Talk:RT (TV network)

Heavily biased Article

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

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

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

If you read the source quote[1] fully:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank you for your time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just looking at the edit war in the history page on the first paragraph, it tells everything about the bias (I would say propaganda) . some people just won't allow anything non negative about this network. even if it is factual and legitimately referenced. It's pretty shocking. I used to rely on Wikipedia for information. now I very much hesitate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.8.238 (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's worth reading WP:NPOV and WP:RS. While one might argue that the quote "become a sort of Russia's BBC" is OK (and for that reason I've left it), the claim that RT is autonomous and non-profit are clearly in violation of previously mentioned wiki policies. Both were presented as NPOV facts, but if you actually read the citation you'll find that the only calling it that is RIA Novasti, the founder of RT. If I founded a company, any claims I make about the company are clearly not NPOV! To have this, or anything else for that matter, presented as indisputable facts you need to provide a reliable source where an uninvolved (=NPOV) source makes the statement. This contrasts to direct quotations; for example, the reason the "sort of Russia's BBC" comment arguably is OK is that the quotation marks make it clear where it originates -- directly from RIA Novosti, the founders of RT. 212.10.67.251 (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It was specifically reported as being founded to improve Russia's image, with involvement from Putin's office and funding by the government. No reliable source outside of RT itself has described it other than Russia state media:

Официальная презентация канала Russia Today, призванного формировать позитивный образ России у иностранцев, состоялась в начале июня. О том, что за его созданием стоит кремлевская администрация, в частности, пресс-секретарь президента Алексей Громов и советник главы государства Михаил Лесин (он был инициатором создания новостного канала, но, по информации Ъ, почти сразу после объявления о создании RTTV отошел от этого проекта), официально объявлено не было. Хотя первый заместитель Алексея Громова Дмитрий Песков подтверждал Ъ, что "в администрации президента идея Russia Today нашла понимание и поддержку". К тому же учредителем канала является государственное РИА "Новости", а финансироваться RTTV будет из госбюджета, для чего уже на 2005 год выделено $30 млн.

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

This is the relevant section of Moscow Times article. A short summary should be in the Response to allegations section. It doesn't have to be in the lead:

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

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

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

It also would help to find if there are other more varied or nuanced opinions. CarolMooreDC 19:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Russian state is the sponsor and backer of both RIA Novosti and RT. And what is "independence?" Simoyan has also stated that no one calls her from the Kremlin daily to censor news. That ignores the point that the Kremlin doesn't need to call. @Carolmooredc, I regret that Novosti/RT pablum does not qualify as nuanced input. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Vecrumb: I clearly said "more varied or nuanced opinions" applied to other sources. Please read more carefully. But again there is no problem with using them to reply to their critics who themselves all sound like they are towing some party line; thus need for other opinions that might actually be a bit more objective. At my leisure. CarolMooreDC 01:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The original author of the additions in the lead and their primary defender (seeing that he/she re-added it numerous times over the last month when removed by other editors) has re-added "autonomous" yet again. The user is entirely right in saying that a source does not have to be NPOV, but wikipedia should be NPOV. However, this isn't about someone removing a reference; this is about a sentence in a wikipedia article that presents claims by RIA Novosti (the founder of RT) as NPOV facts – in the very first sentence of the lead! Seeing that previous comments in this discussion only pointed to overall policies, I'll point to the exact sections that are relevant.

• WP:LEAD, third paragraph, quote: "The lead should [...] be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view"
• WP:NPOV, specifically WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts"; "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts" (the autonomy of RT is seriously contested; just see the Controversies, criticisms and response section in the wiki article), etc.
• WP:V, specifically WP:ABOUTSELF: The claim is self-serving; it's in their interest to say that RT is autonomous, and not just a mouthpiece of themselves, the founders (& consequently the Russian Gov.).

