Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 12

Lead on Simonyan words

 * In the lead above I've clarified (yellow) that Margarita Simonyan's opinion is expressed in the context of the war so it doesn't appear that it was taken out of the context. To be fair it would be best to make an additional topic on the RT's role in the Russo-Georgian War coverage. My best.

AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 09:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Alexander Davronov since her interview is a primary source you might want to see WP:PRIMARY.
 * Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
 * And that is exactly what you did. Editors really should stop doing that. Renat  10:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to take down this guesswork before you end up on WP:ANI board. The source you referred also refers to the medium article that say just what I've highlighed: . The said words were said in 2012 in the context of the 2008 war. Read sources before you insert them. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alexander Davronov I will repeat it again: use secondary sources, not primary. We do not need original research here. Renat  10:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Alexander Davronov Read source before you insert them. I did. Renat  10:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

- «‎top: per source»
 * I'm going to partially revert this edit (to return Kommersant source, highlighted words, and add fresh source) . You don't omit the words that your own source says. The article shouldn't present words that are taken out of the context and juggled.

AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 10:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Alexander Davronov you are not going to revert anything. Because your introduced your own original research (your interpetation of a primary source). WP:ONUS is on you. And I used the information from secondary sources. And just to be clear: you are not the only person here who can read and understand the Russian language. I read her interview. Renat  10:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dont' force me to warn you (my suggestion made on [10:07, December 25, 2021] stands). I will repeat once again: the source you have provided on [09:46, December 25, 2021] refers to an article on medium that says:
 * It's perfectly within WP:PRIMARY/WP:RSCONTEXT to describe that Simonyan's comparison was made in the context of Georgia war. She didn't compare it to ministry however, she just said that at the time her RT was warring with west (I think the comparison should be removed, but that's not something we dispute here right now). AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest we end this discussion because I see you kept highlighted words (i.e. ) in another statement so basically there is nothing to dispute here. My best. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest we end this discussion because I see you kept highlighted words (i.e. ) in another statement so basically there is nothing to dispute here. My best. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 10:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

British law says its public broadcast
State-controlled mass media is not allowed here. It is the Russian equivalent of the BBC world service or Radio Free Europe or .... Either none or all are propaganda if you want the article to appear neutral. 31.125.39.26 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I guess you should have a look at the rather thorough discussion above. If you can provide any new reliable sources that contribute relevant information, please go ahead. Otherwise, I'm afraid a vague and unsourced comment like yours will mostly be ignored. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am saying the British Government disagrees with the classification of RT as "propaganda". Just thought someone would like to know. I can't cite the law (I have a job to do) but perhaps someone would like to look into it. The evidence I have is that a while ago a Chinese "public broadcasting" company had its licence revoked because it was state-controlled. Thus, one can infer that RT is not "state controlled" by the definition the British government uses as it operates here. This is not opinion. But as many seem to be trying to tell someone, it looks as if the process for filtering for opinion on wikipedia is broken. 31.125.39.26 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the bots did not work and your IP address and the time of your post was added by this editor. Please use four tildes (~) to sign your posts in future. On the points you raise, Wikipedia operates by citing reliable sources. Without them what you suggest will only be described by editors as original research which is liable for deletion. Please read these and other policy documents, as has already been suggested on your talk page, for your edits to be viewed as constructive. Philip Cross (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying the British Government is not a reliable source?

2A00:23C5:5997:E01:6B6F:A832:E254:E1B5 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No he is saying that you are not reliable. If you want anyone to do anything about this you need to provide a suitable source that agrees with your assertions at the very least. FWIW When RT ran into almost the exact same problem a few years ago it quickly launched RT UK, in an effort to keep content Ofcom would have a problem with off its UK broadcast. This seems to have been sufficient to satisfy the regulator that the UK entity that holds the license is in control of the content of its broadcasts. In this case the Chinese government seems to have been quite happy for CGTN (TV channel) to loose its UK license, judging by the timing of the "retaliatory" ban the BBC got in China. I dispute your explanation of why CGTN had its license revoked, or that anything about RT can be inferred, so unless you bring a source there is no need to continue this. TiB chat  17:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Guess what. I say he is unreliable. "30 others say X" does not provide truth, particularly if the 30 all have to get their TV licences in the anglosphere. I am not going to do anything about it - other things to do; just pointing out the CGTN issue.  Thanks for clarifying it - Ofcom apparently doesn't mind RT being an instrument of Russian propaganda. Interesting. I shall talk to my representative in parliament and complain. Not.  The worry is that Wikipedia's showing its underwear here. Very embarrassing IMHO, but as you say there is no need to continue this.

