Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 6

Wikipedia Mouthpiece of the State Department
One subsection has "Mouthpiece of the Kremlin" for title. This piece of asinine propaganda seems to have been borrowed right from an English tabloid. Can an encyclopedia stoop so low without suffering any damage to its credibility? How would something like "CNN, mouthpiece of the White House" sound? Moronic! Anyway, the whole article reeks of propaganda warfare. At the very least, I suggest that the last three lines of the lead, which constitute an obviously propagandistic frontal attack on the TV network, be moved to the Criticism Section. Somewhat before the collapse of the Soviet Union, translations of the Pravda were circulated in the West so that people could have a good laugh reading them. I would hate to see Wikipedia meet such fate. Againstdisinformation (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The last three lines of the lead are also misleading. It is claimed there that "RT has been called a propaganda outlet...by former Russian officials" and that "It has also been accused of spreading disinformation". A quick analysis of the sources shows that the "former Russian officials" are in fact "a former Soviet KGB officer". This is doubly misleading, since it equates a singular with a plural and a KGB officer (working for the Soviet Union) with Russian officials (working for the Russian Federation). I wouldn't like to give the impression that I am splitting hairs, but accuracy is important in an encyclopedia. For the second claim, you have to read the source in order to know who made these accusations. So, I propose to modify the formulation to bring it in conformity with the sources. Againstdisinformation (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop using talk page after talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX, casting WP:ASPERSIONS as to the calibre and motivation of other editors, and basically disregarding all policies and guidelines that stand in the way of your Righting Great Wrongs. You are not Spiderman, and pointy section titles are a distinct no-no. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I told Ymblanter, who reverted the edit I allude to in the previous post that, prior to reinstate my edit, I would seek the opinions of others on the talk page of the article. Here is his answer: "This is certainly a good idea. I will not participate in the discussion though due to WP:INVOLVED--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)". Of course, I am not Spiderman and neither are you Wonderwoman. So, if you want to take part in the discussion, stay on point. Let us know why, in your opinion, the edit should or should not be reinstated. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an accurate description of the section's content and the sources. If you could find that many reliable sources that say "CNN is a mouthpiece of the White House" then we could put that in the CNN article. But you can't because such sources don't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't tried, but I tend to think that one could easily glean something very similar by skimming through Iran's or North Korea's media outlets. The section could then be fairly be described as an accurate description of the sources. Let's say, these countries' counterparts of John Kerry and Richard Stengel. I wonder how you would receive that, but I would certainly find it entertaining. Occasions for a good laugh are too rare. You see, I am neither RT's nor Wikipedia's protector but there are two ends of the publishing spectrum. On one end you find the English tabloid press and on the other, the scholarly publications. I leave it for you to guess in which direction I would like to see Wikipedia move. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "glean something very similar by skimming through Iran's or North Korea's media outlets" - you need to read WP:RS again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't need to read anything, I am quite familiar with WP:RS. You just don't seem to understand my kind of humour. I just wanted to point out that, to my mind, representatives of a government which has publicly stated that America is "engaged in an information war", specifically mentioning RT, can hardly be called impartial or neutral. While it is fair to report these views, Wikipedia should distance itself from them and not give the impression that it uses them in order to further a cause. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You were talking about CNN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about CNN. "CNN, mouthpiece of the White House" is just a mirror image of "RT, mouthpiece of the Kremlin" to underlie the absurdity, not to say the intentional partiality, of having a section bearing such a title. After that, adressing your reference to WP:RS, I challenged the sources cited in the section. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You "challenge" the sources based on what grounds? Your own WP:OR/WP:POV interpretation of how CNN and RT (or any other media outlets) are organised hierarchically? Have you written a thesis examining some form of parity between the two media outlets? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

On the grounds that when there are two parties to a conflict you do not have for sources exclusively the representatives of one party, presenting their assertions as incontrovertible facts. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not "just a mirror image". See false analogy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CNN informs about US internal problems and RT inform about US internal problems.
 * CNN broadcasts in English for Americans and RT broadcasts in English for Americans.
 * CNN doesn't care about Russian viewers and RT doesn't care about Russian viewers.