Using the same logic, I could add the following to the lead of both Barack Obama's & Mitt Romney's article: "Would be a better president than [the opponent], who would be disastrous." After all, they both said it, as did their close allies in the respective parties. Or I could find all the sports clothing companies and add that they make "the best clothes for use in sports". Most companies and their founders say that about their own products. Consequently, I removed the "autonomous" claim and pointed to this discussion (again) in my edit summary. Should someone feel the urge to re-add the claim, I would be very interested in knowing why we should disregard two (WP:NPOV, WP:V) of the core content policies on wiki. 212.10.83.72 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Moscow Times cite - not credible

"2nd most watched foreign news network in the U.S." - VERY dubious. The cite comes from Russia, so . . . I think this is pretty much a fantasy, as the RT is pretty much home on YouTube videos and not American living rooms. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is the non-Russian Inter Press Service. It seems reasonable since there are few foreign news networks that focus on international news. TFD (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In the past I looked for other sources since I figure someone somewhere must be keeping score on these small cable news stations and putting in on line, but no luck so far. CarolMooreDC 21:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The RT release only talked about beating out Deutsche Welle and Al-Jazeera in a major market. That doesn't necessarily translate to a nationwide viewing demographic of "2nd most watched." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

POV cuts without explanation

It looks like editor Festermunk, while gutting properly ref'd "favorable" info, has put in negative new material, all without edit summaries. Obviously POV edits that need to be dealt with in an NPOV way. Festermunk also obviously has problems with the English language which have to be dealt with also. Must finish some actual housecleaning first. CarolMooreDC 20:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if we have one or two people editing as Anon IPs, but edit warring with Festermunk isn't helping. I have left a message on Festermunk's talk page about reporting him and will mention both IPs if discussion doesn't happen here. I'd ask you two or three to stop editing so other articles can do an NPOV version. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So that's what it is. I DON'T LIKE THE FUCK YOU ARE DOING SO REVERT YOUR CHANGES OR ELSE. Figures. At the very least, can you be more specific with your NPOV accusation? What specific section of NPOV am I violating? WP:UNDUE? lacking in an impartial tone? Or just not being neutral? Festermunk (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all you might try being a big more civil.

This section was just a heads up about my reverts and/or relevant edits to come; I intended to explain whatever of my reversions and/or relevant edits you disagreed with. I still may do that if there isn't continuing nonsense.

However, one or two Anon IPs did more radical reverts than I intended to before I got a chance. Nevertheless, according to WP:BRD - Bold, revert, discuss cycle - you should have discussed this after the first Anon IP first reverted you instead of edit warring with the Anon IP(s). So you really should be explaining all your edits at this point. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 03:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything, the entirety of your accusation amounted my edits being POV without even a reason as to how or why they violate NPOV. "So you really should be explaining all your edits at this point." Why? As far as I can tell they haven't violated any Wikipedia guidelines, so what is there to explain? Festermunk (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is a case by case basis. But now that the article has been protected for a week (!) we have lots of time to go through all the problems with the article. I'll start with two momentarily. CarolMooreDC 04:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Programming, presenters and guests

Three things that need clarification or more info:

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

Proposal on ownership issue

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

RT, also known as Russia Today, is a government-funded autonomous, non-profit global multilingual television news network based in Russia. It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the government-controlled news agency RIA Novosti with the purpose of becoming "Russia's BBC". RIA Novosti asserts that it "merely participated in establishing the channel" which retained "complete legal, editorial and operational independence."

(Relevant sentence from History Section): The network was launched by the government-controlled news agency Ria Novosti in 2005. In its early years about half of the network's budget came from the state and the other half from banks and companies friendly to the government.

References

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

Thoughts? Please do not edit the above, but copy relevant text for counter proposals. CarolMooreDC 05:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It it is clear that "autonomous" is in conflict with several wikipedia policies, as described here. Other than that, it looks good to me. RN1970 (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Having read the entire article again, it is also clear that the controversies are sufficiently important to justify a brief mention in the lead. This can be done quite easily and in a NPOV manner by adding a sentence that mentions both sides of the argument. "Western media has accused RT of having a pro-Kremlin bias, but this has been denined by RT, which asserts it simply presents media from a Russian viewpoint." Perhaps the exact wording should be modified, but something along those lines. There are plenty of references for both sides of the argument in Allegations of pro-Kremlin bias and Response to allegations. RN1970 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

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

Don't be a smart ass RN1970. wikipedia has become the ultimate propaganda tool. So the Western corporate controled MSM is pissed off that RT is making them look bad. the whole first paragraph should be according to RT own official statements. I'm sick and tired of this game. wiki is loosing all it's credibility on most if not all "controversial" subjects.