2A00:23C5:5997:E01:6B6F:A832:E254:E1B5 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not accept original research, and editors are expected to uphold this policy consistently. —  Newslinger  talk   03:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Request to implement consensus required provision
Hi, I noticed that you implemented the 1RR restriction for this article. Would you please also consider implementing the consensus required provision for this article? In this article, 1RR provides a first-mover advantage, since editors who add content against consensus and then get reverted can immediately re-add the content against consensus. Removing the re-added content requires two reverts, which causes policy-violating content to stay in the article for a longer time due to 1RR. The consensus required provision would eliminate this first-mover advantage. Articles such as Breitbart News supplement 1RR with the consensus required provision to address this issue. —  Newslinger  talk   07:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I guess... But do you mind doing it yourself? CR is a chore to explain and maintain. El_C 07:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't, because I'm involved. Would you recommend that I submit this to AE? —  Newslinger  talk   07:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. RE: WP:AE — I don't know. Don't know what the dispute is about to advise on that atm. But 1RR does not provides a first-mover advantage by definition. That scenario might happen only if certain conditions were met (like the reverts being limited to two users). And even if that was so, it'd be unlikely for it to be WP:GAME'd for a sustained period of time. El_C 08:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   08:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

E-International Relations in lead section
The recent addition to the lead section made by in Special:Diff/1073677725 constitutes undue weight and should be removed from the lead section. I've reproduced the content below:

The first provided citation, an article from the E-International Relations website, is not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Using this website (especially at length) in the lead section to "show that the propaganda hasn't had any effect" (as stated in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1073677725), contrary to the numerous peer-reviewed academic sources (including the ones here, here, and here) which show that RT's propaganda does have the effect of misleading its audience, creates an inappropriate false balance.

The second citation fails verification. I have access to the second citation, No Illusions: The Voices of Russia's Future Leaders, with a New Introduction, through The Wikipedia Library. The book only mentions RT once, and the mention is completely irrelevant to the content addition:

In conclusion, this content should be removed from the lead section. If there is consensus to mention the E-International Relations claims in the article body, the content should be presented in a proportional manner that does not give the content undue weight over the academic consensus that RT's propaganda does have the effect of misleading its audience. —  Newslinger  talk   07:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just realized that had referenced a different edition of the No Illusions book than the one I have access to. I apologize for the error in part of my message above, which I have retracted. However, even if the citation passes verification, a claim supported by one peer-reviewed academic source should still not be falsely balanced with the consensus presented in numerous peer-reviewed academic sources.PeaceThruPramana26, if you still have access to that book, could you please provide a quotation from the book (and a page number) on this talk page to substantiate your claim? Please note that the pages parameter in the cite book template is for the page(s) of the book that are cited for the article, not the total number of pages in the book. —  Newslinger   talk   10:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We mention a number of sources that say RT contains misleading content. Have we cited any sources that have studied the effect of RT content on the audience as Professor Ellen Mickiewicz seems to have done? Does Professor Ellen Mickiewicz's research conflict with anything else that is currently on the page? Burrobert (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Burrobert what is the point of your message? Renat  11:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "the content should be presented in a proportional manner that does not give the content undue weight over the academic consensus that RT's propaganda does have the effect of misleading its audience ". Burrobert (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with these. Here are excerpts from peer-reviewed academic sources that substantiate the consensus that RT's propaganda does mislead its audience (emphasis added):

There are many more peer-reviewed academic sources which establish that RT's propaganda is effective at influencing its audience (setting aside whether the source also explicitly describes the propaganda as misleading). Here is one of the more detailed sources (emphasis added):

