should be applicable. I think the problem is that that category should be called Government propaganda organizations. CarolMooreDC 01:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct that propaganda is not just produced by government owned and/or funded stations. However, I was pointing out that the Propaganda Organizations category, as it currently exists, certainly covers government-run media organizations (e.g. Voice of America, China Radio International, etc.) that are accused of promoting propaganda, but not private media groups (e.g. Fox News, Al-Jazerra, Counterpunch, etc.). On the other hand, if we plan to change the name of this category, or create a new category, that may not be a bad idea. However, until (and if) this new category is created, I think we should follow the current guidelines.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Al Jazeera is in fact government-funded, as is the BBC. Private funding is no guarantee of a station's neutrality.  If we want to call RT a propaganda station then we need a source that explains that that is the mainstream view of the station, not just an opinion expressed by various authors.  I notice by the way that two of Sander Saede's sources are the same article, printed in different publications and are not necessarily the views of the Guardian or the Sidney Morning Herald.  TFD (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Who is this "Sander Saede"? If you are talking about my sources instead, then yes, I was fooled by different headlines, sorry. However, I do believe we've established that RT is commonly considered to be a propaganda station - even by Russian scientists. WSJ, The Guardian, Columbia Journalism Review, a scientific source - and I am sure more could be found. So far we don't have even a single source claiming that RT isn't a propaganda station - I am sure these can be found, too.


 * Just in case, here are some more sources. 2 minutes of Google, no comments on quality of every single one of them.
 * Tablet Magazine: "Anyone who has watched Russia’s English-language propaganda channel RT..."
 * Accuracy in Media: "The Russia Today (RT) Moscow-funded propaganda channel..."
 * New York Times: "RT, first known as Russia Today, is an English-language news network created by the Russian leader Vladimir V. Putin in 2005 to promote the Kremlin line abroad,"
 * Forbes: "..debuted today on the Kremlin-operated propaganda channel Russia Today.."
 * Huffington Post: "It is common knowledge that Russia Today is the Russian government's very own propaganda channel."
 * 
 * -- Sander Säde 07:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @TFD: source that explains that that is the mainstream view of the station might be a little too high a bar. But I do think that until someone sticks a sentence in actually saying "so and so says" or "various sources say" RT is propaganda, editors still will come along and remove it for cause, without seeing this thread, per policy. (All those search returns do prove you get more searching with specific terms as well as the article title or subject.)
 * I have noticed RT.com's gotten a lot better in last few years, even criticizing Putin more, something hopefully we can find a source to mention. It's propaganda, just like VOA is, getting out the negative and often accurate views about another country that the government and/or other elite controlled media in that country won't let you see. Julian Assange interviewing Hamas and David Horowitz. Now that's TV!! CarolMooreDC 09:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sander Saeda presents Accuracy in Media (AIM) as a source that RT is a propaganda channel . AIM is a conspiracist organization that claims Fox News is left-wing.  Sander Saeda should be aware that we do not write articles based on extremist sources, and I advise him to read WP:NPOV.  I would also advise him to get Wikipedia to change its policies, if he wants it to reflect this point of view.  TFD (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's my opinion that we should just delete all the "propaganda" categories as flame and edit-war bait, in favor of selected quotations from reliable sources placed in an article's "criticism" section. It's not like the typical reader even sees the categories, anyway. But as long as we do have them, I think nothing should be included in them that isn't universally acknowledged as a propaganda organisation: Any other standard is just inviting an edit war.
 * For example, the newly launched online publication The Times of Israel could qualify for inclusion in the category, based on the stated motives of its Chairman. Likewise even with the Jerusalem Post: Until a few days ago, all its web pages were advertising its 29 April 2012 conference entitled "Fighting for the Zionist Dream". But it would touch off a huge dramah-fest if anyone were to try to add those publications to a propaganda category, of course. It's just not helpful to include a media organisation in the category without literally universal agreement, imo. Too much dramah, too much wasted time results, by far.
 * Just fyi, I wouldn't cite RT News about anything touching Putin, or Kremlin politics, not without some sort of very strong caveat with in-text attribution, at least. But its reporting outside those subjects is perfectly fine, and valuable, too, in part because it covers, in English, topics that are somewhat thinly reported by Western sources. Re its pro-Kremlin bias, lots of sources rightly call for such a caveat on certain topics for which they have an emphatic POV, although they don't often get them: Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chomsky on matters that have to do with Middle East history or policy, come to mind, for example. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Russia Today was established specifically to improve Russia's image as part of its mission. "Propaganda" is not synonymous with evil, it is simply what it is. Interesting reading here, from a couple of years ago. (I did NOT search for the word "propaganda".) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sander Saeda presented that article already, it is by Julia Ioffe, who writes a lot of anti_Putin articles using exaggerated language, "This is how you elect a F*cking President?", "The Condom-Nation of Vladimir Putin", etc. It is not enough to find opinions that support your own, you need to show the degree of acceptance they have.  TFD (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is starting to remind me of a certain dispute at Karl Marx, where a certain user declared that twelve sources (most of them scholarly) were not enough to support a fact, as his preferred source didn't mention it... -- Sander Säde 07:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the category - we already have sources in the article, which describe RT as a propaganda channel. We can easily add five or six more from a wide variety of solid sources. We even have responses to the propaganda allegations, by RT's staff and editor-in-chief (strangely, no one else seems to think that RT is "fair and balanced, not merely propaganda."). I don't think there is anything left to discuss, unless there are some new facts/sources/ideas? -- Sander Säde 07:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If Sander doesn't want to discuss anything else, then he needn't do so. But I don't consider it particularly helpful to say, in effect, "I think we should implement my preferred outcome, and everyone should be quiet now" while a robust discussion is being actively undertaken.
 * I'd already read the Columbia Journalism Review piece that was (re)cited just above; Sander had already provided it early on in this thread. Here are a few excerpts:


 * “The paymaster determines a lot,” he says. “Are you telling me Murdoch doesn’t control the editorial line of his publications? No one can escape who pays for what.”


 * "Despite having a large degree of autonomy, it would ultimately answer directly to its funder, the Kremlin."


 * “There is no censorship per se,” says another RT reporter. “But there are a lot of young people at the channel, a lot of self-starters who are eager to please the management. You can easily guess what the Kremlin wants the world to know, so you change your coverage.”


 * Reporters and former reporters at Fox have said almost exactly the same thing as these last two statements, re Rupert Murdoch. As an additional comparison, I'd be pleased to see some response to my previous observations, e.g. about the Jerusalem Post. That publication's Editor in Chief, Steve Linde, explained of the 2012 conference in NYC that the paper is convening, entitled, "Fighting for the Zionist Dream", what it's "all about".




 * Other pages at the Jerusalem Post website entice potential attendees by saying things like, "Among the most eloquent advocates for Israel scheduled to speak are ..." Likewise, Deputy Managing Editor, Caroline Glick has written very emphatically in the paper to recruit fellow Zionists to the "war of words" on Israel's behalf, as well. If we searched foreign language media, I'm sure we could find dozens of reliable sources that call the Jerusalem Post "propaganda", too.


 * So the JP advocates on behalf of Zionism and the Israeli government's Zionistic policies, and RT News advocates for Putin and the Kremlin. I don't care at all who owns what; the result is the same. To quote from the CJR's quotation, “Are you telling me Murdoch doesn’t control the editorial line of his publications? No one can escape who pays for what.” That's the reality informed consumers of "news" have to deal with; welcome to the grownup world. But to call one propaganda, when other media outlets exhibit identically-strong political biases is just not supportable. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I must say I don't understand the point you're trying to make. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I thought we were discussing RT, which seems to be very universally regarded as a propaganda organization. Whether or not Fox News, Jerusalem Post or BBC is a propaganda organization is more or less irrelevant (we've had Russian ultra-nationalists in Wikipedia, claiming that WSJ, BBC and The Economist shouldn't be used as sources, as they are "US-owned anti-Russian propaganda organizations"). If we want to discuss that, then Category:Propaganda organisations has Voice of America, a white propaganda organization. As VoA is far more balanced in their coverage than RT, why shouldn't we remove the category from there?
 * I would actually like to see someone to present a clearly worded reason why RT shouldn't be in the propaganda organizations category. So far it has all been WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Plenty of highest-quality sources label RT as a propaganda organization. Rebuttals come only from RT staff. Like I said before, what is there to discuss unless someone actually has a reason, source or even an idea why the long-standing category should be removed?
 * -- Sander Säde 13:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The disputed category was added . It wasn't present for the preceding five years. -- Ohiostandard 01:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you don't understand my point; I'll try to state it more succinctly: Like the majority of news organisations around the world, RT News has a clear political agenda that makes it biased on a particular, specifically-defined swathe of topics. Outside that band it's unfair and inappropriate to characterise its reporting as propaganda.
 * Feel free to to identify that argument as a variant of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if it pleases you, but perhaps you should read the target of that link first. For example, OSE says, among other things, "a logical rationalization of 'Other Stuff Exists' may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions" and "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent..."
 * The simple reality is that educated persons must take into account a media organisation's inherent political bias in considering any particular news story it publishes.
 * YMMV, but I consider that to move from the recognition of that basic principle to the notion that we should poison the well on all a media organisation's reporting without regard to topic by slapping it with a "propaganda" tag is too great a leap to make, and one that works to the detriment of the encyclopaedia. As I wrote above, I believe the entire category should be removed. It's too subjective, too easily poisons the well, and is hopelessly influenced by systemic bias in that only English-language, mostly Western sources are permitted, in practice, to determine what's included and what isn't. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I must say the description of the category is rather clear, "This category is for organizations with articles which are described by Wikipedia:Reliable sources as being associated with propaganda promoted by a cause, ideology, party or state.". RT definitely fits those requirements (or please show that it doesn't!), so I will add the category back to the article - please don't remove it, unless you also remove it from every other article in that category and/or nominate the category for deletion. I must say, I probably would support the deletion of the category, too, but not for the reasons you give - I find it too divisive, ie. just see the current discussion...
 * As for your arguments... again, if other news organizations, think tanks and agencies are politically biased, what does it matter in relation to RT, which has been described by a multitude of reliable sources as a propaganda organization? Does it somehow justify removing the category from RT?
 * -- Sander Säde 07:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sander Säde, could you please explain why you are presenting a far right extremist source like Accuracy in Media as an example of how we should describe RT. If you think that we should present extremist views then you should go for a change of policy.  TFD (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I very, very clearly stated that I am not commenting on the quality of the sources, nor said that we should use them. Apparently my English is not good enough, sorry. There are sources from both right and left - and I must say, I had never heard of Accuracy in Media before, but both WP article and cursory search failed to give "far right extremist source" label to it.
 * Furthermore, WTH does political orientation of a source matter here? I thought the question was whether or not we should include the category to RT - especially, is it labeled as a propaganda by a wide variety of sources? In which case, having sources from a wide political spectrum is a good thing.
 * I notice that you somehow fail to complain about the Huffington Post, which, I am sure, has been described by some Tea Party nutcase as "far left extremist source". Why is that? Or New York Times, which has been described as "left-wing propaganda outlet".
 * I must say I find the "left-right" game some editors so love to play rather naive, especially as the terms vary from person to person and country to country. For example:
 * I consider myself as center-left politically (humanist --> social democrat). In US it would be far-left.
 * US Democratic party is considered to be left in the US. In Europe, it would be solid right
 * Estonian Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica is considered to be a right-wing party, the most conservative in Estonia. However, their views would be center-left in the US (or third way). In Western Europe, they would be center-right.
 * Nazi Party has been described as all ultra-left, ultra-right and syncretic
 * I could go on and on, but this is a talk page for RT (TV network), not a political commentary. I hope that we can avoid similar comments in the future.
 * -- Sander Säde 07:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The SPLC has an article on Cliff Kincaid, whose article you presented as a source. "[He] is one of the American far right's most energetic and obsessive propagandists. For more than 30 years at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing outfit opposed to the "liberal" media, Kincaid has cranked out reams of material — rife with innuendo and speculation but light on facts —aimed at buttressing his far-right, xenophobic and homophobic views.... Kincaid advances a hodgepodge of fairly run-of-the-mill, far-right conspiracy theories and allegations: President Obama has "well-documented socialist connections," is the product of a "mysterious upbringing as a Muslim in Indonesia," and may well not have been born in this country. Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. Global warming is a "fraudulent scheme." And the Roman Catholic Church has been hijacked "by Marxist elements" and is "facilitating the foreign invasion of the U.S." by northbound Latinos."  TFD (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd taken this off my watchlist because I felt this was getting out of hand, and because I realised that my arguments here have been somewhat more about the existence of the category than about RT specifically. I'll add, though, that part of my concern has been that once a news organisation is slapped with a "propaganda" tag, that's going to act as a blanket impediment to citing it as a reliable source on any topic, which I think would hurt the encyclopaedia, as I tried to make clear above. RT is certainly an eminently useful and reliable source, imo, for areas outside it's relatively narrow swathe of bias... which every media org has, but I won't get back on that horse just now, out of courtesy to all y'all.