I must add that Carolmooredc is the exception 79.176.2.22 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for your pro-Putinist garbage. Also, as the user rightly mentions, calling someone a smartass because he/she is showing how to properly follow you Wikipedia guidelines isn't the smartest thing to do.Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:PA. Calling someone "smart ass" because he points you to the Lead Manual of Style (or for that matter using kissmyA as an edit summary) is counterproductive. RN1970 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

RT, also known as Russia Today, is a government-funded global multilingual television news network based in Russia. It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the government-controlled news agency RIA Novosti with the purpose of becoming "Russia's BBC". RIA Novosti asserts that it merely helped establish the "autonomous non-profit organization" which retains "complete legal, editorial and operational independence." Western media has accused RT of being "state-run" and controlled by the Kremlin, but RT has responded its "mission of news with a Russian perspective" is similar to other government funded media outlets like the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC"), France 24, Germany's Deutsche Welle and the United States' Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

References

On a personal note, while I have seen bias in RT, especially since Putin came back into power, I don't see it as much more biased than other govt controlled stations I've watched - not to mention MSNBC owned by the (Dem Party) "government friendly" General Electric which is so bad I only watch it when Republicans are in the white house since at least you'll get an opposing view of govt action then! However, RT does allow popular critics of the US govt and its allies that you'll never see on US channels - and a lot of mainstream people expressing views they are NOT allowed to express there. So just as Voice of America was very biased during the Cold War, it did let voices into populations they might not hear otherwise. Glenn Greenwald makes a good case, though it could be structured in a more NPOV way. And hopefully other sources making similar points can be found to make this article more NPOV; as well as cutting down some of the repetitive and even hysterical WP:undue finger pointing. CarolMooreDC 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Second try" version looks good to me. RN1970 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

More irrelevant pro-Kremlin soapboxing. "RT does allow popular critics of the US govt and its allies that you'll never see on US channels" Whatever happened to foreign interference and meddling? Good point with the Glenn Greenwald structuring though, I'll do that after this it becomes unprotected.Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

the first few lines :"RT, also known as Russia Today, is a government-funded[1] global multilingual television news network based in Russia. It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the government-controlled[2] news agency RIA Novosti with the purpose of becoming "Russia's BBC".[3]"

Are completely unacceptable. No other western news network intro is opened like this. every second word government funding this.. government control that. unless you change all other WK networks articles intro. this is not NPOV Don't talk about funding etc in the first few lines. it looks like a piece of propaganda. you can write about it further down the intro For god sake say something positive first (youtube viewing, USA hi viewing etc) Thanks Carol79.176.2.22 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Take out the Russia's BBC part it's unjustifiable as lead information because it fulfills none of the purposes of lead information i.e. define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, though it does reek of a pathetic attempt at a tu quoque fallacy.Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It is a direct quote from the channel's editor-in-chief from the day of RT founding. this is why RT was founded. Choke on it Festermunk.109.64.16.50 (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I, much less Wikipedia, could give a two fuck if it's from the channel's editor-in-chief it still has to abide by Wikipedia outlines on that what is appropriate content to be included in the lead. Now I'll choke on that, but not before you die first. Festermunk (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I missed this comment about the lead from 79.176.2.22 above: RT intro should not be apologetic or defensive at all. Good point and I can see that it could be toned down and moved down to last paragraph of lead, not the first.

I was thinking that some of the older criticism (and responses) should be presented as part of history, since what was relevant before it started and in first couple years should not be presented as relevant today. (I did put comments in chrono order in one controversy section but not all them.)