We're still in the process of verifying Mickiewicz's text, and we'll need to see what it actually says before we can determine whether it is fairly represented by the claims made in the added content. Passing verification would not automatically give the claim a spot in the lead section, and definitely does not justify a three-sentence quote in the lead section. —  Newslinger  talk   17:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Between your unwarranted warning on my talk page (which you yourself retracted) and this heavy POV pushing, this is literally the sort of thing that is driving away Wikipedia editors in droves. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Like, that isn't how scholarly criticism or debate works: It's not "X says this, here are a dozen googled sources on why X is wrong", because it doesn't agree with the narrative that is being attempted for (?) in the lede, it's just to contrast the information already present since, if you compare it to the articles on Al Jazeera, France24, I24, BBCWS, or even PressTV, none are nearly that hysterical. It doesn't say that 'RT is not an evil icky propaganda network', it even confirms that it is created for the purpose of Russian soft power. The fact that you so hastily jump to this conclusion and even rush to attack me on my page with wikipedia redtape like warnings is proof that I shouldn't assume that any of these edits are in good faith beyond pushing an agenda on this page, and then attempting to intimidate users who don't step in line with it. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If you had actually read Mickiewicz (2017) before citing it in Special:Diff/1073677725, a quotation and a page number would be appreciated. It is a violation of the neutral point of view policy to introduce a false balance "just to contrast the information already present". There is much stronger evidence supporting the "propaganda" descriptor for RT than for any of the other outlets you mentioned (many of which are not called propaganda outlets by reliable sources), which is why this article describes RT's status as a propaganda outlet in stronger terms than the articles for those other outlets.To respond to your accusation, presenting evidence to substantiate article content is not "POV pushing", especially when it was requested in the discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   20:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

EU ban
RT has been banned across EU. https://www.axios.com/eu-ban-russia-aircraft-370db436-7502-4a6a-b37a-3cff5abc64cd.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.1.24 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Added to opening summary and main text. Philip Cross (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Dish Network has dropped RT
Intersted editors will no doubt find many sources for inclusion. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Did this just happen? I can't find anything about Dish Network dropping RT yet, though the article already covers DirecTV and Roku. —  Newslinger  talk   23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It dropped it this afternoon. Channel 280 now says: INFO "This channel is no longer available". Now is just the RT App for getting it. In kind- Russia also banned news media today too. BBC, US government's Voice of America, D.W., Radio Free Europe. Serbia reversed its censorship of RT today as well. CaribDigita (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like RT America shut down on 3 March, which the article now mentions. I can't find any news coverage of Dish Network dropping RT prior to the shutdown. Serbia is not part of the European Union, and it doesn't seem like Serbia has ever banned RT. If any sources contradict this, please feel free to share them. —  Newslinger  talk   14:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
You state that it propagates conspiracy theories, and rightly so, but the example you have given is not an example of a conspiracy theory. You state the fact that vaccination and wearing masks do prevent COVID-19, but you don't give an actual concrete example of a conspiracy theory it is propagating. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up. In Special:Diff/1076759748, I moved the recently added sentences to a new "COVID-19 misinformation" subsection under the "Content" section, and I rewrote the sentences to describe RT's broadcasting of "COVID-19 misinformation" instead of "conspiracy theories". —  Newslinger  talk   19:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the "conspiracy theories" descriptor in Special:Diff/1076763960, since the cited Stanford Internet Observatory article does give clear examples of RT broadcasting COVID-19 conspiracy theories, including "Coronavirus crisis will be used as a way for the malicious narcissists in Washington, Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms to come together to assure that all their losses are socialized and their profits privatized - Michael McCaffrey". —  Newslinger  talk   20:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

rewrite
Post invasion of Ukraine RT may seem history but in case it is not, or as an object lesson in propaganda I hope to clean it up re the copy-edit tag Specifically sorting out text so that evaluations of RT go in to the right sections (Programming, guests, content)  that are currently scattered around. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article
I think that the propaganda attribute should be removed, this is not useful, misleading and moreover: every newspaper/tv channel has its editorial line, so this tag should be on every newspaper/tv channel page on Wikipedia then.. Everything (nations, newspapers etc..) has its ideology and its objectives, with which we can agree or disagree. Even if a source give fake news, we (with we I mean Wikipedia) can't tel that's fake news; we must say "this person said this" (with source link) "and this other person said it is fake news because.." (with source link). SO putting the propaganda tag is equivalent to taking a position, in my opinion. For controversial manners there's a special section (in this case called "Propaganda claims and related issues"). Let's stay neutral. Remember that a 6 could be a 9 if you look at it upside down. User:FinixFighter 3 March 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reliable sources calling RT a propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ymblanter: Please, can you share these reliable sources? User:FinixFighter 11:52 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of them are cited in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list, taken from :