 * Too, I really had to - and have to - accept that if the category exists and is deemed helpful to the encyclopaedia  - that the plethora of RS that call RT a propaganda organisation probably will ultimately rule the day, here.


 * But I thought I'd take one last look, despite dropping this from my watchlist, and I find that we not only have both ends of the political spectrum well represented here, but that Sander says he actually agrees with me ( although not for my reasons ;-) that the category should probably be deleted. What about you, TFD? Do you agree? Do others? –  OhioStandard  (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

AIM
In my opinion, "An article by Accuracy in Media ..." is giving undue weight to the opinion of a website. Please note how all four references quote AIM. --129.125.102.126 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Alleged right-wing POV pushing
In this edit reverting additions I made earlier I have been accused of this practice. The claim of right-wing POV pushing is made against RT in a cited reliable source from a respected civil rights organisation, rather than being in my own words. The changes in the headings I made still leave the validity of the allegations open rather than being conclusive, and the new 'Coverage of conspiracy theories and interviews with extremists' heading takes accouynt of my additions which would not have been adequately covered by the old heading. I reverted almost all of the changes made by IP 129.125.102.126, who appears to a regularly blocked user. Philip Cross (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You changed "Allegations of pro-Kremlin bias" to "Pro-Kremlin bias?" The editor might have missed the question mark or thought that it implied RT was biased.  When you make changes you should make them one at a time, because an editor who disagrees with one edit may frequently reverse them all.  TFD (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you are pushing a POV, which is considered right-wing everywhere and described as such in countries without a US military presence. --129.125.102.126 (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "In my opinion, you are pushing a POV". Hmm. "Which is considered right-wing everywhere and described as such in countries without a US military presence". Again, hmm! Philip Cross (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then, name a country without US military presence where your POV isn't considered right-wing. --129.125.102.126 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A little confused about what the wikipedia related debate is here. "Allegations of pro-Kremlin bias" obviously is a more "Wikified" section header. I question using those allegations since my guess is the incidents were based on the young producer's ignorance of the interviewees politics and not some political bias. I'm sure the SPLC report did wake them right up. So I doubt that leaving that in is of encyclopedic importance. CarolMooreDC 18:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Is RT a reliable source as per WP:RS?
Is RT a reliable source as per WP:RS?

The issue has come up with some editors removing links to RT, claiming that RT is not a "reliable source", though it's not clear who determined it and when. Those editors are not happy to have several sources cited (including RT) but are determined to remove all links to RT altogether. Is this bias and censorship or a valid Wikipedia practice? Should the links to BBC, Press TV, SANA, VOA, Xinhua and the majority of the US media be removed as well? Thanks, C1010 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, RT is a reliable source as per WP:RS

 * 1) RT is a professinally edited, verifiable, third-party news agency and as such it satisfies the definition of a reliable source as per WP:RS. C1010 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) The sole argument for RT supposedly not being a WP:RS is that it's (indirectly) funded by the Russian government. I disagree with this line of reasoning. If state funding would automatically make a medium unreliable, we would have to disqualify BBC, CBC, al-Jazeera etc. as well from now on. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Of course it is! Per C1010. -- J  (t)  16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, news programs of any licensed broadcaster are reliable. Commentary included in any media program should be evaluated on its own merits, as it may not be subject to the same journalistic standards as news reporting. G. C. Hood (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, per arguments above. In fact it's better at presenting a variety of viewpoints than CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. Its pro-Russia bias not that much different from pro-US view of most cable news shows. CarolMooreDC 02:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes it is rs for news, but its opinion programs are no more reliable than Fox or CNN's.  However this is really a matter for RSN.  TFD (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes it is a reliable source as per WP:RS. I concur with  and .  Brendon is  here  13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Without any doubt it is a WP:RS, opinions otherwise are notable, but not significant when examined. I made a template just to provide access to the RT news trends page, and inserted it into 50 article talkpages, many of them were very controversial, and out of the 3 or 4 total number of comments made in the months they sat there, the major focus of criticism was other reliable news services didn't have a trends page which could be incorporated into the template, so it was spam simply because it stood alone without peer in making trending news easy to find (human sorted and tagged rather than machine sorted which doesn't work as well). The content itself, on such controversial subjects attracted only one comment, where again, there was no matching news service for the local country. Press TV, RT and BBC together give the best overall picture of what is happening in the "English speaking" world. Press TV edges over the rest with an absolutely neutral and balanced presentation, which is often quite shocking when the reader/viewer finds the program originates in Iran ! Penyulap   ☏  07:30, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Per User TFD, these judgments are made on RSN based on context and on the specific claim cited to RT, but in general, RT's news reports are as mainstream and reliable as the other major international networks (many of which also receive state oversight), such as BBC and Al Jazeera. Shrigley (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Per TaalVerbeteraar and Shrigley. On a side note, it is one of the very few agencies with a reporter on the ground in Syria at present . GotR Talk 05:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) It is reliable source in the context of WP:IRS, though it shouldn't be normally used per its known bias. BTW, the editor-in-chief attributed the channel as "provocative". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes, although as noted at WP:RS, context matters. I would think twice before using it as a source for statements about the government of Russia or the US, and with such statements, additional references should be provided. All news media have biases; some are simply more obvious (or strong) than others. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, RT is not a reliable source as per WP:RS

 * 1) RT is the press agency of the Russian state. It is reliable for official Russia's perspective. Reliability depends on the topic. Its specific mission includes improving Russia's image abroad (per official statements). Let's not pretend RT is something it's not (equated to the BBC, CNN, etc.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, you wrote, "Its specific mission includes improving Russia's image abroad (per official statements)." - could you please back this claim with the link to the "official statement" you referred to? Thanks, Brendon is  here  13:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was part of the original announcement of the service, I'll have to track it down. Also, to some comments above, RT is not "like" the BBC, the UK government exerts no influence on the BBC whereas RT via Novosti is the official press organ of the Russian state . Appreciate there's a difference, people. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong question

 * 1) As some of the supports indicate, it can be a reliable source for certain issues, but especially given its status wrt the Russian government, it can't be considered reliable a reliable source for others. Further, this is the wrong venue for this question, WP:RSN is the right one.  Hobit (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Sorry just a bit confused, I was going to say that RT must be a reliable source for facts in the RT article but I get the feeling that this is about RT use in other parts of wikipedia, in which case this is the wrong place to discuss this and should really be taken to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Someone else mentioned this. When people go to WP:RSN they should mention specificaly what source they want to use and where in what article they want to use it. This really is just a politically motivated "vote" and probably should be archived. CarolMooreDC 16:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I used this page as a guidance to prepare this RFC. I put it into Media, the arts, and architecture and Wikipedia policies and guidelines groups as they seemed the most appropriate groups to me for this RFC. Please see the RFC description for the specific source, article and relevant discussion that resulted in this RFC. Regards, C1010 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, I think most editors responding find RT a reliable source. CarolMooreDC 00:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

lost access
Sept 6, 2012: From Canada, I am no longer able to get to the RT.com web site. Any article on Google of RT's now gets routed to the same 'Network Solutions' page that you get if you go to rt.com. Does anyone know if the owners of the .COM domain space have revoked RT's domain? It appears like the RT.com domain has "expired" and is now "up for auction". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.36.80 (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Sept 6, 2012 8:44 PM: RT is now available in Canada again. I'm curious if anyone can shed some light as to what happened. They were off the air (unrouteable) for a full 12 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.36.80 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The same thing has now happened in America. Can't access the website. Can anyone explain why this website is now, apparently, banned in my country where Freedom of Speech is supposed to be protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.213 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not available in Israel.--2.55.143.178 (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's fine today. If it expired, I guess they bought it back. And somebody's in big trouble. CarolMooreDC 19:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Heavily biased Article
Just Comparing the two articles - one about RT and the second about BBC World news. The bias is so blatant.

Both News companies are funded and managed the same way, yet are treated the complete opposite on Wikipedia. one is depicted like a villain and one like an angel

The RT Article begins with : "RT, also known as Russia Today, is a government-funded[1] global multilingual television news network based in Russia. It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the government-owned[2] RIA Novosti. "

If you read the source quote[1] fully:

"RIA-Novosti said in a statement issued last month that it is "neither a sponsor nor a backer of Russia Today" and merely participated in establishing the channel as an Autonomous Non-Profit Organization, which provided for its complete legal, editorial and operational independence.

Simonyan, whose office is in the same building as RIA-Novosti’s, stressed that the station does not position itself as part of RIA-Novosti and that RIA-Novosti does not interfere in its editorial policy.

She also said Russia Today never hid that it was funded by the government. "Probably many viewers of BBC World News also do not know that their program is directly funded by the British Foreign Office,” she added. "

And the BBC World news begins with : "Launched on 11 March 1991 as the BBC World Service Television outside of Europe.." "Unlike the BBC's domestic channels, BBC World News is not funded by a licence fee. Instead, it is funded commercially by advertising."

But the truth of the matter is revealed in the main BBC article :

"Outside the UK, the BBC World Service has provided services by direct broadcasting and re-transmission contracts by sound radio since the inauguration of the BBC Empire Service in December 1932, and more recently by television and online. Though sharing some of the facilities of the domestic services, particularly for news and current affairs output, the World Service has a separate Managing Director, and its operating costs have historically been funded mainly by direct grants from the British government. These grants were determined independently of the domestic licence fee and were usually awarded from the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As such, the BBC's international content has traditionally represented – at least in part – an effective foreign policy tool of the British Government. " And "BBC News is the largest broadcast news gathering operation in the world,[72] providing services to BBC domestic radio as well as television networks such as the BBC News, BBC Parliament and BBC World News."

RT also addressed this very strange general Bias in an article here http://rt.com/usa/news/rt-government-broadcasting-radio/

Not to say that "Controversies, criticisms and response" in the BBC World news article doesn't even exist.

I thank you for your time

Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.30.95 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but somebody with time and Wikipedia editing experience has to do the job - including showing specific govt biases on both sides. Just don't have time. CarolMooreDC 00:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The articles BBC controversies and Criticism of the BBC do exist, but it's probably a problem that you couldn't easily navigate to them from the main article. Shrigley (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * RT is not the BBC. RT was established specifically to improve Russia' image and by RIA-Novosti, the official press organ of the Russian government. If you're foolish enough to believe RT is as reliable as the BBC, that's your personal choice. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is zero difference between the BBC and RT - looked what happened when the BBC went off message regarding the "sexed up" Iraqi dossier! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.48.45 (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all a question of wording and bias .BBC World News is not RT. BBC World News was established specifically to promote UK interests worldwide by the BBC World service, the official press organ of the UK government. References :"The World Service is currently funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[1]", "The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, commonly called the Foreign Office or the FCO is a department of the United Kingdom government. It is responsible for protecting and promoting UK interests worldwide.[2]" Ron--79.181.29.36 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a head cold so it is hard for me to navigate all this right now. Probably best to provide your proposed wording here to clarify What RIA-Novosti says RT is. Of course,you'd also then have to say that most English outlets continue to call it an arm of the Kremlin, with 3 or 4 refs proving that point. Today I noticed even Columbia Journalism Review makes fun of it, and they are supposed to be more scholarly; or else there is a basis for their beliefs?? In the past I looked it up on news google archive and you might try to see if there's anything new there. CarolMooreDC 01:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If the debate is simply whether to include the quote about beig like the BBC ala this diff, I think it's fine to keep it in. Please stop edit warring. CarolMooreDC 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the edit war in the history page on the first paragraph, it tells everything about the bias (I would say propaganda) . some people just won't allow anything non negative about this network. even if it is factual and legitimately referenced. It's pretty shocking. I used to rely on Wikipedia for information. now I very much hesitate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.8.238 (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth reading WP:NPOV and WP:RS. While one might argue that the quote "become a sort of Russia's BBC" is OK (and for that reason I've left it), the claim that RT is autonomous and non-profit are clearly in violation of previously mentioned wiki policies. Both were presented as NPOV facts, but if you actually read the citation you'll find that the only calling it that is RIA Novasti, the founder of RT. If I founded a company, any claims I make about the company are clearly not NPOV! To have this, or anything else for that matter, presented as indisputable facts you need to provide a reliable source where an uninvolved (=NPOV) source makes the statement. This contrasts to direct quotations; for example, the reason the "sort of Russia's BBC" comment arguably is OK is that the quotation marks make it clear where it originates -- directly from RIA Novosti, the founders of RT. 212.10.67.251 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It was specifically reported as being founded to improve Russia's image, with involvement from Putin's office and funding by the government. No reliable source outside of RT itself has described it other than Russia state media:
 * Официальная презентация канала Russia Today, призванного формировать позитивный образ России у иностранцев, состоялась в начале июня. О том, что за его созданием стоит кремлевская администрация, в частности, пресс-секретарь президента Алексей Громов и советник главы государства Михаил Лесин (он был инициатором создания новостного канала, но, по информации Ъ, почти сразу после объявления о создании RTTV отошел от этого проекта), официально объявлено не было. Хотя первый заместитель Алексея Громова Дмитрий Песков подтверждал Ъ, что "в администрации президента идея Russia Today нашла понимание и поддержку". К тому же учредителем канала является государственное РИА "Новости", а финансироваться RTTV будет из госбюджета, для чего уже на 2005 год выделено $30 млн.

