User talk:Personal tv

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Press TV, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. MajorStovall (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Stovall,

I have carefully read and reviewed the entire publication information and boundary explanations. In the case of Press TV, they are not a publication, or a book to be able to reference to another valid "source" to "validate" the information they are claiming. The only solution available, according to your own Verifiability Policy, is to provide you with a document that is official and indicative of the claim we are making, which would be, they are a private corporation and the management do not work for the government of Iran. The Prior logic I provided in my previous edit was clear and comprehensive, not to mention logical. Wikipedia may not like the news opinions, news claims, news events, but that does not mean it comes from the government. I present a logical argument which I think would be the most prudent approach. Wikipedia should also claim on FOX NEW CHANNEL's, Wiki information the exact claim its making regarding Press TV. Simply FOX NEWS CHANNEL Wiki information should be changed too the following. "Fox New Channel is funded by the Republican Party. The annual budget of Fox New Channel is 25 million dollars. Fox New Channel broadcasts news reports and analysis that support the official positions of the republican party, and its programs are carefully monitored and directed by the republican party."

Please read the above statement and imagine how redundant and unsustainable it is. What Wiki has written, and now more exaggerated with indefensible, untenable, and flawed statements regarding its content and management with the new edit is becoming a blog rather than a Wiki content. I will not incite a word as "un-fair play," with the new content on Wiki, but its claims are as I mentioned above, all in all unsustainable and invalid. I do not see any more comprehensive or clear evidence of "source" or "verifiability" in the new edit as per your own clear standards, yet I don’t see Wiki changing these new edits either. So I guess we are all "monitored and directed," even Wikipedia.


 * Thanks very much for responding. You may want to post your thoughts on the talk page of the article, so they can be discussed. MajorStovall (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)