—  Newslinger  talk   03:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Newslinger and @Ymblanter these "reliable sources" are themselves unreliable and unsourced (editorial commentary and blog posts, not in any way demonstrating via a neutral fact-based or sourced viewpoint how the Russian government controls the editorial content of RT - which would be the requirement to meet the definition of "propaganda"). "State media" is one thing (as it is tax-funded) but "propaganda" is another thing entirely and the tag introduces bias into this article and should be removed. Asaturn (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. The policies say otherwise.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, these are indeed reliable sources. The list consists of content from high-quality academic sources, sources that meet the WP:NEWSORG guideline, and sources that are indexed in the list of perennial sources as generally reliable, which is determined by community consensus. —  Newslinger  talk   03:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It is so hard to find a neutral POV and wade through all the BS on Wikipedia. BBC or The Washington Post seem to slant the news in favour of their respective countries yet aren't classified as propaganda. Then you have an editor with a large Ukrainian flag on their talk page which highlights their own bias in trying to paint RT as propaganda. As an average reader of Wikipedia it would be good if someone could come along and mediate all of this bias so we can have a balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.189.217 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article itself shouldn't categorize this network as propaganda or not, but instead, should only report what others categorize it as. A lot of reliable sources also state that Fox News is Trump propaganda, yet you do not see it categorized as propaganda in its article. Eden5 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See the 30 sources from 2019 and earlier, listed above, and the high-quality academic sources in Special:Permalink/1077975588. If you have the reliable sourcing to establish that Fox News is a propaganda outlet, feel free to present that information on Talk:Fox News. Either way, what the Fox News article contains is not relevant to this article. —  Newslinger  talk   06:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet. There is no such consensus for the BBC or The Washington Post. Also, editors of all political orientations are allowed to edit Wikipedia, as long as they follow the policies and guidelines. —  Newslinger  talk   06:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've established that "The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet." Did you use an objective method to review all the academic literature, such as a key word search in major periodical indexes? Or did you just do a Google or other search and cherry-pick the academic articles that supported your position? Are there any academic articles that conclude, as many of us do, that the term "propaganda" is too subjective for such a judgment? --Nbauman (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At his point it is irrelevant. There is a community consensus that RT is a propaganda outlet. May be all of us are stupid idiots, RT is a highly reliable academic source, and we all fail to recognize this fact. But to challenge this consensus, you would have to open a new RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please don't use rhetorical or hyperbolic language. It makes it rational discussion difficult. (1) I don't see any RfC with the conclusion that there is a consensus that RT is propaganda. All I could find was a contentious discussion with editors arguing on both sides and no resolution. Could you please link to the exact statement in the RfC that there is a consensus? (2) You are claiming that there is a consensus in high-quality academic sources that RT is propaganda. What is your evidence for that claim? --Nbauman (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See . —  Newslinger  talk   11:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian propaganda network
Need a section about it being a Russian propaganda network. 2A01:598:91B9:3F2C:D0DD:4B54:286E:8904 (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022
The reporter who was referenced in the Buzzfeed RT article is named Staci Bivens not Stacy. 2A02:8109:9AC0:69A8:5089:C58F:12D5:399C (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Thankyou for pointing out the error. Philip Cross (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Does the first sentence in the lede, "a Russian state-controlled propagandist international television network" go against WP:NPOV? Should the article take sides and categorize it as "propaganda" or only report what news outlets categorize it as? Eden5 (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * I've removed propagandist from the first sentence in Special:Diff/1077979219, returning to the longstanding article version. That word was added very recently (Special:Diff/1077838994), and I had missed it in your edit (Special:Diff/1077975365).However, the propaganda descriptor is exceptionally well-sourced and the article should be amended to explicitly describe RT as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice. Since the 2019 RfC at, many additional academic sources have been added that explicitly describe RT as a source of propaganda. There are currently 6 peer-reviewed academic sources cited for the propaganda descriptor (citations). Different facets of RT's propaganda have also been examined in detail, with 8 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of disinformation (citations), and 4 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of conspiracy theories (citations) – some of which are also in the preceding groups. Adding reliable non-opinion news sources raises the number of citations to over 30, with an incomplete list from 2019 at .According to WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources uniformly agree that RT is a propaganda outlet, and this article should reflect that in Wikipedia's voice. —  Newslinger  talk   06:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "propaganda" is too subjective and too dependent on the editor's political views.