(as reported in Kommersant). Personally, RT "commentator" Thom Hartmann presents a more honest analysis of the sources of the current US deficit than the Republican Party, but that does not make RT a reliable source. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the relevant section of Moscow Times article. A short summary should be in the Response to allegations section. It doesn't have to be in the lead:
 * RIA-Novosti said in a statement issued last month that it is "neither a sponsor nor a backer of Russia Today" and merely participated in establishing the channel as an Autonomous Non-Profit Organization, which provided for its complete legal, editorial and operational independence.
 * Simonyan, whose office is in the same building as RIA-Novosti’s, stressed that the station does not position itself as part of RIA-Novosti and that RIA-Novosti does not interfere in its editorial policy.
 * She also said Russia Today never hid that it was funded by the government. "Probably many viewers of BBC World News also do not know that their program is directly funded by the British Foreign Office,” she added.
 * It also would help to find if there are other more varied or nuanced opinions. CarolMooreDC 19:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Russian state is the sponsor and backer of both RIA Novosti and RT. And what is "independence?" Simoyan has also stated that no one calls her from the Kremlin daily to censor news. That ignores the point that the Kremlin doesn't need to call. @Carolmooredc, I regret that Novosti/RT pablum does not qualify as nuanced input. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Vecrumb: I clearly said "more varied or nuanced opinions" applied to other sources. Please read more carefully. But again there is no problem with using them to reply to their critics who themselves all sound like they are towing some party line; thus need for other opinions that might actually be a bit more objective. At my leisure. CarolMooreDC 01:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The original author of the additions in the lead and their primary defender (seeing that he/she re-added it numerous times over the last month when removed by other editors) has re-added "autonomous" yet again. The user is entirely right in saying that a source does not have to be NPOV, but wikipedia should be NPOV. However, this isn't about someone removing a reference; this is about a sentence in a wikipedia article that presents claims by RIA Novosti (the founder of RT) as NPOV facts – in the very first sentence of the lead! Seeing that previous comments in this discussion only pointed to overall policies, I'll point to the exact sections that are relevant.
 * WP:LEAD, third paragraph, quote: "The lead should [...] be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view "
 * WP:NPOV, specifically WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts"; "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" (the autonomy of RT is seriously contested; just see the Controversies, criticisms and response section in the wiki article), etc.
 * WP:V, specifically WP:ABOUTSELF: The claim is self-serving; it's in their interest to say that RT is autonomous, and not just a mouthpiece of themselves, the founders (& consequently the Russian Gov.).
 * Using the same logic, I could add the following to the lead of both Barack Obama's & Mitt Romney's article: "Would be a better president than [the opponent], who would be disastrous." After all, they both said it, as did their close allies in the respective parties. Or I could find all the sports clothing companies and add that they make "the best clothes for use in sports". Most companies and their founders say that about their own products. Consequently, I removed the "autonomous" claim and pointed to this discussion (again) in my edit summary. Should someone feel the urge to re-add the claim, I would be very interested in knowing why we should disregard two (WP:NPOV, WP:V) of the core content policies on wiki. 212.10.83.72 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Moscow Times cite - not credible
"2nd most watched foreign news network in the U.S." - VERY dubious. The cite comes from Russia, so. . . I think this is pretty much a fantasy, as the RT is pretty much home on YouTube videos and not American living rooms. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is the non-Russian Inter Press Service. It seems reasonable since there are few foreign news networks that focus on international news.  TFD (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past I looked for other sources since I figure someone somewhere must be keeping score on these small cable news stations and putting in on line, but no luck so far. CarolMooreDC 21:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The RT release only talked about beating out Deutsche Welle and Al-Jazeera in a major market. That doesn't necessarily translate to a nationwide viewing demographic of "2nd most watched." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

POV cuts without explanation
It looks like editor Festermunk, while gutting properly ref'd "favorable" info, has put in negative new material, all without edit summaries. Obviously POV edits that need to be dealt with in an NPOV way. Festermunk also obviously has problems with the English language which have to be dealt with also. Must finish some actual housecleaning first. CarolMooreDC 20:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we have one or two people editing as Anon IPs, but edit warring with Festermunk isn't helping. I have left a message on Festermunk's talk page about reporting him and will mention both IPs if discussion doesn't happen here. I'd ask you two or three to stop editing so other articles can do an NPOV version. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So that's what it is. I DON'T LIKE THE FUCK YOU ARE DOING SO REVERT YOUR CHANGES OR ELSE. Figures. At the very least, can you be more specific with your NPOV accusation? What specific section of NPOV am I violating? WP:UNDUE? lacking in an impartial tone? Or just not being neutral? Festermunk (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all you might try being a big more civil.
 * This section was just a heads up about my reverts and/or relevant edits to come; I intended to explain whatever of my reversions and/or relevant edits you disagreed with. I still may do that if there isn't continuing nonsense.
 * However, one or two Anon IPs did more radical reverts than I intended to before I got a chance. Nevertheless, according to WP:BRD - Bold, revert, discuss cycle - you should have discussed this after the first Anon IP first reverted you instead of edit warring with the Anon IP(s). So you really should be explaining all your edits at this point. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained anything, the entirety of your accusation amounted my edits being POV without even a reason as to how or why they violate NPOV. "So you really should be explaining all your edits at this point." Why? As far as I can tell they haven't violated any Wikipedia guidelines, so what is there to explain? Festermunk (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a case by case basis. But now that the article has been protected for a week (!) we have lots of time to go through all the problems with the article. I'll start with two momentarily. CarolMooreDC 04:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Programming, presenters and guests
Three things that need clarification or more info:
 * Is the English language programming pretty much the same in all countries? Can we can find a WP:RS that tells us. Rt.com can be quite confusing so it doesn't always help.One assumes RT America has a lot more American guests critical of the US than European stations, but is that true? They also have a lot of Europeans critical of various European countries.
 * “Presenters” is just too busy and should only have current verifiable presenters or past ones with articles (or who should have articles and thus red links)
 * There needs to be a section mentioning various guests, since RT is popular because it has a lot of interesting and even high profile ones. (I was just watching Alan Simpson tonight; the former head of Israeli missile defense is on right now; the Latino painting my house was telling me recently how much he enjoys RT cause of the interesting guests.) I’m sure we can find some WP:Rs, besides this RT article and RT youtube pages. Not to mention more neutral WP:RS in general about it.  I’ve been negligent myself. CarolMooreDC 04:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal on ownership issue
I rewrote according to the refs. Since so much of the article emphasizes accusations RT is totally controlled by the Russian government, RIA Novosti's denials belong right up front, not in a footnote or way down in responses. And Owner: Ria Novosti (correct name) should be removed from the info box.


 * I'm not quite understanding the changes, why is the state-run description of Russia Today not in the lead? In fact not even Russia Today denies that they are state-run. Also, describing RT as "autonomous" is utter crap as user RN1970 has pointed out and since there's already two people opposing the changes I suggest that you don't put that word in the lead.Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts? Please do not edit the above, but copy relevant text for counter proposals. CarolMooreDC 05:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It it is clear that "autonomous" is in conflict with several wikipedia policies, as described here. Other than that, it looks good to me. RN1970 (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Having read the entire article again, it is also clear that the controversies are sufficiently important to justify a brief mention in the lead. This can be done quite easily and in a NPOV manner by adding a sentence that mentions both sides of the argument. "Western media has accused RT of having a pro-Kremlin bias, but this has been denined by RT, which asserts it simply presents media from a Russian viewpoint." Perhaps the exact wording should be modified, but something along those lines. There are plenty of references for both sides of the argument in Allegations of pro-Kremlin bias and Response to allegations. RN1970 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be neutral and be the same as BBC world news intro, PBS intro ,Fox news, CNN etc. (every one of them also has agendas as emphasized by Glenn Greenwald piece).

Here is Deutsche Welle intro (it has exact same structure, but lucky for it it is Western..

''Deutsche Welle (German pronunciation: [ˈdɔʏtʃə ˈvɛlə]) or DW is Germany's international broadcaster. The service is aimed at the overseas market. It broadcasts news and information on shortwave, Internet and satellite radio in 30 languages (DW (Radio)). It has a satellite television service (DW (TV)), that is available in four languages, and there is also an online news site. Deutsche Welle, which in English means "German Wave", is similar to international broadcasters such as the BBC World Service, France 24, Voice of America, Radio Canada International, Radio Free Europe and Radio France Internationale.''

''Deutsche Welle has broadcast regularly since 1953. Until 2003 it was based in Cologne, when it relocated to a new building, the "Schürmann-Bau", in Bonn's former government office area. The television broadcasts are produced in Berlin. Deutsche Welle's website is produced in both Berlin and Bonn. On February 6, 2012 Deutsche Welle underwent a significant rebranding.''

Why isn't ARD mentioned there as "the government-owned[2] news agency ARD" ?

If Wikipedia isn't more than just a western propaganda machine,RT intro should not be apologetic or defensive at all. All controversy and allegations should be in controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.2.22 (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2012‎


 * Please do remember to sign your posts using " ~ " and do read WP:LEAD, which is perfectly clear:


 * If you believe BBC, CNN, ARD, etc, fail to follow the policies and are misleading, you should comment on their talk pages. This talk page is about RT. RN1970 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't be a smart ass RN1970. wikipedia has become the ultimate propaganda tool. So the Western corporate controled MSM is pissed off that RT is making them look bad. the whole first paragraph should be according to RT own official statements. I'm sick and tired of this game. wiki is loosing all it's credibility on most if not all "controversial" subjects.
 * I must add that Carolmooredc is the exception 79.176.2.22 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for your pro-Putinist garbage. Also, as the user rightly mentions, calling someone a smartass because he/she is showing how to properly follow you Wikipedia guidelines isn't the smartest thing to do.Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PA. Calling someone "smart ass" because he points you to the Lead Manual of Style (or for that matter using kissmyA as an edit summary) is counterproductive. RN1970 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

'''Thanks for comments. Second try,''' just on lead, moving sourced info from responses section to lead, and more accurately reflecting what source says. (5th ref not showing in listing for some reason):

On a personal note, while I have seen bias in RT, especially since Putin came back into power, I don't see it as much more biased than other govt controlled stations I've watched - not to mention MSNBC owned by the (Dem Party) "government friendly" General Electric which is so bad I only watch it when Republicans are in the white house since at least you'll get an opposing view of govt action then! However, RT does allow popular critics of the US govt and its allies that you'll never see on US channels - and a lot of mainstream people expressing views they are NOT allowed to express there. So just as Voice of America was very biased during the Cold War, it did let voices into populations they might not hear otherwise. Glenn Greenwald makes a good case, though it could be structured in a more NPOV way. And hopefully other sources making similar points can be found to make this article more NPOV; as well as cutting down some of the repetitive and even hysterical WP:undue finger pointing. CarolMooreDC 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Second try" version looks good to me. RN1970 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More irrelevant pro-Kremlin soapboxing. "RT does allow popular critics of the US govt and its allies that you'll never see on US channels" Whatever happened to foreign interference and meddling? Good point with the Glenn Greenwald structuring though, I'll do that after this it becomes unprotected.Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * the first few lines :"RT, also known as Russia Today, is a government-funded[1] global multilingual television news network based in Russia. It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the government-controlled[2] news agency RIA Novosti with the purpose of becoming "Russia's BBC".[3]"