 * What is the difference between the two?Xx236 (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Clever, but inaccurate. They are both global networks, as are Al-Jazeera, Press TV and CCTV,. You know, these "enemies of America" in the "information war"Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC), to quote our betters. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And here comes the best (https://vk.com/topic-29115409_25209568?offset=120):
 * Американец:
 * -У нас полная свобода!Мы можем выйти к Белому дому и кричать:"Долой президента!"
 * Русский:
 * -И что?Мы тоже можем выйти на Красную площадь и кричать:"Долой американского президента!"Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Very funny! I wouldn't advise you to do it though, tasers hurt a lot. If you are really courageous, emulate Chelsea and see what happens. 35 years in jail, what a great democracy! Anyway, this is not the place for anti-Russian quips in Russian. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you seem to appreciate humour, I am sure that you'll appreciate this piece of the Indian variant. Mahatma Gandhi was once asked what he thought of democracy in the West. He replied, "well, that would be a very good idea". Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and you're still not WP:LISTENing. According to you, "... when there are two parties to a conflict you do not have for sources exclusively the representatives of one party, presenting their assertions as incontrovertible facts." That's known as WP:GEVAL. We're WP:HERE to follow RS, not to act as advocates for either 'party'. Please drop this WP:BATTLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We want to make this article better, let's limit us to RT, rather than solving fundamental problems of the world.
 * Russian anecdotes are part of Russian culture. If RT doesn't cover parts of Russian culture, it's bad for RT.
 * My knowledge of contemporary Russia is based partially on Russian Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is probably more reliable than any media, because it's created by many people rather than by a small group of leaders.
 * Please read And you are lynching Negroes.Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I read it but, you see, the argument is reversible:And you are putting dissidents in the Gulag. Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is English language Wikipedia so I have written about English language broadcasts. There is no CNN Russia, so there is no symmetry. CNN is watched by American people but RT isn't watched by Russian people, so there is no symmetry.
 * The EU doesn't have any media outlet to oppose Russian anti-EU propaganda, so there is no symmetry either.Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, they do. They have the BBC, which has long since lost any objectivity, Euronews, France 24 and others. As for the anti-EU propaganda, I hear much more of it coming from the UK. Anti-EU propaganda in the Russian media? Anti-Russia propaganda is the only game in town in the western media outlets. To the point that most people do no longer even see the levels of absurdity it has reached. Examples? Titles like "Anna Politkovskaya was gunned down on Vladimir Putin's birthday", (proof positive that it was a birthday present for bad Vlad), "Boris Nemtsov, Murdered in the Shadow of the Kremlin ..." ( probably the FSB cannot operate more than 100 yards from its master's den). Can't you see how preposterous it is. But I am not complaining, nowadays I read the western media like I read the Pravda when I was younger, just for fun. Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright I think this as gone far enough. This isn't a chat-room! Opinions on the state of the world's media or anything else will have zero effect on the content of this article. Bring relevant reliable sources or go and find something else to do!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you have a point here. We are lost in discussion. We should come back to our main task, improve the article. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, after studying this section (RT Mouthpiece of the Kremlin) in depth, I have reached the conclusion that it should be removed altogether. The title is certainly an accurate description of the section's content and the sources, but these sources are, in my opinion, not worthy of a section in Wikipedia. What are they? An ex KGB officer, russophobic bloggers, organisations which, like AIM, have been involved in conspiracy theories, media outlets which, like 'The Moscow Times', have beeen described by their own journalists as engaging in "biased journalism...robs the west of its moral authority" and, finally representatives of the US State department. Compared with these sources, RT looks like a paragon of objectivity. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the US State Department's opinion is significant. I'm seeing your argument as "I don't like it". I think the section must be kept. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec with Binksternet) The sources are Reporters without Borders, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, Lithuania's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Business Insider, New York Times, New Eastern Europe Journal and Moscow Times. So no, it shouldn't be removed. Likewise the views of Preobrazhensky and Illiaronov are notable and they are not being given undue weight. Same thing for Kerry and Stengal.