Also, controversy section should be cut as WP:Undue and may have to be separated between RT/USA and RT/English if it is clear one rather than the other is being criticized.

"Also, controversy section should be cut as WP:Undue" Don't be ridiculous. I guess the thought of cutting the controversy section on grounds of WP:UNDUE is WP:UNDUE itself never crossed your mind did it? Festermunk (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically there are a lot of different issues to deal with to make it truly NPOV, so what I think I'll do is just make a rewrite in text document and put it on one of my Sandboxes. Will report. CarolMooreDC 19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversies of RT staff section and the sliming down of the responses section

[1], [2] and [3] - So what is the problem with these three changes to the article? Festermunk (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

First, with the edit warring, it was easy to loose track of what Festermunk deleted and added. Given it's another article where criticism of the subject's politics is greater than actual descriptions of them, one tends to be suspicious of certain patterns of deletion and addition.

Having now reviewed it more carefully, in both cases it's not so much the content as the unnecessary repetitiveness and wordiness in both criticism and responses. (And of course out with that paragraph somebody stuck in there about the real casualty numbers in Georgian war.) A bit more from Greenwald can be quoted than what Festermunk cut (plus some criticism of Assange show which prompted it). Also, I'm discovering that some articles that were used ONLY for their criticisms also have interesting neutral info that can be used elsewhere in the article.

Otherwise it's more about adding historical content, examples of speakers who don't sound like nuts, cleaning up presenters section, and probably removing most of "Availability" section which is unsourced and probably at least partially out of date. What's in the Corporate profile and any other sourced info (like recent contract for HD worldwide coverage) also can be added. I actually have done most of that already and will put up on my talk page soon. (Yardwork calls tomorrow...) CarolMooreDC 04:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

1st paragraph: complete non-sequitur. Where is this other article I am edit warring on?

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

The Greenwald Quotes should stay in full. They address in a precise and practical way all most criticism : Evil state run, Evil state control, and the ludicrous bias and hypocrisy of the detractors.

The only reason anyone would want to shave that section off , it is because his words are very profound and to the point. and takes away the whole "distinguishness" of the criticism.

If you want to keep this Article NPOV these quotes must stay fully.

If you want to make it a piece of Western MSM propaganda, why go round about it? just write "RT is an EVIL EVIL EVIL UNTRUSTWORTHY News network broadcasting from Putin Wine cellar ". all other info is not needed according to WP:UNDUE WP:NATO WP:CFR WP:LOBBY WP:FESTERMUNK ::::109.64.32.41 (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

NOT WP:undue has to be applied to all views. Also I found some positive comments from Danny Schechter and I'm sure more can be found. With those two, and especially with more, we can have a section on analysis or supporters or something, either before or after criticism, with this material. Also, once you list a number of the impressive guests they have had and explain in history about their philosophy and aggressive approach, there is a more complete NPOV view of the station. Research, not rants, is the solution to the POV problems. CarolMooreDC 22:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Research, not rants is the solution to the POV problems." Given, though you first have to know how to do the research are before you can actually do research. "WP:undue has to be applied to all views" Is that why you are so adamant in deleting the "Criticism of the staff of RT" section? Or why you are so adamant in citing three blocks of quote from Greenwald's one article (and some more as per your suggestion)? Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is worth keeping in mind that WP:UNDUE is about prominence of viewpoints (in reliable sources) vs. amount of weight in the article. It is not about making sure con/pro sections are of the same length, or making sure anybody looks good, bad or neutral. If we look at the references in the current version of the article, the difference is clear. If we disregard statements made by RT itself, there isn't much pro-RT in the response section. The Moscow Times and Luke Harding simply quote statements by RT's editor-in-chief, CBS News quotes the staff of RT, and Variety magazine quotes a senior journalist+sources at RT. We're basically down to Thomas Hammarberg and Glenn Greenwald, and comments by the former can barely be called pro-RT ("likely to be significantly higher than the dozens mentioned by Human Rights Watch" is a long way from saying RT was right in 2,000). The only indisputable pro-RT comments are by Greenwald. Certainly a significant source and so is Schechter, but they don't equal the quite large collection of sources in the criticism section: MosNews, Reporters Without Borders, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, The New Republic, Standpoint, Accuracy in Media, The Economist, Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Watch, and The Independent (+New York Times, the article Greenwald responds to).