Are completely unacceptable. No other western news network intro is opened like this. every second word government funding this.. government control that. unless you change all other WK networks articles intro. this is not NPOV Don't talk about funding etc in the first few lines. it looks like a piece of propaganda. you can write about it further down the intro For god sake say something positive first (youtube viewing, USA hi viewing etc) Thanks Carol79.176.2.22 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take out the Russia's BBC part it's unjustifiable as lead information because it fulfills none of the purposes of lead information i.e. define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, though it does reek of a pathetic attempt at a tu quoque fallacy.Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. It is a direct quote from the channel's editor-in-chief from the day of RT founding. this is why RT was founded. Choke on it Festermunk.109.64.16.50 (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I, much less Wikipedia, could give a two fuck if it's from the channel's editor-in-chief it still has to abide by Wikipedia outlines on that what is appropriate content to be included in the lead. Now I'll choke on that, but not before you die first. Festermunk (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I missed this comment about the lead from 79.176.2.22 above: RT intro should not be apologetic or defensive at all. Good point and I can see that it could be toned down and moved down to last paragraph of lead, not the first.
 * I was thinking that some of the older criticism (and responses) should be presented as part of history, since what was relevant before it started and in first couple years should not be presented as relevant today. (I did put comments in chrono order in one controversy section but not all them.)
 * Also, controversy section should be cut as WP:Undue and may have to be separated between RT/USA and RT/English if it is clear one rather than the other is being criticized.
 * "Also, controversy section should be cut as WP:Undue" Don't be ridiculous. I guess the thought of cutting the controversy section on grounds of WP:UNDUE is WP:UNDUE itself never crossed your mind did it? Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically there are a lot of different issues to deal with to make it truly NPOV, so what I think I'll do is just make a rewrite in text document and put it on one of my Sandboxes. Will report. CarolMooreDC 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversies of RT staff section and the sliming down of the responses section
, and  - So what is the problem with these three changes to the article? Festermunk (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to all your input in the Criticism section( so long as it is properly sourced and not manipulated from the sources).It is just a bunch of corrupted western media cry babies.and the response section exposes them.BUT Complete hands off the responses section. Ah wouldn't you just love to put your hands on and shred that Greenwald section. It ,off course ,stays. in full. 109.64.16.50 (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No doubt you didn't have any objections to my criticism as they're far and beyond your ken, though, regardless, I'll take your approval. Not that I'm willing to reciprocate though when the protection comes down, I'm going to give Greenwald's section the treatment it deserves and shave it down to the size of a raisin bun (and do it on legitimate grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:LONGQUOTE). I mean really, how confident can you be in RT when you have to blow up one man's article to the size of an airport spanning three blocks of quotes? Festermunk (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First, with the edit warring, it was easy to loose track of what Festermunk deleted and added. Given it's another article where criticism of the subject's politics is greater than actual descriptions of them, one tends to be suspicious of certain patterns of deletion and addition.
 * Having now reviewed it more carefully, in both cases it's not so much the content as the unnecessary repetitiveness and wordiness in both criticism and responses. (And of course out with that paragraph somebody stuck in there about the real casualty numbers in Georgian war.) A bit more from Greenwald can be quoted than what Festermunk cut (plus some criticism of Assange show which prompted it). Also, I'm discovering that some articles that were used ONLY for their criticisms also have interesting neutral info that can be used elsewhere in the article.
 * Otherwise it's more about adding historical content, examples of speakers who don't sound like nuts, cleaning up presenters section, and probably removing most of "Availability" section which is unsourced and probably at least partially out of date. What's in the Corporate profile and any other sourced info (like recent contract for HD worldwide coverage) also can be added. I actually have done most of that already and will put up on my talk page soon. (Yardwork calls tomorrow...) CarolMooreDC 04:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 1st paragraph: complete non-sequitur. Where is this other article I am edit warring on?
 * Second paragraph: "as the unnecessary repetitiveness and wordiness in both criticism and responses" Right. Is that why you want to put in, "a bit more from Greenwald can be quoted than what Festermunk cut" even though there's already three blocks of quote from just one article that he's written? Also, it isn't my problem that criticism of RT represents a significant viewpoint about the news channel (as evidence by the amount of sources critical of RT) and accordingly should be given due weight in the article, so unless you are more specific about how the comments are unecessarily repetitive or wordy, I suggest you don't continue to pursue that line of reasoning. Festermunk (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Greenwald Quotes should stay in full. They address in a precise and practical way all most criticism : Evil state run, Evil state control, and the ludicrous bias and hypocrisy of the detractors.
 * The only reason anyone would want to shave that section off, it is because his words are very profound and to the point. and takes away the whole "distinguishness" of the criticism.
 * If you want to keep this Article NPOV these quotes must stay fully.
 * If you want to make it a piece of Western MSM propaganda, why go round about it? just write "RT is an EVIL EVIL EVIL UNTRUSTWORTHY News network broadcasting from Putin Wine cellar ". all other info is not needed according to WP:UNDUE WP:NATO WP:CFR WP:LOBBY WP:FESTERMUNK ::::109.64.32.41 (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're sounding more and more hysterical by the post. "it is because his words are very profound and to the point." In addition to that remark being a violation of WP:YESPOV, you still have to prove how that would justify the Greenwald article warranting three blocks of quote. I suggest you read up Wikipedia guidelines before you make yourself sound any more ridiculous. Festermunk (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * NOT WP:undue has to be applied to all views. Also I found some positive comments from Danny Schechter and I'm sure more can be found. With those two, and especially with more, we can have a section on analysis or supporters or something, either before or after criticism, with this material. Also, once you list a number of the impressive guests they have had and explain in history about their philosophy and aggressive approach, there is a more complete NPOV view of the station. Research, not rants, is the solution to the POV problems. CarolMooreDC 22:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Research, not rants is the solution to the POV problems." Given, though you first have to know how to do the research are before you can actually do research. "WP:undue has to be applied to all views" Is that why you are so adamant in deleting the "Criticism of the staff of RT" section? Or why you are so adamant in citing three blocks of quote from Greenwald's one article (and some more as per your suggestion)? Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is worth keeping in mind that WP:UNDUE is about prominence of viewpoints (in reliable sources) vs. amount of weight in the article. It is not about making sure con/pro sections are of the same length, or making sure anybody looks good, bad or neutral. If we look at the references in the current version of the article, the difference is clear. If we disregard statements made by RT itself, there isn't much pro-RT in the response section. The Moscow Times and Luke Harding simply quote statements by RT's editor-in-chief, CBS News quotes the staff of RT, and Variety magazine quotes a senior journalist+sources at RT. We're basically down to Thomas Hammarberg and Glenn Greenwald, and comments by the former can barely be called pro-RT ("likely to be significantly higher than the dozens mentioned by Human Rights Watch" is a long way from saying RT was right in 2,000). The only indisputable pro-RT comments are by Greenwald. Certainly a significant source and so is Schechter, but they don't equal the quite large collection of sources in the criticism section: MosNews, Reporters Without Borders, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, The New Republic, Standpoint, Accuracy in Media, The Economist, Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Watch, and The Independent (+New York Times, the article Greenwald responds to).
 * Since the criticism is aimed at them, the responses by RT are very relevant and definitely should not be removed, but it would be equally problematic under WP:UNDUE to remove large sections of information from the criticism section, or remove the essence of Greenwald's comments from the response section. However, in both the pro/con sections some things could perhaps be merged, wording could be tweaked, additionally relevant sources could be located, etc. The huge, triple Greenwald quotes seem excessive, and we could easily capture the essence of his article by shortening it (a minor secondary issue, quotation marks aren't used in block quotes→WP:MOS). It would be equally odd if someone insisted on having huge quotes for every significant source in the criticism section instead of just a few sentences that capture their essence.
 * "Availability" section: This section hasn't caused much controversy among editors. If I'm right in that assertion, I would suggest following WP:NOCITE instead of deleting it all now. The template isn't perfect, but it can be used if people think  at the end of each sentence is too much. I think the relative lack of information that isn't part of the criticism/response section (e.g. they have several noteworthy programs) is a larger problem than the criticism/response section. RN1970 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're taking words out of my mouth; I tend to support most of your reasoning and proposals. As for other supporting material mentioned by CarolMooreDC - sure, if it does exist, it belongs to the article (taking into account WP:WEIGHT), but i think that it should be either 'Criticism' and 'Support' sections, or 'Criticism' and 'Response to Criticism' - and not three sections ('Criticism', 'Response to Criticism' and 'Support') - IMHO, such three sections would violate WP:WEIGHT Ipsign (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT has destroyed Wikipedia's credibility for presenting the full picture. I have seen it time and time again. It is mainly used to suppress dissenting views from Government and MSM sources (which are both bought and payed for by a minority of the 1% super rich) .The authentic way would have been to allow the minority view to be expressed and presented fully, then simply explain why they are wrong point by point (if there is really a case. let's find out !). and to mention where the professional "consensus" stands this moment. but Wikipedia avoids that methodology and it makes it highly suspect of its motives. I am not a supporter of RT but i am very happy that they broadcast everything the "usual networks" avoid and suppress at all cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.18.160 (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More soapboxing. Come back when you're ready to drop the paranoid left-wing chip on your shoulder.Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT is a Wikipedia policy; basically, if you disagree with it - you have two options: (a) discuss it on talk page of the policy and achieve consensus to change it; (b) to start your own online encyclopedia elsewhere. In any case, this page is a very wrong place to discuss Wikipedia policies. Also please note that we're here not to find WP:TRUTH or to promote point of view which we are passionate about, but merely to reflect (in a balanced way) points of view which already exist out there (this BTW equally applies to User:Festermunk); we are not the ones who decide what is 'right' or 'wrong', we're just summarizing what is out there (which is the whole point of any encyclopedia - to summarize existing knowledge, not to create new one). Ipsign (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ipsign, I don't disagree with what you said expect : "we're just summarizing what is out there" + "(in a balanced way)" - never happens in Wikipedia due to that horrendous and outrageous policy and the ridiculous circular logic of WP:RS .(I won't add anything more here on the subject)109.65.18.160 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The article on RT from Slate magazine has got opinions from both sides: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/06/pravda_will_set_you_free.2.html
 * Here are also segments of RTAmerica Channel, Anchor Lauren Lyster responds to criticism under the headline "war on RT" etc. In chronological order (2011-2012): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-P1sybv_B0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI5n6RmAfMA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXvH4X9lweI109.65.18.160 (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah Youtube doesn't qualify as a reliable source so unless you have some other source for Lyster's whining I suggest you don't put that in the article. Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It qualifies beautifully under WP:NOYT
 * The above Lyster sources authenticity are confirmed. they are hosted on RT America official YouTube Channel.79.183.20.193 (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice how you are missing the last part, which says, "...should be used with caution" So even if you could establish authenticity, that isn't sufficient to use the Youtube clip. Festermunk (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. While it helps if some nonYoutube source first makes the statement, especially in things like responses to criticism Youtube can be used IF the youtube channel is credible (not likely to have re-edited the clip especially). Also for the ref to remain people CAN ask for the minutes the statement to be use to be posted and I do ask for that. One ref is sufficient; if need two, would help if quote a bit from each clip so we'll know which references what. CarolMooreDC 12:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. While it helps if some nonYoutube source first makes the statement, especially in things like responses to criticism Youtube can be used IF the youtube channel is credible (not likely to have re-edited the clip especially). Also for the ref to remain people CAN ask for the minutes the statement to be use to be posted and I do ask for that. One ref is sufficient; if need two, would help if quote a bit from each clip so we'll know which references what. CarolMooreDC 12:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I really did work on this article for the last week finding more WP:RS (and using existing ones) to beef up the article so that it's more than just a hit piece with dated factual information. (Thanks for Slate. Missed that!) Happily there is some good analysis to add. As well as some good responses to some of the criticisms. But I'm going to start by cleaning up the factual areas which are less controversial. Then we can work on the more controversial stuff. CarolMooreDC 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I do probably have better responses than Lyster's about western criticism, though I haven't listened to her tapes. If she talks about things that ref'd other wise as well, it might be relevant to discuss her comments. More description of what she says, or even better a preview here of what you want to use would help. But linking any of her complaints to WP:RS would help a lot. Just too vague. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A request to Semi Protect this article indefinitely
The RT article is prone to vandalism and absurd negative POV pushing. I recommend putting it under semi protection or even full protection once CarolMooreDC introduces her final edit to the entire article (the Intro and criticism/response area especially) which she has been working on for the past week. I am curtain she will execute it in a balanced and NPOV way.79.183.20.193 (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That usually means that Anon IPs can't edit. Blocking individuals who repeatedly edit war from editing the article is a better idea. CarolMooreDC 12:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Descriptors of individuals
I see some people have long ones remaining while other long ones are being removed and resulting Edit wars. Except when critical to the article, it's usually best to just have a brief as possible NPOV one like "journalist" or "professor" or "RT news anchor." If it's really relevant where they work or where they teach or what channel or program they work for, fine. If it makes it more NPOV to include more info, do so. For example, "John Smith, who is suing RT for $10 million, says" or "Dick Cheney, who RT often criticizes, says" or "frequent RT guest Pedro Escobar writes." (Of course, then there's the issue of needing WP:RS to support descriptors which can be dealt with one at a time. CarolMooreDC 12:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Making Criticism and Controversy more NPOV
NPOV means you don't list every single criticism you can find, no matter how petty or lacking in new information from minor source; ignore more NPOV views (which even appear in same sentence or paragraph from a source); use the word propaganda nine times in one section, etc.