 * Many WP:RSs call Fox News "propaganda". Fox News controversies Should we "explicitly describe Fox News as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice"?
 * If for example the President of the U.S. referred to RT as "propaganda," we would have lots of Wikipedia-defined WP:RSs referring to RT as propaganda. You could replace "RT" with anything. --Nbauman (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fox News has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat  00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet people drag it in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of using whataboutism as a rhetorical technique, which is what this Fox News argument is. But if this type of argument were accepted, I'd point out that the Azov Battalion article currently describes the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi in the very first sentence, with no in-text attribution whatsoever, and the citations on that article are just a few news articles. In contrast, the RT (TV network) article has 7 high-quality academic sources for the propaganda descriptor which I've just reproduced in plus several other reliable sources in Special:Permalink/1077979219, and dozens of reliable news sources in . —  Newslinger   talk   11:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not a big fan of using whataboutism, yet you drag in what is likely the most contentious article in a long-term contentious topic area currently under Arbcom discretionary sanctions with a contentious Rfc going on now with reams of ink and walls of reliable sources on both side of the question filling multiple Rfc subpages to contain them&mdash;arguably the most contentious article on Wikipedia right now. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sourcing requirements for "have published propaganda" and starting off the article with "RT ... is a propagandist television network" should absolutely be different, should they not? I see your comment above made no distinction. For instance, it would be silly to argue that Voice of America has never published propaganda, but slapping the "propagandist" label on the first sentence of the lead of their article would be ridiculous. (Though, yes, there is a difference in degree here so RT's article should discuss their propaganda more prominently than VoA's) Endwise (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Voice of America has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat  00:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying. Examples and analogies can go along way in discussions like these and can be quite explicative. If you've argued (not saying Newslinger necessarily did) that sourcing which allows us to write that an organisation has published propaganda is sourcing which allows us to describe them as a "propagandist" organisation in the lead, then I could either attack that idea directly, or offer up a counter example which (if you agree with it) would mean the argument doesn't hold.
 * For an abstract example (see!), if we were discussing apples, and you said apples are yellow because we know that fruits are yellow, I could either try and argue directly that apples are actually green/red, or I could instead offer up a counter example which attacks your reasoning -- e.g., "but fruits aren't always yellow, for example, cherries are red!" If you were to then respond with "cherries have nothing to do with this discussion, we are discussing apples", I would assume you are either being dishonest or don't understand what we're talking about. Endwise (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I can write, I don't know: "Wikipedia is biased" on Google, and these "credible sources" will say that Wikipedia, is in fact biased. But we aren't going to get up and arms about it because they say that! This is something else, this is because people have western bias and think that RT is against their political view, its propaganda and they are wrong. Also, the Russian Wikipedia doesn't say that its propaganda. it just says that: "A number of politicians, media and media specialists characterize RT as a propaganda channel..." I think the reason for this is because the people writing this, are most likely Russian, and aren't western sympathizers so they aren't directly saying its propaganda. This is further proof that it only says that RT is propaganda on the site because of biasism. 2607:FEA8:B060:248:C00E:CF98:237C:84A4 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not necessarily ridiculous. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't support using the propagandist descriptor in the first sentence, which was added in Special:Diff/1077838994 before it was removed. I am primarily responding to the second question in the RfC statement. —  Newslinger  talk   11:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I support removing the word "propagandist" from the first sentence. Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why. We wouldn't put "liar", "stupid," or "ugly" into the first sentence of an article, and for exactly the same reasons we shouldn't put "propagandist" there. I don't oppose calling it "propaganda" in Wikipedia's voice; Category:Russian propaganda organizations does that. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support question 1 and 2 The lead in an article generally shouldn't have loaded language, especially such as "propagandist," without attribution. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also support removing the word "propagandist" from the first sentence. It's inclusion, though a reflection of truth, is also redundant in its use. It can already be safely assumed that by virtue of being a "state-controlled" media outlet that some amount of propaganda is being peddled.Writethisway (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose "propagandist" label: state-controlled news orgs often pump out propaganda, and RT is no exception, but slapping the label "propagandist" on them is silly and not something reliable sources tend to do either. It is far, far better to explain why people consider them to put out propaganda, as is done in the lead now in the third paragraph, rather than just slap a snarky and denigrating label on them. Endwise (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support removing "propagandist" from the first sentence. Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why., per HouseOfChange. This is better achieved by giving a fuller account later in the lead, rather than shoving the crude 'label' into sentence one. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Pincrete's reasoning. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove We need to avoid misleading readers by using descriptions that can be misinterpreted. RT is seen by some as part of a propaganda effort because it includes commentators that formerly worked for U.S. media and cover topics including foreign affairs and social issues that may make the U.S. appear in a bad light. For example, by covering the Black Lives Matter protests, they drew attention to Americans that the country had racial issues, which would undermine their confidence in their government. Without this explanation, readers might think that RT invented the protests. This should of course be explained in the text. TFD (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove since most media have some kind of agenda. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove word and label per above and WP:VOICE "Present opinions in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Eden5 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think it necessarily goes against WP:NPOV regardless of whether it has attribution or not, but as per the above comments I think it should be removed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove, because Russian state controlled already implies propagandist. It is egging on the obvious.--Seggallion (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove The claim against RT was that it served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S., such as former talk show hosts on mainstream U.S. media. So for example covering racism in America serves a propaganda purpose because it makes the U.S. look bad. But that does not mean the presenters' intentions are to do that or that their claims are false or exaggerated. Larry King for example was perhaps the most respected anchor in America and joined RT because it allowed him editorial independence. TFD (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In case you're interested, the "claim against RT" is not simply that it "served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S." The "claim" against RT is the same as the claim against all public and private broadcast media in Russia - with the previous exception of TV Dozhd, which, in the wake of the "special military operation" in Ukraine, was forced to close - is that it functions as an extension of the Kremlin. Anti-American (And you are lynching Negroes) content is only one part of RT's output, albeit the largest and most important feature of its output. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A search for the word "propaganda" in Völkischer Beobachter has 9 hits, Der Stürmer has 13 and RT (TV network) has 94. That to me shows that the article is trying to persuade readers rather than inform, which incidentally is the definition of propaganda.
 * I notice too that no editors have presented sources in this discussion. Most of the discussion I have read is about what talk show hosts and their guests said. But then that should be compared with CNN, which had Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and Piers Morgan.
 * It is more important to explain what RT does than to add another mention of the word propaganda to the article.
 * TFD (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the sources mentioned in my earlier comment. I've reproduced a selection of the ones currently cited for the propaganda descriptor in the form of a list in . See also the list in . —  Newslinger  talk   10:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "A search for the word "propaganda" in Völkischer Beobachter has 9 hits, Der Stürmer has 13 and RT (TV network) has 94. That to me shows that the article is trying to persuade readers rather than inform, which incidentally is the definition of propaganda." Wow. That's one for the ages. *head in hands*. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is unconstructive. If you have a point to make, you should explain it. TFD (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS, in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:NEWSORG, WP:PARTISAN, and WP:ONUS ("Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"). EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Not for first line - that phrasing of a summary judgement is contrary to WP:VOICE. I think starting an article with use of such a WP:LABEL just comes across as showing the article is heavily biased.   There is notable amounts of such concern, so the  article body should mention such comments in WP:IMPARTIAL manner and WP:DUE weight, perhaps even into a lower section of the WP:LEAD, but not in the first line.   Try to follow MOS:LEAD.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove – primarily per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which says: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." It doesn't say anything about including critical evaluations in the first sentence; in fact, the guideline goes on to say: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Given that the word propaganda is a contentious label, that seems all the more reason to keep it out of the lead sentence. I'm pretty sure that close to 100% of reliable sources would agree that RT is a "Russian state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian government", which is a factual, non-judgmental sentence, and that should be plenty for the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. Judgments (necessarily objective, even when uniform) about its propagandistic nature can be left for the remainder of the lead. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References (Request for Comment)
The following is a selection of the sources currently cited in the article for the propaganda descriptor, taken from Special:Permalink/1077979219.


 * Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."
 * Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."
 * Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."
 * Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."
 * Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."
 * Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."
 * Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."

—  Newslinger  talk   10:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Most of those statements come down to the lynching analogy. So for example, RT hired Ed Schultz after he was fired from MSNBC when they decided to reorient the network to the center. While it served the interests of the Kremlin to provide a platform for people critical of U.S. government policies, it didn't necessarily mean that those hosts were reading material written by the Kremlin. Larry King for example said that all his shows were prepared by his staff. I don't think he thought he was undermining Western civilization. I think it is better to explain how RT fulfils a propaganda function, rather than repeat the term propaganda 94 times without any explanation. Your sources in fact explain why RT fulfils a propaganda function. They don't just say "It's propaganda!" TFD (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda
There is an edit war regarding 'propaganda'. As far as I know the goal of RT is not propaganda of Russia as a successful land (there is such a recent video), but anarchization of the West, hybrid warfare. So perhaps not propaganda, but 'Hybrid warfare (Political warfare and individual terror)? Or Political warfare only?Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.state.gov/report-rt-and-sputniks-role-in-russias-disinformation-and-propaganda-ecosystem/ Disinformation and propaganda Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://newrepublic.com/article/165813/russian-propaganda-rt-america-end Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps i dont understand how the Wiki works, but having read the whole article i found a lot of acusations. Many by people of dubious relevance - the director of some obscure series? what does he know of this? Credentials? Another: ONE blogger?
 * Then, right next, lots of data disprobing those acusations. ( Amount of viewers and record views, for example )
 * And lastly, i could not find any example of straight out lies or misrepresentation of news in the whole page. Just praise for showing independent views.
 * So the Wiki paints the Outlet as a propaganda machine, but never shows the data. What is worse, the hard data it shows demostrates the reliability of the Outlet on those topics.
 * What is going on? 2803:9800:9996:74EC:4D:234C:82C2:8B39 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The propaganda descriptor is supported by sixteen citations to reliable sources, authored by 22 people, none of whom are "bloggers". "Amount of viewers and record views" are irrelevant when determining whether something is propaganda or not. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Using just the first of those citations as example, its a Times article saying that a disaster documentary was made by a Russian company. With interviews and points of view of local people, not russians. Propaganda? ok i guess.
 * Go to Section GUESTS, there you have your blogger and obscure director sharing their thoughts. And not as Guests.
 * Nevertheless im not speaking of obscure sources or political labels, but the plain text of the article using the Ratings/impact section as an example. Ok, i ll show it right here. The section starts thus :
 * "The RT website (as of March 2022), maintains that "since June 2012", RT has "consistently and significantly outperforms other foreign channels including Euronews and Fox News. RT’s quarterly audience in the UK is 2.5 million viewers"
 * Next are 10 lines of multiple falsehood accusations challenging that. Then it closes with :
 * " In the UK, the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB) has included RT in the viewer data it publishes since 2012. According to their data, approximately 2.5 million Britons watched RT during the third quarter of 2012, making it the third most-watched rolling news channel in Britain, behind BBC News and Sky News (not including Sky Sports News). "
 * Followed by another 7 lines finally the veracity of the opening RT Web statement and other positive observations.
 * This " format " is repeated over the whole place. Wich of the sources do i trust? All of them are supposedly reliable, but they contradict each other.
 * Re-read the article and everyone will find these inconsistencies all over the place. 2803:9800:9996:74EC:8460:E476:B944:63CA (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The first of the 16 citations for the propaganda descriptor is:
 * The citation from The Times that you are referring to is the first citation in the Wikipedia article, and is not one of the 16 citations for the propaganda descriptor. Additionally, your comment is conflating the number of viewers RT has with RT's purpose as a propaganda outlet; the number of viewers that RT has is irrelevant to the fact that RT is a propaganda outlet. —  Newslinger  talk   10:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The citation from The Times that you are referring to is the first citation in the Wikipedia article, and is not one of the 16 citations for the propaganda descriptor. Additionally, your comment is conflating the number of viewers RT has with RT's purpose as a propaganda outlet; the number of viewers that RT has is irrelevant to the fact that RT is a propaganda outlet. —  Newslinger  talk   10:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The term propaganda appears in the article 93 times, including footnotes. Instead of listing sources that refer to RT as a propaganda network, it would be useful to explain what they mean by this and provide their arguments.
 * As I understand it, the reason it was seen as propaganda is that it provided stories and opinions that tend to be ignored in U.S. media. For example, it broadcast a debate between minor party candidates for U.S. president, which major media had chosen to ignore. Since these candidates tended to be highly critical of U.S. foreign and domestic policy, broadcasting alternative views would undermine popular support for them.
 * TFD (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not what the cited sources say. Part of the reason RT is a propaganda outlet is that it has a history of publishing disinformation (14 citations) and conspiracy theories (7 citations). For example, "Kremlin-controlled news sources Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik reported that Macron was secretly gay, and that he was backed by a 'very rich gay lobby'". Reliable sources, including some U.S. sources and major media sources, ignored those types of "stories and opinions" because reputable sources tend to avoid publishing questionable content like that.Your "93 times" count is highly misleading, since most of those instances of the word propaganda are in the citations. Since reliable sources provide frequent and detailed coverage on RT's status as a propaganda outlet, the article gives this aspect of RT its due weight. The section does "explain what they mean by this and provide their arguments". —  Newslinger   talk   12:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote, "including footnotes." It's not misleading to mention them, because presumably articles with titles including "propaganda" are about accusations of propaganda.
 * Here by the way is in its entirety what Sputnik wrote when they "reported" that Macron was secretly gay: "In November 2016, Macron publicly denied a persistent rumor that he's secretly gay and living a "double life."" ("Ex-French Economy Minister Macron Could Be 'US Agent' Lobbying Banks' Interests," 09:19 GMT 04.02.2017)
 * Compare this with what was reported by Bruno Rieth in Marianne: "Emmanuel Macron...wanted to respond to the rumors that run about his private life [that] he is homosexual.""Rumor about his "double life": Emmanuel Macron comes out of silence" (11/03/2016).
 * So this isn't a case of a la Goebbels claiming that he is gay but saying "nudge nudge wink wink" there are rumors and using the fact that they had been reported in reputable media as plausible deniability.
 * I don't know btw if RT carried the story.
 * TFD (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW does this appear in the published version of the paper? TFD (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same text appears in the published version of the article, on page 209 of issue 1 (Spring 2021) in volume 37 of the Boston University International Law Journal, retrieved through HeinOnline. There is a difference between a magazine speculating on whether someone is closeted (gossip) and a state-controlled propaganda outlet speculating on whether someone is secretly backed by a "very rich gay lobby" (conspiracy theory).Due to the volume and prominence of reliable source coverage on RT's role as a propaganda outlet, this Wikipedia article needs to cover RT's role as a propaganda outlet in depth to satisfy the due weight policy. While some of that role is covered in the "Propaganda and related issues" section, I agree that the sources that are cited in the article can be further expounded upon in the article text. Due to the verifiability policy, these sources would need to remain cited in the article for such expansion to be possible, and also to adequately substantiate the article's current content.Almost all of the sources in the article were published before the enactment of the Russian 2022 war censorship laws (part of the Russian fake news laws), so there is also new coverage of RT's propaganda role that has yet to be incorporated into the article. —  Newslinger  talk   21:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Crosstalk
Did RT cancel Crosstalk? 73.230.160.102 (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the powers that be decided RT cannot operate in the western sphere of influence, so RT USA was canned through sanctions therefore all programs they made have ended, including the award winning On Contact with Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist because REASONS Apeholder (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)