 * As far as AIM goes - yeah, I wouldn't use that as a source myself. I would be okay with removing the line about Kincaid's view, but that's about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the State Department has declared, through Clinton and Kerry that "America is losing the information war", mentioning specifically RT, given that you can read in 'The Guardian' that "former BBC director Peter Horrocks has warned, amid high-level concerns that Britain and the US are losing a global “information war” with the Kremlin." I do not see how these sources can be described as impartial, engaged as they are in a war against RT. As for the French NGO 'Reporters without Borders', it is funded by the NED (which is in turn funded by the State Department), by the Center for a Free Cuba and by the Overbrook Foundation, among others, and its leniency towards wrongdoings committed by NATO forces is proverbial. Let's forget The Guardian, it is in the final stages of Russophobia. Remains Christian Science Monitor. Their article is by Fred Weir, their Moscow correspondent, who can hardly be described as a Russia lover. I almost forgot Linkevičius. But then, the Baltic states are engaged in a competion with Poland for the title of the most anti-Russian Nation.
 * More seriously, the tone of the whole article is substandard, it lacks the neutrality befitting an encyclopedia. Any one reading it, even knowing nothing about RT, can see that it is biased. It is not harming RT at all, if that is the desired aim, it is harming Wikipedia's credibility. This is what I am trying to protect, not RT, about which I couldn't care less.Againstdisinformation (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use ":" rather than blank.
 * Please don't use words like "more seriously".
 * I agree that this article is substandard, because it doesn't present RT's agenda. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Againstdisinformation, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOR. If you think that the Guardian, CSM etc. are not reliable sources, and are all part of some "Russophobic conspiracy", then you're in the wrong place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And pray, what is this agenda? I have watched RT a number of times to decide for myself. Of course they are biased, but not more than the western media, like CNN for instance, which praised the invasion of Iraq to the sky (like Poland, I believe) and was adamant about the wicked Hussein's WMD. Watching RT, I have learnt a lot of things that are conveniently pushed under the rug by the corporate-owned western media. This article is a self-distructing rant, pasquinade I would say, which is corrosive not only to itself but, what is much more important for me, to the whole Wikipedia project. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is very funny to see the tricks you use to avoid all discussion. First, you depict me as a conspiracy theorist by attributing to me claims I never made: are all part of some "Russophobic conspiracy", then you invoke your "not a forum" thing so that you can dismiss me with you're in the wrong place, effectively blocking the debate. I am just pointing out that this article raises serious concerns. If you think the talk page is not the place for this, could you please suggest another venue? Or should I just keep quiet and do as I am told? Againstdisinformation (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "could you please suggest another venue?" - Any internet site which isn't trying to be an encyclopedia should work. Here we stick with reliable sources. If you personally believe that we should not then this project really isn't for you. There's no judgement in that statement. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the heart of the matter, what you call reliable, I call unreliable. You will surely have noted that, contrary to you, I have never suggested that this project really isn't for you. Therefore I would appreciate it if you refrained from making ad hominem remarks. Let us stick to facts. I maintain that the tone of the article, and especially of the section under consideration, is not the formal and neutral tone expected of an encyclopedia. It may be good enough for 'The Guardian' but not for an encyclopedia. Do you get the point? If so address the issue I am raising instead of making 'stealthy insults", to use a vocabulary I am sure you appreciate. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There was nothing ad hominen in my remark. Contributing to an encyclopedia isn't for everyone in the same way that, say, playing golf, isn't for everyone, or writing poetry isn't for everyone. By itself it doesn't say anything about you (the general "you", not the particular you) as a person nor does it reflect in any way on your character. In particular contributing to an encylopedia isn't for someone who believes, rightly or wrongly, that mainstream reputable sources such as the Guardian or New York Times or similar are "not reliable". A person who feels strongly about that should seek an alternative outlet for their creative energies, and best of luck to them.