Also, I think responses should be in each category since making a separate section at end means many people will forget what controversy is being alluded to and the context of the response, leading to a POV problem. Having to provide context a second time just a waste of space. Also I have at least one, maybe a couple new criticisms I would not even include unless the responses followed immediately. This is done in many BLPs and organizational articles. I'll control myself from uploading a new version until any problems with my newest entries are commented upon. CarolMooreDC 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that I don't necessarily have problems with cutting the lead, as long as the important WP:RS material is presented elsewhere, as Festermunk did eventually do with some of it, and I'll do with others of it, perhaps in this section (like guests in the guest section), soon. (I have asked him to try to work out changes in a sandbox and not constantly revert himself over numerous edits which makes it difficult to follow changes and evaluate them; for either other editors on the article or editors who might later come in through RfCs or WP:NPOVN.) CarolMooreDC 17:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Per my past promise, and discussion below, I did try to make it more NPOV by making the section shorter (removing repetitious or low quality allegations), integrated responses into each section, putting staff issues where belonged, etc.
 * There were a lot of new references in the Margarite Simonyan section which I have to evaluate, but I've done enough for tonight. A quick look made it clear that one source was not WP:RS and use of some refs was WP:OR. There are a couple relevant things about Simonyan that belong in history or Kremlin bias section and some other material that could be used elsewhere in the article.  Hopefully I'll have a chance to look at all that before Festermunk returns and just reverts everything or throws the Simonyan material back in as is. CarolMooreDC 02:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV info on RT viewpoint
User:Festermunk has deleted NPOV info on RT viewpoints at this diff leaving a WP:Uncivil "crap" comment. (More critical material that could go in either section was moved to Criticism section, making it ever more expansive.) A less than hostile NPOV comment like Heyman in the NY Times or Maczek just gets removed.

Rewritten second paragraph of "Programming and Presenters" section to make sources of info perfectly clear:

A response to these issues from User: Festermunk would be appreciated since lack of them is not collaboratative and makes me wonder if he will just summarily delete a subsection on guests that has more such NPOV and NOT highly critical info. CarolMooreDC 19:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First off they weren't removed, they were relocated to other sections of the article (e.g. the Cohen block was moved to the Responses section). Second, there's no way somebody reading the Heyman article could come to the conclusion that it wasn't a criticism of RT, especially in the context of the paragraph in the article so unless you can provide convincing reasons as to how Heyman's paragraph (or article) supports RT, I suggest you don't put that in the "Programming and Presenters" section. I will add back the Maczka quote though, point taken, but not without a qualifer. Festermunk (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Festermunk, you don't seem to realize that someone can have neutral or merely descriptive statements in an article that also includes harsh criticism. I think Heyman's sentence is in that category: In 2008 Stephen Heyman wrote in the New York Times that in RT’s Russia, “corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy. And concerns about street thugs, poverty and Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership trump fears over Vladimir V. Putin’s grip on power.” At least certainly compared to the crude attacks you and others have included in the criticism section! CarolMooreDC 21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

RT Article Intro (LEAD) POV
The current lead is :

1.To say State + government is tautology. would you also add the current prime minister too ? absurd. it only looks like a hit piece. no other western News network is defined like this on WK. it is either "Federal" or "public ABC" etc.

2. "although other sources" you mean western sources. and predominantly in the US and UK.

3. In general other leads on wk are not like this at all :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_News

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.7.155 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my job that other shit exists on the BBC World News and Deutsche Welle wikipedia page; if you have a problem with how their ledes are, then make the changes you want to them. But this articie is about Russia Today, so unless you have specific examples what exact part of WP:LEDE the RT WP lede violates I suggest you rethink your argument. Festermunk (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * HAHAHA As usual you pseudo use WK policies to push your negative POV of RT.

from WP:OSE :

Who are you trying to fool ? do you really think anybody here is buying your B.S ?79.183.7.155 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your burden to prove that it should be used correctly, not mine. All you've been doing so far is whining about is how BBC and other article's leads are "npov" therefore RT should be too. Festermunk (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See what happens when people don't take warnings about edit warring? Hopefully, some of the other editors who got fed up with it will at least opine on talk page now.
 * The lead has been put back to an earlier fairly NPOV version. The newest version was a bit too cheer-leadership. However, info about how popular the channel has become worldwide is necessary in the lead, including to make it clear WHY some in the Western media especially attack it. They just don't like competition.
 * I'm a bit burned out today and don't have the energy to see if there's something missing from my original version that might be moved back up. Maybe tomorrow. Will re-add Western media point somewhere also. Plus work in new material to my version of a more NPOV Criticism section and decide if to just be bold or to put on a separate page. ::In either case, I soon will do an RfC on that topic since I don't want to be fighting just with Festermunk whose negative POV is a bit much. CarolMooreDC 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't give me this crap about not taking edit warring seriously, I was in the process of reverting my last edit when I had to leave work and couldn't be bothered to care about this after work where I actually have a life to live, hence the four reverts instaed of the three. Festermunk (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The earlier Lead was exactly formatted like BBC World News, The German News Network etc Leads (check it). How then can it be POV? The current one is certainly not NPOV, it is founded on Western media allegations which are demonstratively not true (other Network mission statements) And just competitor slander. I am not sure you are even aware of your prejudice. in US and Germany it is called "federal Funded" but in the case of the Russian Federation (a democratic country) it is called "State funded" or "government owed" as if it was North Korea or some other Dark dictatorship. this is textbook propaganda.
 * I would think my other additions that were "collateral damage" of the big revert are good ones. (Response to allegations + the Margarita Simonyan chapter under "Criticisms and controversies of RT staff members"). I cannot edit the article for the next 2 weeks, while Mr. Festermunk received just a 48 hours block. All Heil WK Justice.79.181.23.90 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, will compare articles and see what else lost. I do agree articles should be fairly similarly formatted in lead, but also have to recognize the greater hostility and explain from NPOV sources. And there have been a lot of different defenses, for sure, so deciding which to use where is an issue.
 * It would help if "you" actually registered as a user since if it is just one "you" who comes up as all these separate IPs and this has been defined asIP hopping". It easily can lead to WP:meatpuppet and WP:sockpuppet accusations which can lead to each of your IPs as you use them being banned permanently. Might even cause problems for the company hosting your IPs - Bezeq International - if it is a small one or you are only one editing from it, depending on the Admin in charge, especially if they should get the idea it's any kind of conflict of interest for whatever reason. CarolMooreDC 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments on NPOV
The idea of this section is to start itemized discussion, and to come to specific proposals. When replying (and expressing support/objection), feel free to refer by item number. Oh, and please try to keep discussion civil, and avoid personal attacks and foul language (BTW, IMHO, both IP editor and User:Festermunk are on the verge of blocking for disruptions); also please refrain from making generic statements (like those criticizing Wikipedia in general and specific policies in particular) in this section (policies should be discussed on policy talk pages, not here). Ipsign (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:OSE is neither a policy nor a guideline, so it has no bearing on the discussion. As I see it, de-facto consensus on Wikipedia (repeatedly shown in various discussions) is the following: if your argument is that 'some other article' says things which you're trying to push into 'this article' - go edit that 'some other article'.
 * 2) Unless speculations like 'WHY Western media criticizes RT' have any supporting WP:RS (and RT is 'not' a WP:RS on this subject - anybody who is in doubt may start discussion on WP:RSN, though I have no doubts what the verdict will be - note that being WP:RS depends on the subject, see also WP:SELFSOURCE) - they clearly do not belong to the article (and even less to the lead). We're not here to establish WP:TRUTH - but merely to summarize existing opinions.
 * 3) I support the following proposal by RN1970: "However, in both the pro/con sections some things could perhaps be merged, wording could be tweaked, additionally relevant sources could be located, etc. " - I feel that both 'Criticism' section and 'Responses' section are overly long, and should be condensed as much as possible (preferably by merging repetitions)
 * 4) I also support the following proposal by RN1970: "The huge, triple Greenwald quotes seem excessive, and we could easily capture the essence of his article by shortening it (a minor secondary issue, quotation marks aren't used in block quotes→WP:MOS). It would be equally odd if someone insisted on having huge quotes for every significant source in the criticism section instead of just a few sentences that capture their essence."
 * 5) In the lead, claim "In 2012 RT had 2.5 million viewers in the United Kingdom, making it the second most popular English-speaking foreign channel after Al Jazeera.[10]" is supported only by RT press release, and at least "making it the second most popular..." part refers to 3rd parties and therefore contradicts WP:SELFSOURCE; therefore it should be either supported by an independent WP:RS, or removed. (5a) The same applies to the statement "Its news channel is the highest rated on YouTube.[14]"
 * 6) 'retains "complete legal, editorial and operational independence."' in the lead is a statement by RIA Novosti, who is not a WP:RS on this subject, and therefore should be at least attributed (and not asserted). Added: another (and probably more compelling) argument for requiring this attribution is WP:YESPOV
 * 7) I suggest to remove all those red links to non-existing anchor pages


 * 1.+2.+6. I am not saying 'some other article', I am saying ALL western media articles. with non of them there is a problem using them as primary source for Lead. If statement by "RIA Novosti, who is not a WP:RS on this subject" Would you use western media and journalists for criticizing RT ? Obviously they can not be WP:RS on this subject due to conflict of interest according to the standards you just put forth.