Since the criticism is aimed at them, the responses by RT are very relevant and definitely should not be removed, but it would be equally problematic under WP:UNDUE to remove large sections of information from the criticism section, or remove the essence of Greenwald's comments from the response section. However, in both the pro/con sections some things could perhaps be merged, wording could be tweaked, additionally relevant sources could be located, etc. The huge, triple Greenwald quotes seem excessive, and we could easily capture the essence of his article by shortening it (a minor secondary issue, quotation marks aren't used in block quotes→WP:MOS). It would be equally odd if someone insisted on having huge quotes for every significant source in the criticism section instead of just a few sentences that capture their essence.

"Availability" section: This section hasn't caused much controversy among editors. If I'm right in that assertion, I would suggest following WP:NOCITE instead of deleting it all now. The template {{more footnotes|section}} isn't perfect, but it can be used if people think {{cn}} at the end of each sentence is too much. I think the relative lack of information that isn't part of the criticism/response section (e.g. they have several noteworthy programs) is a larger problem than the criticism/response section. RN1970 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're taking words out of my mouth; I tend to support most of your reasoning and proposals. As for other supporting material mentioned by CarolMooreDC - sure, if it does exist, it belongs to the article (taking into account WP:WEIGHT), but i think that it should be either 'Criticism' and 'Support' sections, or 'Criticism' and 'Response to Criticism' - and not three sections ('Criticism', 'Response to Criticism' and 'Support') - IMHO, such three sections would violate WP:WEIGHT Ipsign (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT has destroyed Wikipedia's credibility for presenting the full picture. I have seen it time and time again. It is mainly used to suppress dissenting views from Government and MSM sources (which are both bought and payed for by a minority of the 1% super rich) .The authentic way would have been to allow the minority view to be expressed and presented fully, then simply explain why they are wrong point by point (if there is really a case. let's find out !). and to mention where the professional "consensus" stands this moment. but Wikipedia avoids that methodology and it makes it highly suspect of its motives. I am not a supporter of RT but i am very happy that they broadcast everything the "usual networks" avoid and suppress at all cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.18.160 (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

More soapboxing. Come back when you're ready to drop the paranoid left-wing chip on your shoulder.Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a Wikipedia policy; basically, if you disagree with it - you have two options: (a) discuss it on talk page of the policy and achieve consensus to change it; (b) to start your own online encyclopedia elsewhere. In any case, this page is a very wrong place to discuss Wikipedia policies. Also please note that we're here not to find WP:TRUTH or to promote point of view which we are passionate about, but merely to reflect (in a balanced way) points of view which already exist out there (this BTW equally applies to User:Festermunk); we are not the ones who decide what is 'right' or 'wrong', we're just summarizing what is out there (which is the whole point of any encyclopedia - to summarize existing knowledge, not to create new one). Ipsign (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

The article on RT from Slate magazine has got opinions from both sides: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/06/pravda_will_set_you_free.2.html

Here are also segments of RTAmerica Channel, Anchor Lauren Lyster responds to criticism under the headline "war on RT" etc. In chronological order (2011-2012): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-P1sybv_B0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI5n6RmAfMA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXvH4X9lweI109.65.18.160 (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Youtube doesn't qualify as a reliable source so unless you have some other source for Lyster's whining I suggest you don't put that in the article. Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It qualifies beautifully under WP:NOYT

In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed.