 * And what is considered reliable isn't determined by me. I call "reliable" what Wikpedia policy calls reliabe; WP:RS. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am certain you would make a much better golfer than I could ever hope to be. You may think that what you read in the mainstream media represents the apex of intellectual endeavour and of honesty. But then, you must be very young. As for me, you may judge me unfit to edit Wikipedia but, when I was younger, I used to contribute on a regular basis to scholarly journals where my Wikipedia editing hobby would be considered frivolous. Therefore, once again, let's stick to the facts. Back in 2003, it might have been alright for the New York Times and Collin Powell to present Iraq's possession of WMD as an incontrovertible fact, c'est la guerre!, but it would have been deplorable to read that in an encyclopedia. I know you undrstand the parallel and I hope you won't try to dismiss it as irrelevant. You see, encyclopaedias and media outlets do not share the same criteria as to what constitutes the truth. Therefore I hope that you will present concrete proposals to improve at least the tone of the article. Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is CNN controversies, we can move some subjects to RT controversies.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "I am certain you would make a much better golfer than I could ever hope to be. " I very much doubt that. Putt-putt maybe. It's also not true that I believe what I read in "mainstream media" "represents the apex of intellectual endeavour and of honesty". I'm also willing to bet that I'm older or about the same age as you. So that's even more things you're getting wrong...
 * Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM. The article's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is your opinion. You have no mandate to speak for Wikipedia. For me, this the end of communications with you on this topic. I will seek other opinions, Cheers! Againstdisinformation (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinion seems to by in minority.--Galassi (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The ballot box may be good to ascertain what the majority wants, but certainly not to determine what is true or not. Neither are the media for that matter. in the same vein, would you say that the existence of the Higgs Boson has been shown if a reliable source like The Kyiv Post says so and that it would be propaganda if you heard of it on RT? Personally, I prefer to analyze the data from the LHC. What I want to convey to you through my example which, no doubt, you will rightly find laughable, is that an encyclopaedia must be much more prudent than a newspaper, even at the risk of being less exciting. The consensus must appear first in the outside world. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Analyzing LHC data would qualify as WP:OR and hence has no place in WP. Moreover WP wouldn't use any statements in the Kyiv Post (Kiev Post?) as a source for claims about the Higgins Boson, nor in the New York Post for that matter. Instead WP uses what articles in reputable science journals, reputable science bodies and institutes state about the Hoggins Boson.
 * As far as as RT.com is concerned, the claim that it is mouthpiece of Kreml seems rather common (and showing up in many reputable sources), so it can be mentioned in the WP article. This of course not the only view of RT.com and some other reputable sources might differ, if the differing assessment from reputable are significant enough they should be included as well. The sourcing isssues and WP approach aside, the "Kreml mouthpiece" claim is imho at least partially justified, though the quality of its various shows differ. Some of them are however miles away from being a paragon for journalism and roughly on level of Fox news (just with a different agenda, for instance Peter Lavelle or Max Keiser). They show absolutely no interest in journalistic standards and to provide the consumer with an even remotely objective and comprehensive representation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * At least you offer arguments, unlike my other opponents. I shall try to answer them. I agree with you that "mouthpiece of the Kremlin can be mentioned, if it is clearly attributed to sources; and WP distances itself from such clearly biased language. Imagine the outcry if a Russian encyclopaedia were to call CNN a mouthpiece of the White House, I think it would even be ridiculed, and rightly so. However, one could easily argue that the corporate- owned (as opposed to state-owned) media is doing exactly the same thing as RT, they act as stenographers of the State Department, they report as facts the narrative that is presented to them and they never pose any really challenging question. The difference is that we are so used to it that we do not even notice it. Please, cite one mainstream media outlet which challenged the preposterous and shameful Collin Powell address to the UN in 2003. I could go on and on, but I think you got the point. On the other hand, there is an incredible campaign mounted against RT by the likes of Kerry and Clinton. Let me say I very much doubt that RT's bias is their main concern, when they are themselves not above making such moronic statements as "Putin has no soul", "Putin is the new Hitler" (H. Clinton) or listing Ebola, Russia and ISIS (in this decreasing order) as the main threats the US is facing. And what is the reaction of the western media to such outlandish proclamations? None. In fact, what really frightens Washington is the gradual loss of its monopoly on the discourse. They themselves say that  Britain and the US are losing a global “information war” with the Kremlin." So they go into panic mode and resort to their usual trick, they point the finger to Satan uh, I mean Putin (this time). As for The Kyiv Post, it is a Ukrainian media outlet compared to which RT looks as a paragon of objectivity and, yes, it is amply cited as RS in WP (it's really spelled Kyiv). I am sorry, I have already been far too long. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have been too long... over and over and over on multiple talk pages. Please remember not to badger other editors until you're satisfied (i.e., they agree with you seems to be the point at which you're prepared to stop pushing your point of view). Take note of all the talk pages you've involved yourself in and be objective about who the elephant in the room is. You've asked me to address you without WP this and WP that, so I'm doing so. What you're not wanting to understand that contributing to Wikipedia is all about the WP this and that. WP:NOT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody is going to change their mind with an argument as weak as that one. The more you argue weakly against well-cited text, the more you will alienate other editors who might have been sympathetic. At this point you are becoming a net-negative rather than a constructive contributor. Please stop wasting the community's time. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know whose time I am wasting. I believe no one forced you to read this thread. It's incredible how the safety of anonymity makes people comfortable being rude like they would never dream of in real life. I wonder how you would react if I were to go to you and tell you that, as an audio engineer, you are a net negative to the community and you had better stop. I think it would deeply hurt you and you would not take kindly to it. Anyway, judging by your user page, you seem to be a nice man and I hope you will explain to me what is weak in my argument. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just my time that's involved—it's the community's. Every time someone posts on a discussion page it means that people who are watching the page will have some of their time taken by reading the post. That's why I try to keep my comments short, unless I'm making a long list for some constructive reason. I also try to be objective, to determine whether my comment will move things along, or whether I should just stay quiet.
 * Your posts here have been excessive, in my opinion. After you have explained your position once or twice, further explanation does not help. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The section title is not neutral because it makes a statement and furthermore it is slang. A mouthpiece is something that literarally is put in or to one's mouth, like part of a telephone. Any reason btw that the opinion of Accuracy in Media is presented as if it was a credible source? Has anyone posted their views about mainstream media to those articles? (For example, “the AP is following the pro-Communist, anti-freedom example of Herbert Matthews, The New York Times correspondent...AP misinforms its readers.") It reads like an attempt to throw as much dirt as possible, hoping some of it sticks, rather than a reasonable assessment of how RT is viewed in mainstream sources, which ironically is what we accusing RT of doing.  TFD (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe that working for Russian government were dirty? Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Russian Wikipedia says знакомит свою аудиторию с российской точкой зрения на важнейшие международные события. - which means presents Russian POV where Russian POV is the POV of Russian leaders, who control the RT. Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

'Russian POV' is the POV of Russian leaders? This looks like OR. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 *  It's incredible how the safety of anonymity makes people comfortable being rude like they would never dream of in real life. - Psychological projection?Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (I never made: are all part of some "Russophobic conspiracy") - but you accuse several editors to be central European anti-Russian manicheans(Sorry if I don't remeber your exact wording, please correct me), is the difference crucial? I don't remember to write recently about Russian dissidents in Gulag, which you accuse me. They are rather murdered than imprisoned. Russian law prevents creation of any opposition and the formal opposition is staged. Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember to write recently about Russian dissidents in Gulag,...They are rather murdered than imprisoned. Here we reach the point of absolute neutrality. Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just read the Russian version of this article. To my great surprise, I could not find any equivalent of the section 'Mouthpiece of the Kremlin', nor of the heavy-handed criticism of the whole English version for that matter. Could anyone explain to me this curious phenomenon? Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Xx236, lying about facts, which is what we accuse RT of doing, is dirty. TFD (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We are discussing here Mouthpiece of the State Department, not Lies of RT.