79.177.30.60 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with RIA Novosti is that as an RT founder, they essentially qualify as WP:SELFSOURCE, which is subject to significant restrictions. Moreover, invoking WP:YESPOV (namely clauses Avoid stating opinions as facts and Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts), we'll arrive to the very same attribution requirement as I've wrote in #6 (neutrality and independence of RT is very obviously contested, so it must be attributed even without regards to the nature of RIA Novosti's relationship with RT). The rest of your argument is about other articles, which doesn't belong here (feel free to argue on BBC/CNN/... talk pages that they should describe those channels in a different manner - maybe you'll succeed there). Ipsign (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Your logic is self serving. "(feel free to argue on BBC/CNN/... talk pages that they should describe those channels in a different manner - maybe you'll succeed there)" Typical Straw man argument. All your rules here are just a facade for western mainstream BS propaganda. an aesthetic way to shove lies down people throats.Carol was nice, but you are just another Zombie Wikipedia is a joke. you are not fooling anybody109.65.31.96 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ipsign: An NPOV certainly appreciated!
 * 1 - I actually do have a couple refs for "WHY Western media criticizes RT" which were removed and put back. I am not sure if they are strong enough to put in the lead. I guess I should try to make my changes before Festermunk comes back and starts reverting away.
 * 3 - But I'll stay away from lead for a few days cause I actually do have such a shorter and merged criticism section which I was holding back on til the behavioral problems dealt with. Will work on tonight and just put it in there.
 * 6 - I think it's ok to say RIA Novosti describes itself as an "autonomous nonprofit" though whether in lead or in responses is the question.
 * AnonIPS 109.65.31.96 and 79.177.30.60: If you are same person it would help if you identified self as such.  From now on I guess we'll have to check geolocates of all AnonIPs and if they all are from Bezeq International assume they are same individual and count the edits towards 3rr. More civil behavior also helpful so we can come up with a good article. CarolMooreDC 23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your recent edits; IMHO, the article became significantly better (much less bulky and easier to grasp) by casual reader; can't see the forest for the trees effect was significantly reduced, and this is a good thing. Obviously, there is still (and there always be) room for arguments about POV balance, but what is most important is that the article already became (IMHO) significantly better, so we can take it from here. Now to more minor points: a) can you paste those refs (on "WHY...") here on talk page (even if they're already in the article, it is very difficult to locate them there)? b) I do not object to quoting RIA Novosti as saying that RT retains "legal, ... independence" - and I tend to agree it does belong to the lead - but only as long as it is not asserted as a fact, but appropriately attributed to RIA Novosti (for example, as something like It describes itself as an "autonomous non-profit organization"[4] intending to cover "the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more."[9] RT was founded by the state-owned[8]RIA Novosti in 2005 under the name "Russia Today"; according to RIA Novosti, RT retains "complete legal, editorial and operational independence."[5]. c) as for IP editor - IPs on RT page from Bezeq International have already been identified as the same person per WP:DUCK (and BTW also block avoidance was identified) on SPI; action was not taken at the moment because disruptive activity has ceased at the time of SPI (it was done when the page was protected); so yes, we can assume that IP edits from that provider and in the same style do count against WP:3RR. Ipsign (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweaked it a bit more after a night's sleep. To respond to Ipsign:
 * One of the ways I think one is NPOV and encyclopedic is to NOT use a snotty quote from Luke Harding (in either existing ref or the one I removed) that makes the same point that Stephen Cohen makes in a more intelligent way about the kind of stories RT does that “reflect badly” on the US.
 * a) The western media issue I think is covered well now in Allegations of Kremlin bias, so I don't think it needs to be in lead, unless you think the case is sufficiently made there or more really good refs were to pop up.
 * b) Agree "It describes itself" best way to go
 * c) Thanks for the update on SPI; ran out of energy to investigate or report myself besides in general complaint in 3rr. Definitely case where best to just register.
 * Finally I looked at your couple earlier comments on sourcing in the lead re: UK and YouTube claims that I ignored earlier cause a bit burned out on that section at the time. Youtube source is solid. UK I tweaked. I doubt they would outright lie about it, so I made it a bit clearer what they were saying and where info came, from plus added another Russian ref which inferred that it is now number three. However, couldn't find WP:RS neutral info on that topic in news archive searches. Evidently only Russian News sources care - or care to advertise the facts. CarolMooreDC 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked over material removed in the paragraph criticizing Simonyan and it really was all pretty trivial and POV, except couple factoids from existing ref which I added in history. But if people want to re-add anything else, there's the link to find it. CarolMooreDC 02:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Further edits
I've made several edits today, sometimes being on bolder side; feel free to revert - as long as you're starting discussion here. (the main idea was to remove unacceptable self-serving references, and some WP:SYN) Ipsign (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I get point about self-serving - had been trying to balance off all the negativity earlier. Though I think the $1 million ad revenue mention could be added without other ref and one or two other things IF there are independent WP:RS mentioning the same issues. Also, I think it is important historically to mention specifics about why they were worried about their image, like the poll. Though perhaps more refs and/or info on that should be added. Will look around. Have to look at Simonyan material I removed first.
 * Also I think the Walter Isaacson issue is important. I know there was a bit of a flurry on blogs about it at the time. Perhaps with more WP:RS refs and the RT refs as secondary?  CarolMooreDC 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Impressive job on Isaacson's quote (I've tweaked it a tiny bit, but it already was sooooo much better than stuff which I've removed). As for things like $1M ad revenue - IMHO, article is already long enough, and such minor detail (esp. not supported by independent sources, and subject to interpretation) is not really necessary (overall, articles with too many paragraphs tend to suffer from 'can't see forest for the trees' syndrome). Ipsign (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally agree with changes, didn't notice 3rd party claims in Press releases, agree on $1 million. Two other comments:
 * If here AMEInfo says it is twice nominated/second nomination, then press releases that don't address 3rd parties can be used for minor details like here removed detail on 2010 nomination for story about Obama's trip to Russia. That's why I stuck the AMEinfo sentence in there. Other sources also mention twice nominated w/o detail, but didn't feel like looking for.
 * Making out what Ioffe says about Ossetia is difficult - and she says a lot. Neither of our statements quite correct since she actually writes: Another correspondent, whose reporting departed from the Kremlin line that Georgians were slaughtering unarmed Ossetians, was summoned to the office of the deputy editor in chief in Moscow, where they went over the segment’s script line by line. “He had a gun on his desk,” the correspondent says. Even those who were not reprimanded—...' So we were both summarizing to more than one reporter from one incident. Also, I think her comments about Russian's seeing bias in US reporting and hers comparing Western and Russian reporting are important. Plus the final report conclusion that Georgia really did start it, like RT/Russia said, even if it was held Russia over-reacted. Putting that all in two or three sentences of course and being accurate difficult. Not going to think about it any more today....
 * Anyway, except for listing guests mentioned by WP:RS (and perhaps a few very high profile ones in categories established by a couple WP:RS if there are no WP:OR objections??) I'm pretty much done with new info unless something extraordinary shows up in existing sources or some new thing happens. (Would have put something in about Russian elections and protests but only mentions of RT coverage seen so far was of Simonyan snotty twitters, which seemed trivial, and report of RT reporters gassed. Maybe in a few days will look more.) CarolMooreDC 16:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for AMEInfo and second nomination - it says nothing about Obama's trip, so even if we accept press release as a source for Obama's trip nomination (which is already questionable), using AMEInfo to combine the two will be invalid WP:SYN. Overall, the article already has lots of reliable information, so I don't really see why we should add something of questionable reliability which doesn't change things much (and can cause somebody to question the whole article). As Jimbo Wales have said: "it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources." Ipsign (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for Ioffe's article: it is very clearly anti-RT, so any quotes/interpretations which create the impression that she supported RT, go against WP:QUOTE (emphasis is mine): "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document ; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source ." Using her quote '...was at least as shrill and one-sided...' was completely out of context here, and goes against both WP:SYN (it IMHO directly compares to WP:SYN prohibited example "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.") and WP:QUOTE (see above). As for not quite correct wording - you do have a point, I've changed it a bit, now it IMHO is very close to the original. Also I should note that "final report conclusion" and "Georgia really did start it" (which is debatable, but here is not the right place to debate it) is completely irrelevant when we're discussing Ioffe's article (unless she mentions it). Ipsign (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for further changes: one thing which I'm planning, is a clean-up of what I feel is misrepresentation of Marcin Maczka's views from his article (probably, given the fact that he's merely a PhD student, we should rely on him less heavily in general - IMHO using his article to support some neutrally worded statement is ok, but referring to his opinions where we need to name him, should be minimized where possible). Another thing I hope to do is clean-up of 'awards' section (finding sources, ordering by time, removing those for which sources cannot be found). I don't see much more than that, though (as usual) careful reading of the sources can reveal some inconsistency in the future. But I feel that as article already stands now, we can say it is reasonably NPOV, and remove POV tag (I'll start separate section right below on it). Ipsign (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW: I'm pretty much done now. Ipsign (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing POV tag
I feel that reasonable NPOV compromise has been found, and that we can remove POV tag; also I propose to remove 'globalize' tag (I don't really see justification for it now). Please comment. Ipsign (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL. You are so transparent Ipsign.
 * "Worldwide view" tag removal totally Rejected : 99% of criticism is of western media et al and predominantly from the USA and UK.
 * NPOV tag remove request - Totally Rejected : who are you trying to fool ? let's hunt the blatant bias ,just comparing the intro's of similar structured News Networks of other Democratic countries :


 * all citations are from BBC website.


 * all citations are from BBC website.


 * Citation is from France24 website


 * no citation


 * Citation is from CPB own website 79.180.21.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, your opinion is duly noted. On the other hand, I would appreciate if you could: (a) refrain from using personal attacks (pls consult WP:PA for details), and (b) if you could stop polluting discussion with kilometres of stuff which can be easily summarized in one phrase: "other stuff exists"; this POV of yours has been articulated here for a number of times, and rebutted the same number of times; moreover, it seems that nobody except for you supports your POV, indicating that we're close to "rough consensus" on this issue. Ipsign (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The best thing to do for AnonIP from BezeqInternational to do would be to find sources that describe all those stations as govt or state run or funded or whatever. Franky I don't think taking this out of the lead is the kind of battle you'll win with an RfC or NPOV noticeboard trip, which is why I wouldn't bring it there. (Being an AnonIP also tends to bring down credibility in such forums.) And all the new info in the article balances out the lead.
 * I do agree more sources from around the world should be quoted, if you can find them. I just haven't found that many searching google, highbeam and questia. I have included the good ones I've found. There probably are some in some languages I can't read but can be translated with google.translate (as all foreign language refs should be with google translate link presented in ref). CarolMooreDC 03:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope that you do not mean that any references to those other stations should cause us to rewrite RT page, do you? Using references, for example, to BBC, to justify something on RT page (with a consistency argument) would mean that we're assuming that BBC is substantially the same as RT; but this assumption itself is a matter of debate (there is a whole spectrum of stations from BBC to VoA, and where RT belongs on this spectrum - is an open question, which we cannot possibly decide, in particular, because such decision will be WP:OR/WP:SYN), so this assumption cannot be relied on, and therefore, for an RT page we're limited to references to RT. Are we in agreement on this point? Ipsign (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand your question, but all I meant was if there are WP:RS that describe those other channels as state run or govt run and AnonIP from BezeqInternational feels strongly that those descriptions belong in lead of any of these articles, s/he can always put it in in an appropriate fashion. Of course s/he may run into discussions with those who disagree. However, that would not effect AnonIP from BezeqInternational's argument they should be taken out of the lead of this article. (Though I do think state/government are synonymous and we can dispense with the "/government" as just clumbsy.) CarolMooreDC 06:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * s/he can always put it in in an appropriate fashion - what I've meant is that yes, sure, as long as such reference to that other channel is used to push "state run" description into that other article, and not used here to argue removing description from RT article. So (if I've got it correctly) we seem to be on the same page about it. Ipsign (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Festermunk willing to do dispute resolution?
At this diff Festermunk writes: (re-added unexplained deletion of paragraphs). This despite there was extensive discussion of removal of WP:Undue material above.

This diff shows how User: Festermunk has come back from his block for edit warring on this article to return to imposing his highly negative POV against RT (TV network). He has undo all the work done in the last week by a couple editors just trying to write an article inline with policy. Dispute resolution noticeboard is for editors who "Are willing to discuss the issues in a calm and civil manner" and engage in some sort of compromise (as opposed to just reverting all the work done by others). I don't feel like filling out the form if he is not. I'm not sure if an RfC or WP:NPOVNoticeboard is best way to go otherwise. CarolMooreDC 01:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you're removing information that is wholly in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines (esp. WP:RS) on grounds that you simply don't like what the f*** is going on because it doesn't fit into your pro-RT advocacy. It isn't my problem that there is a wealth of non-fringe and reliable information (particularly from prominent Russian figures, whose paragraph you unwarrantly deleted) and that that is (and should be) reflected in the article is in keeping with WP:UNDUE. Unless you come up with legitimate reasons as to why you are justified in removing those paragraphs, I strongly suggest you stop doing what you are doing. Festermunk (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted Festermunk; and I am going to do the same with any sequence of edits which significantly push WP:WEIGHT balance without discussing here first. This applies to both warring sides - BTW, semi-protection expires in 2 days, so we can expect opposite number of Festermunk to re-appear soon. As I see situation now: there is more or less an agreement of "mild" editors, with additional 2 "extreme" editors, each pushing article to their own side from this agreement; I am not sure if such situation qualifies as WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, but it is at least a reasonable facsimile, so unless significant changes are discussed first, I am going to try keeping status quo. Ipsign (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's deal with specifics. What is it exactly about the changes I made that constitute WP:UNDUE? Festermunk (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For huge changes (like the one with edit summary '(re-structure criticism section...' and adding over 3.5K of text) explanation is neither possible nor necessary. Approach of small incremental changes which you've took later (on Oct 12) is much more productive, as such changes can indeed be discussed. Indeed, I agree that you do have a point when you're saying that section summary (which you removed in your edit of Oct 12) was imprecise, and therefore might have had some POV; still, I think it would be better to keep the summary, just making it more precise (and therefore more NPOV). Please take a look at new version and comment and/or edit it further; I think it is rather precise now (if necessary, we could insert a dozen of refs for all parts of the statement, but as they already present below, I don't think we need to do it), but as usual, there is probably room for further improvement. Ipsign (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I thought should be done first but didn't feel I was the one who should do it. CarolMooreDC 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Festermunk: While you were blocked and/or not contributing there were discussions of almost every change to the article, including much of your work. Please feel free to comment on each of those discussions above and then we'll see what was missed. But I think you need to read WP:Neutral point of view because you keep pushing a very biased point of view, adding negative info and deleting info you evidently view as "positive" so that the article is very unbalanced.  Read especially Weight section which includes sentence:
 * An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
 * Also check out: Collaborations. CarolMooreDC 15:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "But I think you need to read WP:Neutral point of view because you keep pushing a very biased point of view, adding negative info and deleting info you evidently view as "positive" so that the article is very unbalanced." Will you please stop with this victimhood shit it's not like you are any better (actually you are worse because your deletions of entire sourced paragraphs violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines) with your RT advocacy. It's not my problem that there exists a multitude of criticism of RT and a dearth of praise for RT, and that an article that reflects this imbalance of commentary is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Now since you have issues with multiple edits (the edits are in bold) that I've done, let's take them on one by one:
 * Some have described RT's reporting of Russia as tendentious: Marcin Mączka, a PhD student at the university of Jagiellonian University, writes where stories of Russia appear at all, "it is usually related to the progress of Russia’s “modernisation”, economic achievements and the growth of foreign investment"[35 and, "embarrassing information about Russia is usually omitted and RT never broadcasts programmes showing Russia’s social problems, condemning corruption or administrative incompetence."[35] Similarly, a 2008 the New York Times article wrote that in RT’s Russia, “corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy. And concerns about street thugs, poverty and Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership trump fears over Vladimir V. Putin’s grip on power.”[16]
 * In addition to Western commentators, some notable Russians have also been critical of RT: a 2011 article by Accuracy in Media quoted former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky criticized RT as "a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation"[64 while Andrey Illarionov, former advisor to Vladimir Putin, has labelled the channel as “the best Russian propaganda machine targeted at the outside world.”[35] Alexei Navalny, an anti-corruption blogger who has exposed crooked schemes in companies close to the Kremlin, was reported in an article in The Independent as having "come in for particular disdain from the state-funded broadcaster."[17] ]
 * What is it about these paragraphs that militate against their addition in the article?
 * [As per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_(TV_network)&diff=517265235&oldid=517259338] Wikipedia is not a link farm so why it is included in this article again is beyond me.
 * [As per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_(TV_network)&diff=517257681&oldid=517255667] what is wrong about: 1) creating a section on the controversies of RT staffs; and 2) specifying RT coverage on specific news events that the station for which the station has been a target of criticism.