 * Do we accuse or rather reliable sources do? Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please read this essay as it applies accross the board for all the wikis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

By now I have read versions of this article in most major languages. Apart from the spanish version, whose lead is an exact translation of this one, including the infamous last paragraph, nowhere is such a full scale attack to be found and, strangely enough, in spite of my efforts, I could not find the heading 'Mouthpiece of the Kremlin'. I must say I find this rather confusing. In the good Soviet Union of old you could find encyclopaedic articles at odds with their equivalent in the rest of the world. On biology or quantum mechanics, for instance. But then I can explain why this is, while here I am at a loss. An idea, anyone? Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ofcom
The article quotes a 2014 article. There are plenty 2015 ones. See also .Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see the source you provided just says that they can't provide additional info relating to a freedom of information request. To the best of my knowledge OFCOM haven't issued any further rule-breach notifications not already included in the article. However I think that there may be investigations ongoing.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * RT UK covers similar aspects.Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Fresh from the OFCOM press. Three programs in breach (two for lack of impartiality, the other for misrepresenting the facts) and they also upheld a complaint against RT of unjust or unfair treatment made by the BBC. Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Farage
"a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin"

please stop adding such a WP:BLP violation - Govindaharihari (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion is above. There is no WP:BLPVIO, and please self-revert as I've asked on your talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing you have said or cited supports your position Govindaharihari (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: the discussion is taking place above ↑. Please state your case in the correct section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that "a confessed fan" or "admirer" of Putin is not correct but a rather misleading summary of the cited source (guardian) and you are not the only one complaining about this. But as you can see it from the discussion above, we have a few editors that seem to be hellbound to keep it as it is.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The source says that Putin is the politician he most admires. We should just say that. I don't see why quoting the source directly would be a problem, whereas a summary seems to e rejected on the grounds of word choice. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The source says that Putin is the politician he most admires for his skills as an aperator but not for his political positions (which Farange explicitly disapproves in that source). But being merely a fan or admirer usually implies approving of (most) his political positions, which is in direct contradiction to the source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * One can do the following: (a) let's remove "Guardian" as a source because it does not tell about RT (if I understand correctly), and leave only this source because it tells about Farage on RT, (b) that 2nd source should be quoted directly - as in my last version. This is not cherry-picking a quotation because there is only one phrase about Farage on RT in this source, and we quote only this phrase. If anyone objects, and there are other sources telling something different about Farage on RT, please bring them here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Buzzfeed is shitty source to begin with, which hardly usuable for disputed claims. The whole thing only had a leg to stand because the guardian seemed to claim something similar, which of course at a closer look it didn't quite.
 * However if you want to go that way, simply drop the description of Farage as "fan" or "admirer" and treat him like the rest of the guys in the enumeration.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are welcome to bring more sources (and I think that Guardian is fine, I suggested to remove the ref to Guardian only to resolve this dispute). No, we should not misrepresent this source by omitting relevant information (your suggestion), as has been already noted by an uninvolved contributor on the BLP . Here is what this source tells, and I strongly suggest to quote it directly in "...":

My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) This is the same discussion already happening, please do not continue it here. Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm with here. Stick close to the original (and cite the Guardian, not Buzzfeed) or say nothing at all. I have an idea for the entire section: drop the paragraph. The article is long enough, and namedropping is rarely helpful. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. In my view it is relevant to Farage, not to RT. RT is sufficiently criticised on its own merits that guilt-by-association is hardly necessary. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 09:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that or rather that's what I've been arguing all alone. That is, quote or paraphrase the guardian correctly/fully (i.e. a sentence rather a single word) or simply drop the disputed "admirer"/guilt by association quote or drop the whole name dropping paragraph. Or as a 4th option describe how Russia is utilizing Farage (or others) for propaganda purposes based on different source, bit not the current guilt by association shortcut. any of those 4 options is fine with me, just not the current one in the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, just as I said above, the publication in Guardian does not tell anything about RT TV and therefore should be used only in the BLP of Farage. However, this, this and this publications tell about Farage on RT TV and therefore can be used here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Maybe. But that doesn't mean we have to include it. That a politician appeared a few times and that someone said something about it is of little relevance to the network as a network. Also, do not cite Buzzfeed, ever. Either way, we have a motion on the table to scrap the paragraph full of namedropping, and a second. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, I do not understand why, in the discussion above, you felt the need to make a comment about me in your rebuttal of Govindaharihari. You keep saying that I do not understand WP policies. That may be the case, but it was irrelevant. In any case what I said was very simple; you cannot have a special treatment for Farage. No matter what or who the list is about you cannot single out a particular item for special treatment, unless you are biased. The inclusion of the comment about Farage had a clearly non-neutral purpose, this is why I removed it on sight (even though I am not a Farage admirer). If Obama made the comment "Putin is a great strategist" and subsequently appeared in a list of guests as "US president Barack Obama, a Putin admirer..." I am in no doubt that everyone would object, and rightly so. Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not on the contributor, please. My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we please stop creating new sections to make a point? The discussion was taking place in the dedication section above. Perhaps I should add a third and fourth section so that those who want to keep certain content can form consensus to keep it, others who want to remove certain content can form consensus to delete it, and others who want to just socialise can chat amongst themselves.