Festermunk (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

When a couple people agree that the article is unbalanced and delete a bunch of stuff, putting it all back as you originally did is problematic. Discussing a few things that you think are important enough to put back like you did above is more appropriate. Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not grinding axes here. CarolMooreDC 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Some have described RT's reporting etc. paragraph I actually had moved to the introduction to the programming section cause I didn't see this as criticism as much as an NPOV accurate description of reality. Then someone else took it out and I hadn't gotten around to discussing that yet because of intervening discussions.
 * 2) The Russia criticism (especially from an AIM source) was one of those things I couldn't decide about, so I figured if someone wanted to argue about why to keep it in they could.
 * 3) This diff, not link farms but information of interest. Though it does occur to me maybe some of the info belongs in a "Reception section"
 * 4) Note discussion at Talk:RT_(TV_network) which would be Neutral or Postive stuff - or even all commentary, with controversies as a subsection. Assange obviously of historical interest, as is the fact it's doing so well one youtube and that these various international channels are doing very well.  Just cause you don't like the fact does not mean it is NOT encyclopedic to mention that WP:RS think this is what is going.
 * 5) Staff stories all were integrated into other controversies. The story is about the station.
 * 6) Specific news events WERE mentioned under War coverage. I couldn't find anything substantive about the station's coverage of the elections or protests, just passing snarky comments about Simonyan's tweets. But at that point I was burned out, and didn't look too hard. If someone came up with WP:RS more context for those tweets, they might be relevant.

Festermunk's response to Carolmooredc
 * 1.Some have described RT's reporting etc. paragraph I actually had moved to the introduction to the programming section cause I didn't see this as criticism as much as an NPOV accurate description of reality. Then someone else took it out and I hadn't gotten around to discussing that yet because of intervening discussions.


 * Learn to read. Did you miss, among others, the title of the article that says, "The Propaganda Machine"? Or perhaps this sentence (i.e. the thesis) from the article that says this about the station: "The drawback of the RT project is that it does not promote objectivity of the reporters and does not attempt to find the truth."
 * 2.The Russia criticism (especially from an AIM source) was one of those things I couldn't decide about, so I figured if someone wanted to argue about why to keep it in they could.


 * So let's discuss it: on what grounds should it be deleted? I argue that it shouldn't because it conforms to all Wikipedia editing guidelines and that there is nothing that can prove that it doesn't.
 * 3.This diff, not link farms but information of interest. Though it does occur to me maybe some of the info belongs in a "Reception section"


 * So how do you decide who is an information (i.e. person) of interest and who isn't. And where do you stop with the list of people RT has interviewed, which can go on indefinitely?
 * 4.Note discussion at Talk:RT_(TV_network) which would be Neutral or Postive stuff - or even all commentary, with controversies as a subsection. Assange obviously of historical interest, as is the fact it's doing so well one youtube and that these various international channels are doing very well.  Just cause you don't like the fact does not mean it is NOT encyclopedic to mention that WP:RS think this is what is going.


 * But the section isn't talking about historical interest, it's talking about the history of RT. Also, the Assange show is a program on RT, so if you don't know what the difference between a program on RT and history about RT then you shouldn't be editing a page like this.
 * 5. Staff stories all were integrated into other controversies. The story is about the station.


 * Where's the section of Simonyan?
 * 6. Specific news events WERE mentioned under War coverage. I couldn't find anything substantive about the station's coverage of the elections or protests, just passing snarky comments about Simonyan's tweets. But at that point I was burned out, and didn't look too hard. If someone came up with WP:RS more context for those tweets, they might be relevant.

Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not grinding axes here. CarolMooreDC 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Learn to read. Again. If you read the paragraph on Simonyan, there's at least 3 citations detailing the oligarchic relationship between Simonyan and Putin (and by extension RT and the Kremlin).Festermunk Festermunk (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Carolmooredc response
 * 1. I might have been confused but that specific example seems to have been said already. Do we need to list even variation on the same criticism over and over and over again? That's what POV and WP:Undue is all about. If you like that ref and sentence better than an existing one, why not trade them?
 * 2. I don't have a problem with Russian section being in because it IS from a Russian source. Put it back if you like.
 * 3. OK. First, try to be a bit more civil. Having Assange on was a widely reported historical event for the program, certainly more reported than other factoids. I was thinking of listing more of his guests under programming but hadn't though to much about the propriety of it.
 * 4. I actually somehow missed your deleting all those guests. a) I see you included the WP:OR of saying "guests who have appeared on RT frequently" which I did not have because I don't have such statistics. b) It's hard to figure out but it looks like you even deleted one or more people mentioned by reliable sources. c) You also took out all former US government officials and US representatives, leaving in others who had no better references. That certainly looks POV. I was not adverse to cutting a few people from each category (unless there was a WP:RS they'd been there). But cutting just people in one category that might make RT look more legit is questionable.
 * 5 &6. I actually thought more could be added into the intro on Simonyan about her ties to Putin but the other editor was cutting a lot of stuff I put in, so I just wrote: Simonyan was a reportedly well-connected former Kremlin pool reporter, only 25 years old, who had been working in journalism since she was 18. However, your WP:OR of "oligarchic" connection is a bit much [added later to clarify: if you want that POV in the article]. Just say Putin sent her flowers. I mean she WAS a Kremlin pool reporter who doubtless ran into/interviewed Putin (i.e., the relevant "big shot") a lot and maybe she's just a really smart well-organized and personable person and a "patriot" who deserved the job.  Like everyone in this country who is a major producer even on most private stations. Again, it's not our job to list EVERY POV partisan criticism of any specific individual. CarolMooreDC 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk response
 * 1. I might have been confused but that specific example seems to have been said already. Do we need to list even variation on the same criticism over and over and over again? That's what POV and WP:Undue is all about. If you like that ref and sentence better than an existing one, why not trade them?
 * Now you are changing the argument. First we were talking about your editing that distorts the main point of Marcin's article ("I didn't see this as criticism as much as an NPOV accurate description of reality."), but now you want to talk about Marcin's content as being a repetition of other forms of criticism of RT, which is strange as his article raises specific criticism of RT that isn't found in other sources that exist on this site. (e.g. his use of the concept of objectivism)
 * 2. I don't have a problem with Russian section being in because it IS from a Russian source. Put it back if you like.
 * 3. OK. First, try to be a bit more civil. Having Assange on was a widely reported historical event for the program, certainly more reported than other factoids. I was thinking of listing more of his guests under programming but hadn't though to much about the propriety of it.
 * 3: You talk like you think you have a point with your argument. Aside from the fact that you have to prove how it was a historical event for the program (the fact that, if it was, it was widely reported doesn't mean it was historical for the program as it could classify as WP:RECENTISM). And since this paragraph is being disputed, I'm going to remove it as per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD
 * 4. I actually somehow missed your deleting all those guests. a) I see you included the WP:OR of saying "guests who have appeared on RT frequently" which I did not have because I don't have such statistics. b) It's hard to figure out but it looks like you even deleted one or more people mentioned by reliable sources. c) You also took out all former US government officials and US representatives, leaving in others who had no better references. That certainly looks POV. I was not adverse to cutting a few people from each category (unless there was a WP:RS they'd been there). But cutting just people in one category that might make RT look more legit is questionable.
 * 4: I didn't take out all former US government officials and reps as Ron Paul was still on the list. Also, you've still yet to answer my questions: "so how do you decide who is an information (i.e. person) of interest and who isn't. And where do you stop with the list of people RT has interviewed, which can go on indefinitely?"
 * 5 &6. I actually thought more could be added into the intro on Simonyan about her ties to Putin but the other editor was cutting a lot of stuff I put in, so I just wrote: Simonyan was a reportedly well-connected former Kremlin pool reporter, only 25 years old, who had been working in journalism since she was 18. However, your WP:OR of "oligarchic" connection is a bit much. Just say Putin sent her flowers. I mean she WAS a Kremlin pool reporter who doubtless ran into/interviewed Putin (i.e., the relevant "big shot") a lot and maybe she's just a really smart well-organized and personable person and a "patriot" who deserved the job.  Like everyone in this country who is a major producer even on most private stations. Again, it's not our job to list EVERY POV partisan criticism of any specific individual. CarolMooreDC 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5&6: You need to learn how Wikipedia guidelines work. It's only WP:OR if I write in the article implying a connection between Simonyan and oligarchy, not in the talk page. Also, reducing the Simonyan controversy to a one-sentencer violates WP:UNDUE as it does not fairly represent the amount and type of material that have been critical of her. There's nothing in Wikipedia that states, "it isn't our job to list EVERY POV partisan criticism of any specific individual" and even if there was, the edits of Simonyan wouldn't classify as POV partisan criticism.

Festermunk (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Carolmooredc response
 * CM Reply to :1. Just tell me what you want to discuss if I misunderstand, don't waste time on unenlightening analysis.

RE: Assange in history Festermunk wrote: 3: You talk like you think you have a point with your argument. Aside from the fact that you have to prove how it was a historical event for the program (the fact that, if it was, it was widely reported doesn't mean it was historical for the program as it could classify as WP:RECENTISM). And since this paragraph is being disputed, I'm going to remove it as per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD
 * CM: I bet I can find a WP:RS that says it's historical. Why be in such a hurry to remove ref'd material?
 * FM:I just told you, but apparently you can't read, so I'll read it again: I'm removing it as per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. But even if you could find a reliable source show that shows the Assange program is historical, the fact that it is historical doesn't mean that the program should be part put as part of RT's history; wouldn't it be more appropriate to put it in the program's section since the Assange show functions as a program of RT?
 * Festermunk wrote: 4: I didn't take out all former US government officials and reps as Ron Paul was still on the list. Also, you've still yet to answer my questions: "so how do you decide who is an information (i.e. person) of interest and who isn't. And where do you stop with the list of people RT has interviewed, which can go on indefinitely?"
 * CM: If you left in Ron Paul, you obviously have a view on that yourself. I think if you put Lists together with WP:NPOV and editors make an honest attempt to list an NPOV cross section of editors, there is no problem. I started a list and then waited to see the response. What noticeboard would you suggest we go to for other opinions??
 * FM:You haven't a clue what you are talking about if you go back to your original comment you said that I deleted all U.S. Senators and Reps from the list. I gave you an example that invalidated your ridiculous claim, but because you can't disprove that you're now resorting to mind-reading.
 * Festermunk wrote: 5 &6. (Quoting Carol)... However, your WP:OR of "oligarchic" connection is a bit much [added later to clarify: if you want that POV in the article]. ... Also, reducing the Simonyan controversy to a one-sentencer violates WP:UNDUE as it does not fairly represent the amount and type of material that have been critical of her.
 * CM: So put in two sentences; Proposing something here would be better than edit warring on it, don't you think? WP:Undue goes the other way too. CarolMooreDC 19:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FM:Points 5&6 I propose this article reinstate what it previously had before you deleted it:


 * RT staff controversies


 * Margarita Simonyan - RT's current editor-in-chief who has been described by various sources as a Kremlin loyalist  who is close to the Putin regime.     According to Professor Andrei Richter, Simonyan was appointed to that position because she was well-connected with the editor; she acknowledged that she once received flowers on her birthday from Mr. Putin. Similarly, an article in The Moscow Times reports that Simonyan was chosen by the Kremlin to be the channel's editor in chief, though the article also stated that such appointments weren't unsurprising in Russia. Moreover, in an interview with the Washington Times, Simonyan acknowledged that she was too young (25) to be given the reins of Russia Today, although she ascribed the premature appointment to that the fact of oversupply of opportunities for young journalists after the collapse of the Soviet Union.


 * :Shortly after his appointment as the United States Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul challenged Margarita Simonyan over the Twitter in regards to allegations from RT that he sent Alexei Navalny to study at Yale, tweeting, ""@M_Simonyan when we met at White House you asked me tell you when RT ran something untrue. On RT today, @McFaul sent @Navalny to Yale. Lie."  Festermunk (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please remove your comments from inside mine immediately, as I have had to do twice and as I have asked you to do on your talk page. Your behavior is disruptive and edit warring and copying my warning on your talk page to my talk page does not hide that fact. CarolMooreDC 14:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am confused, how is putting my comments inside yours disruptive editing or edit warring?Festermunk (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard case filed
In case anyone else wants to opine. Dispute_resolution_noticeboard CarolMooreDC 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why was the new intro by FeelSunny removed?
After reading through the talk page and a bit of the history I have to ask why did Ipsign remove the new introduction by FeelSunny? As it really only removed text was it not a good starting point (at least while the discussion rages on on the talk page) for the future editing/not editing of this page? Criticism belongs in the criticism section, not in the intro --Hentheden (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is not an advert for RT, nor is WP the RT defense league. RT's birth, existence, and editorial policy all confirm its role to play regarding Russian state media regardless of its being incorporated as an "autonomous" organization. FeelSunny additionally took mainstream views and facts and weaseled them. ("Some...") VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting it should be an advertisement for RT nor that Wikipedia should be some sort of "RT Defense League", merely that in comparison to the BBC world service article (which is funded directly by the Foreign and Commonwealth office) and CNN etc. the article is very, very biased against RT and that Criticism does not belong in the intro - the intro serves to provide an introduction to the article, not to set out the tone or POV for the rest of the article --Hentheden (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that BBC article says " As such, the BBC's international content has traditionally represented – at least in part – an effective foreign policy tool of the British Government." However, although there is a whole article on criticism of the BBC, none are mentioned in the lead. I think "Other sources have described it as pro-Kremlin.[6][7]" could be removed because that can be inferred easily by the various mentions of govt funding in the lead and because there is a whole section on that below. CarolMooreDC 06:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is exactly what I meant. --Hentheden (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If no one objects I'll remove that sentence in a day or two and fix any ref problems. CarolMooreDC 20:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Festermunk's revert today, I don't have a problem with state owned in the first sentence since other channels have similar statements. However, no one commented on my removing "Other sources have described it as pro-Kremlin" but Festermunk now did now add "also drawn criticisms and controversies." without commenting. Perhaps he could do so now, since he said we should look at talk? Perhaps he should read section on controversies below also? CarolMooreDC 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the first source on the page states that RT is state funded, not state run. Secondly, I thought it had been agreed that "Other sources have described it as pro-Kremlin." could be removed. Thirdly, I was a bit overzealous in removing "but have also drawn criticisms and controversies.", I apologise. Hentheden (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Come now, Putin's entourage came up with Russia Today with the singular goal of fixing Russia's image. The notion that RT and the BBC are identical is as preposterous as it is uninformed. Next someone will be opining that RT is just as objective as BBC as well. There is no basis for removing pro-Kremlin or its origin with RIA Novosti the press organ of the Russian state government. That is different from merely being funded. Were you all born after the Soviet Union collapsed and are therefore unfamiliar with the workings of Soviet, now Russian, propaganda machinery? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In this instance I was not arguing that RT=BBC or CNN, merely that Pro-Kremlin is an opinion/criticism/controversy and does not belong in the intro. But now I am: RT reports on news that traditional western media ignores and while I fully understand that effectively any article on Russia/Syria does not represent the full story, RT does a far better job of reporting US, EU or general international news than the BBC or CNN, who very often spin it (or just ignore it entirely). I read the BBC when I want to know about Russia, global news and interesting tidbits of info and I read RT when I want to know about US, international geopolitical and UN news. Whether or not I was born after the collapse of the Soviet union is irrelevant, thank you very much! Ad Hominem is, as we all know, a logical fallacy. Hentheden (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as we are engaging in general discussion, User Vecrumba, All government owned media are essentially propaganda outlets. (And since the US has started far more major wars/invasions/attacks than Russia since WWII, I'd say they are probably grosser propaganda. Though of course, when you starting adding in which country had the most partisans in control and who their allies in any attack were, it gets a bit more complicated. If you look at the last 20 years, it's obviously the US aggressing here, there and everywhere.)
 * Anyway, the question is, do all the other ones in wikipedia emphasize this by including a couple of negative comments about it or just this one? Actually, it's probably best to include such comments in the other government owned stations articles' leads, than to argue for removal here. Thanks for the suggestion. CarolMooreDC 21:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Hentheden, I find the Financial Times is best for global developments even though it's not a general news publication. That you watch and trust RT is your choice. That they report a lot on what has happened, having bottomless funding, is worthwhile--indeed, I watch RT for that very reason. But the constant ooze, and periodically stench, of propaganda 24x7 is unmistakeable. If you're not detecting that, then you're just another dupe. Nothing personal, just the situation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Vecrumba, I also read the FT, European edition (almost) every single day and while I do agree that it is far superior to both the BBC and RT and that it is best for global developments it is, by definition, slightly capitalist, it is also only published once per day and not on Sundays. While it may seem silly, I enjoy reading the news during the day, especially if there is some election result to be posted or a major speech to occur. While I do "trust" RT per say, and I agree that it is biased in terms of ignoring all anti-Putin material, so is the BBC in putting a pro-UK slant on all articles in relation to the UK as a whole. For example, the recent articles on Cameron vetoing EU budgetary measures had a decidedly less "The UK is trying to kill the EU" slant than Swedish (I am a Swedish resident) news outlets or the FT. Also, the articles on Scottish independence had a decided "This will never work because the Scots will lose all their business" slant. No media is perfect, and while I would agree that the BBC generally has better quality articles than RT, RT reports on a wide range of issues that the BBC does not cover. If I had a choice I would, in fact, pick Swedish media as it is generally very unbiased but there are no good sites and the news generally takes several hours to appear. :D Hentheden (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Criticism rename Controversy OR Criticism section
This article's section title "Controversies, criticisms and response" has annoyed me as overblown, as have many over the years where partisans just create WP:Undue negative sections.

Just discovered [clarified later "essay"] WP:Criticism which is linked from NPOV which reads:''Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.''

I'm also going to work on that article a bit to clarify the difference between criticism and controversy per this talk page entry of similar name. In the interim this is a good place to discuss a specific example. IMHO Criticism would be just a list of various criticisms; controversy should have a lot of back and forth and even a WP:RS calling it a controversy, and then can include criticism.

To me this looks like mostly criticism and a couple controversies, so it could go either way; I have a slight preference for criticism given lack of RT really mixing it up with anyone. The important thing is it should not be named both. I don't think there's a need for "response" in title, but am not opposed to it either. Also, there probably should be a "reception" section with some of the milder criticisms and with actual praise, something which does exist, but it's been hard to figure out where to put it. So feel free to read WP:NPOV and/or WP:Criticism and opine. CarolMooreDC 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that WP:Criticism is an essay, not guideline - however, the current title is pretty bad. I would recommend "Controversies" as the new title.
 * Not really related to the current topic, but the controversies section could be structured somewhat better (same goes for the rest of the article).
 * -- Sander Säde 07:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Controversies ok and changed. I'm a bit burned out now on article but always interested in restructuring ideas. CarolMooreDC 16:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Assange show from history
Festermunk removed this saying it is "under discussion" - here's an opportunity for others to opine. I'm going to beef it up a bit and put it back in history with a longer list of speakers under guests. The very specific search "Julian Assange" "The World Tomorrow" "Russia Today" returns 961,000 general search hits and 69 news archive ones. Certainly far more than a number of issues currently in history. Or does he want all of those removed too? Frankly, given the absurdity of this reversion, I think Festermunk should read carefully WP:disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC 21:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm going to beef it up a bit and put it back in history with a longer list of speakers under guests." I suggest you don't do that as the material is still under dispute. Also, you don't judge the historicality of something based on the number of hits on a search engine; Jenna Jameson's birthplace on Google reveals only 97,900 hits but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong to Jameson's history section. Festermunk (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When one has that many hits, obviously one can come up with 8 or 10 high quality ones. You have not come up with a rationale for not putting it there, just an uncivil comment above. CarolMooreDC 23:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did by way of analogy with the Jenna Jameson example, but as usual you didn't read it. Festermunk (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your point about hits on a movie stars birthplace doesn't make any sense, which is why I ignored it. (Helps to give wikilinks.) But it's useless to debate numbers until I present a text. But since I've had to waste so much time dealing with your behavior issues, I haven't focused on that yet. CarolMooreDC 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Absurdly Festermunk put Assange back in the History section and then blamed me for putting it there right here.) Anyway, I do intend to put together all the new info I have on this shows relevance to RT history soon. CarolMooreDC 21:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Update. Assange is back in history with more refs as to notability. No one but Festermunk is complaining about this. Does anyone else have a problem with it? CarolMooreDC 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please explain "Layout" tag
Festermunk, please explain how this article is problematic in terms of Manual of Style/Layout. I didn't see any thing there.

I certainly get the impression that what you want is a restructuring that will allow you to push your negative POV and delete neutral and positive information. At Dispute_resolution_noticeboard both the volunteer and I have reiterated to you that mostly critical articles are problematic. (See WP:Attack page.) Again see the essay WP:Criticism which is linked from NPOV which note reads:''Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.'' If that's true for sections, it's more true for whole articles.

So please explain the tag for any past or future editors who may come buy, hurricanes allowing :-) CarolMooreDC 00:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Festermunk failed to answer my question but then went and again reverted the Contoversies section back to a previous version (Leaving a reference mess in doing so and deleting important WP:RS info), despite being reverted in the recent past by another editor when he returned from his edit warring block and contested above and contested in WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. (After claiming we agreed on everything??)


 * I did leave the Simonyan section, though I do intend to integrate all the info into a new Organization section or the bias section or the news coverage section.  I think War Coverage can be changed to news coverage since I do intend to add something about the Russian elections and protests soon and thus give context to Simonyan's tweet. CarolMooreDC 20:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

New list POV Issues
Since there will be lots of them with Festermunk deleting anything that is presented in a neutral or positive light, I'll start listing them for NPOV noticeboard when I decide to go there: CarolMooreDC 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, my comments above (Please explain "Layout" tag) on yet again having to revert whole sale change.
 * Deletion as "soapbox" of interesting info on why guests appear from two reliable sources.)
 * Putting in a bunch of new negative material, even as removed neutral and positive info above: here and here.
 * Claim here that unresolved discussion of whether to put Assange in history was resolved? (Especially absurd since Festermunk put Assange back in the History section and then blamed me for putting it there right here.) I do intend to put together all the new info I have on this shows relevance to RT history soon.


 * The intro is still exactly the same. (Hentheden)

24.132.149.190 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to edit summaries (was "Incivility")
For the 3rd or 4th time I have to ask you to be civil, including in edit summaries where you just wrote: CarolMooreDC 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * wrote at this diff (readded Marcin + Heyman as per discussion, complete bullshit how you deleted those 2 paragraphs). As it happens, I thought that comment had been returned to another section where it used to be and perhaps still should be, but evidently it was not. Don't assume the worst.
 * Here you write an edit summary saying (seriously what the hell are you doing, we've already discussed this on DNR that it belongsin the programming section). But if you will look it was you yourself who added Assange back to history right here.
 * What are you even talking about this edit shows that I put the Assange program back in the programming section!Festermunk (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Read more carefully. As I said above right here you put the Assange section back in history. Then you accused me of putting it there with comment "seriously what the hell are you doing". CarolMooreDC 03:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, you are right. First misstep for me in our debate. Festermunk (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Sub-sections for the "Allegation of Bias" section
As per this edit, should the "allegation of bias" include the 'pro-state,' 'pro-Kremlin' and 'Responses to allegations' sub-sections?Festermunk (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment from involved editor: General NPOV overview needed: Festermunk is requesting an RfC on a topic he refused to address in the above section Talk:RT_(TV_network). The bottom line issue is that User:Festermunk repeatedly has added negative information to the controversy and other sections while deleting neutral and positive information from various sections with questionable excuses. After Festermunk was blocked for edit warring on this article, a couple other editors and I made it more NPOV by cleaning up the WP:Undue controversy section and adding more NPOV material. As soon as Festermunk returned to this article he reverted most of our changes in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor to the more NPOV version. He then asked for Arbitration and I took it to WP:Dispute Resolution here where he steadfastly defended such editing habits. At the conclusion he again reverted back to his version of the Controversy section which I reverted here. He's now beginning to engage in fairly obvious WP:Synthesis, and I'll be tagging the most obvious of those soon. So opinions on NPOV in this article are what is really needed. CarolMooreDC 04:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Readers would be wise to note the following Wikipedia editing guidelines: thatWikipedia articles (with properly referenced sources) need not be written from that viewpoint are "consequently objectively true", but written in a way that "describe debates rather than engage in them.", that the NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. and that Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. Festermunk (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There do seem to be widespread concerns about bias in RT. The article should cover this but I think that giving RT the last word on each point would be inappropriate. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 16:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment from uninvolved editor - I am closing this RfC because there is (was) an open DRN case on this exact same topic. See  DRN case here.  Furthermore, the editor that opened the RfC is rather belligerent.   The editor has been blocked for a week, and we should use that time to improve the article.  When the editor returns, if they are still interested, they  can start a new RfC. --Noleander (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk blocked 1 week/reverting/archiving

 * Because Festermunk just kept reverting neutral/positive material and adding gobs of negative info, despite my complaints here and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, doing 4 reverts in 24 hours, I did an Edit Warring report. He was blocked for a week for "battleground behavior". (His response made it clear he really does not understand what 3rr means.)
 * I suggest we revert back here to a version before he went on his latest binge, and then go through making any valid newer changes. If no one responds fairly soon, I'll just do it because the article right now is so negative and POV.
 * I also suggest we archive all discussion (except the RfC and this) and hopefully start again in a more cooperative fashion.
 * Starting with someone proposing how to do the lead that doesn't go too far in either the negative or in the "rah rah" directions as it has in the past, i.e., something more like Al Jazeera, BBC, etc. (i.e., it should mention it's funded by the Russian state but doesn't have to dwell on/keep repeating the subject ad nauseum.) CarolMooreDC 03:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just saw your proposal to revert to an earlier version. That is fine.  I changed some section titles, but that only took a minute.  If you want to do the revert, I can change the titles again afterwards.   Or, it may be more convenient to just take the current version and restore any material that was improperly deleted? --Noleander (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some good changes there and certainly need input from another editor so it's not just me! Will give it another day for others' responses and work on something else - for a break! And then come back late tonight or tomorrow and see how to integrate it all, possibly in one fell swoop :-). CarolMooreDC 16:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)