For editors who have been trying to work on this article for longer than a few day or a few weeks, most of the article stinks as the result of protracted edit warring. Half of the content reads as 'a list of programs I like' (so you, the reader should be made aware of them), guests I 'like/hate' and a general disarray of 'stuff' about why it's great/terrible. Is "Guests" somehow a rebuttal to "Choice of guests"? Every time attempts have been made to rethink the presentation and overhaul it, someone steps in and starts edit warring over a detail and dragging in as many users as they can to make their point. At this rate, the article is going to remain locked in as an article created by hundreds of drive-through IPs for perpetuity. Is there any chance of letting go of the details and discussing the general content formatting before locking horns over details again? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Againstdisinformation, if Obama made a public statement to this effect and didn't retract it publicly (wearing a home-made aluminium foil hat and swearing black and blue that aliens had been tampering with his brain), I'd be all over it like a rash because I'd know I was living in a parallel universe. Note, also, that 'guests' are not chosen randomly from the world's general community: they're chosen due to being notables in fields such as politics, the empirical sciences, or having written a 'kiss and tell' book on a celebrity they used to go out with. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy, this only demonstrates that you have strong a priori conceptions. Wikipedia might be better if it were edited by aliens, to use your funny sci-fi analogy. Have you really no idea of the reasons why this article has attracted so much controversy and edit warring? It is in itself a strong indicator that the whole article is flawed. Of course, RT presents a slanted view of international politics but the same is true of the western media (alas). Have such prestigious and of course, neutral media outlets as The New York Times or The Washington Post challenged in any way the Bush administration's narrative about Iraq's WMD in 2003? Are they, therefore, described in Wikipedia as "White House mouthpiece"? While I have no difficulty granting that there is propaganda on RT, I maintain that this article looks like counter-propaganda. And there will always be editors who, like the pesky Againstdisinformation, disagree with both its form and content. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not a platform for engaging in original research. We follow what reliable secondary sources say, and they tell us that RT is state owned. While information in Western outlets may be swayed by the interests of their sponsors and shareholders, they are not owned by the state. Any comparison between state censorship and self-censorship in this article or other articles on media networks/outlets are WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:COATRACK both here and for those articles. There are other article spaces in which such issues are tackled. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I never raised the subject of RT's ownership, but since you mention it, I will answer. In this article's lead, RT  is described as "a Russian state-funded television network", while in the article BBC one can read "The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the public-service broadcaster of the United Kingdom". What do you think would happen if I swapped the descriptions? I strongly suspect that some editors would be "all over it like a rash". My main point is that the article is not neutral, period. In my humble opinion, a good article could be read, even by evil Russians, without making them feel uneasy. As for the ludicrous mention of Farage's "admiration", thank god it is now gone. You see that my edits, controversial as they may be, can be constructive. Gadflies are pesky but sometimes useful. However, we are still left with "UKIP leader Nigel Farage has appeared on RT seventeen times since 2010". With the "Putin admirer" thing it was straightforward propaganda, now it's sheer nonsense. It leaves the reader to speculate why on earth  RT is so fond of Farage. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it leaves the reader to speculate why anti-EU, anti-NATO politicians are invited to the RT. Because they look better? Xx236 (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Farage is certainly anti-EU, like a majority of Britons, but it has escaped my notice that he is anti-NATO. You wrote above that "Farage is useful, because he makes the UE weak." (you meant EU I suppose). This looks like original research. I have seen a lot of criticism of the US and UK on RT, not that much of the EU. Againstdisinformation (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @ your previous posts have made me think you likely work (directly or indirectly) for RT or a related branch of the Russian government. Are you aware of Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest? Our goal here is to create accurate articles that give the reader a correct understanding of the subject, nobody has the right to not be offended, even these "evil Russians" of whom you speak. You are deluded if you believe you have helped the situation here. Because of vast experience I was willing to at least abstain on the proposal to remove the guests section even though I disagree with it. However you keep posting here so now I feel that I must oppose you, and work to further expose RT's laughable disinformation. Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you! But a broken clock is right twice a day--I'll let you decide who you want that in reference to. My thing is that a list of appearances doesn't do anything except drop names. Some names could be part of a general statement if that general statement is made in an impeccable sources (that is, not synthesized by us, suggesting something like X, Y, and Z appeared on TV so RT only invites blond/left-wing/disgraced people), but any names have to serve the purpose of illustrating the general statement. I think that here that general statement, or the attempt at one, is about cherrypicking guests, but we shouldn't be making suggestions. I noticed that even The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon or Late Show with David Letterman don't have such sections (those articles aren't bad even though they easily lend themselves to adding trivia). Something like List of Saturday Night Live guests is acceptable because guests there are an integral part of each show--but imagine if we had that for TV channels. Looking at the current "Guests" section in this article, the first paragraph is perfectly acceptable (at least at first glance) since names serve a purpose there, the purpose being argued by the secondary sources. The second paragraph is very different, and is created by simply adding up factoids. Perhaps the sourcing for that second paragraph provides a point, but that point isn't made explicit--and "an avowed Putin admirer" isn't acceptable unless the connection between Putin and RT is made explicitly in the secondary source, in a serious and well-investigated manner in an impeccable source. Sorry, that's a lot more words than I intended to write. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the connection between Putin and RT TV (described as his government propaganda machine) has been made in a large number of RS, some of which are quoted in intro of this page. Here is just a random example. There are many more.My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to argue that we should keep the section as is, you're absolutely right that it should not be a list of guests. As pointed out there is currently a "Choice of guests" section in Criticism. I believe it should be merged into this section. Farage stays but with a more detailed explanation of why RT are/used to be so fond of him. Same for the libertarians in the US with their views on foreign policy. Oh and lets not forget the bedroom dwelling Internet nut-jobs they so love to go to for "expert" option. Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

PS Iryna, I know you are knowledgeable about WP policies. So, could you let me know if there is a list of RS sources which have "imprimatur", or is everyone left to guess what they are by (placeholder)self? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Againstdisinformation (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies, the broken clock will from now on thank you twice a day. As concerns the inimitable Trappedinburnley, who thinks that I "likely work for some...branch of the Russian government", I won't accuse him of working for the CIA. Even though their standards of recruitment are not very high, I don't think they have sunken so low as to hire any paranoid crackpot who has fallen prey to conspiracy theories. I won't ask him to retract, since I know by experience that some editors are waiting for just that in order to fall upon me like the ten plagues of Egypt, trying to have me indefinitely blocked for not accepting "snippy remarks" with good humour. For the conspiracy theory minded, they should be more suspicious of My very best wishes. As usual, he gives links to web pages that are so biased that they could be featured in an RT documentary on Western propaganda. Finally, ,time to put your tin foil hat on, Trump just said: "Russia wants to get rid of ISIS. We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it. Let them get rid of ISIS." . I have once again fallen into the trap of addressing the criticisms leveled at me, pleasantly I hope. Next time, I will address only the issues. There is too much disregard for substance on this talk page.


 * Hey, that's not in bad spirits--I think you and I could get along. But really, no more. In this thread the one violation of various policies is not yours (but you're kind of pushing the line), and I'm going to leave a warning for it. Y'all, PLEASE keep it clean. I can disclose that I am not on the CIA payroll, but more importantly I don't feel INVOLVED to the extent that I won't block for further violations., I hate being strict and all. Maybe you can swing your cudgel around a little bit, just for show. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While there are Wikipedians who'd possibly argue for there being a list of WP:NEWSORG sources that are somehow bulletproof because they have a 'good reputation' and are 'fact checkers', I don't think you'd find many who'd argue that this is the case once op-ed and 'breaking news' pieces have been eliminated. There are yellow press/tabloid sources, as well as WP:BIASED sources that are fine for straight quotes from parties involved in the context of the article. The best way to get a feel for this is to search the WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN archives in order to see whether there has been ongoing general consensus about a secondary source, and variations on the theme for certain areas of Wikipedia where they are not necessarily deemed to be reliable. It still boils down to case by case scrutiny in situ. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He probably won't be replying (see User talk:Againstdisinformation). Guy (Help!) 11:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)