The above Lyster sources authenticity are confirmed. they are hosted on RT America official YouTube Channel.79.183.20.193 (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice how you are missing the last part, which says, "...should be used with caution" So even if you could establish authenticity, that isn't sufficient to use the Youtube clip. Festermunk (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct. While it helps if some nonYoutube source first makes the statement, especially in things like responses to criticism Youtube can be used IF the youtube channel is credible (not likely to have re-edited the clip especially). Also for the ref to remain people CAN ask for the minutes the statement to be use to be posted and I do ask for that. One ref is sufficient; if need two, would help if quote a bit from each clip so we'll know which references what. CarolMooreDC 12:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I really did work on this article for the last week finding more WP:RS (and using existing ones) to beef up the article so that it's more than just a hit piece with dated factual information. (Thanks for Slate. Missed that!) Happily there is some good analysis to add. As well as some good responses to some of the criticisms. But I'm going to start by cleaning up the factual areas which are less controversial. Then we can work on the more controversial stuff. CarolMooreDC 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that I do probably have better responses than Lyster's about western criticism, though I haven't listened to her tapes. If she talks about things that ref'd other wise as well, it might be relevant to discuss her comments. More description of what she says, or even better a preview here of what you want to use would help. But linking any of her complaints to WP:RS would help a lot. Just too vague. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

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

A request to Semi Protect this article indefinitely

The RT article is prone to vandalism and absurd negative POV pushing. I recommend putting it under semi protection or even full protection once CarolMooreDC introduces her final edit to the entire article (the Intro and criticism/response area especially) which she has been working on for the past week . I am curtain she will execute it in a balanced and NPOV way.79.183.20.193 (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That usually means that Anon IPs can't edit. Blocking individuals who repeatedly edit war from editing the article is a better idea. CarolMooreDC 12:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Descriptors of individuals

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

Making Criticism and Controversy more NPOV

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

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

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

Per my past promise, and discussion below, I did try to make it more NPOV by making the section shorter (removing repetitious or low quality allegations), integrated responses into each section, putting staff issues where belonged, etc.

There were a lot of new references in the Margarite Simonyan section which I have to evaluate, but I've done enough for tonight. A quick look made it clear that one source was not WP:RS and use of some refs was WP:OR. There are a couple relevant things about Simonyan that belong in history or Kremlin bias section and some other material that could be used elsewhere in the article. Hopefully I'll have a chance to look at all that before Festermunk returns and just reverts everything or throws the Simonyan material back in as is. CarolMooreDC 02:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV info on RT viewpoint

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

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

According to Marcin Maczka RT reporters examine world issues such as the financial instability and fiscal crises, financial and banking scandals, corporate impact on the global economy, and demonstrations of “outraged” protesters. Commentaries focus on human rights, curtailing armaments, environmental protection, social inequities, and natural disasters. News from Russia is of secondary importance and such reports emphasize Russian modernisation and economic achievements, as well as Russian culture and natural landscapes. In 2008 Stephen Heyman wrote in the New York Times that in RT’s Russia, “corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy. And concerns about street thugs, poverty and Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership trump fears over Vladimir V. Putin’s grip on power.” Marcin Maczka writes RT has "attracted experienced journalists" and that "the reports are competent and dynamic."

A response to these issues from User: Festermunk would be appreciated since lack of them is not collaboratative and makes me wonder if he will just summarily delete a subsection on guests that has more such NPOV and NOT highly critical info. CarolMooreDC 19:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

First off they weren't removed, they were relocated to other sections of the article (e.g. the Cohen block was moved to the Responses section). Second, there's no way somebody reading the Heyman article could come to the conclusion that it wasn't a criticism of RT, especially in the context of the paragraph in the article so unless you can provide convincing reasons as to how Heyman's paragraph (or article) supports RT, I suggest you don't put that in the "Programming and Presenters" section. I will add back the Maczka quote though, point taken, but not without a qualifer. Festermunk (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk, you don't seem to realize that someone can have neutral or merely descriptive statements in an article that also includes harsh criticism. I think Heyman's sentence is in that category: In 2008 Stephen Heyman wrote in the New York Times that in RT’s Russia, “corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy. And concerns about street thugs, poverty and Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership trump fears over Vladimir V. Putin’s grip on power.” At least certainly compared to the crude attacks you and others have included in the criticism section! CarolMooreDC 21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

RT Article Intro (LEAD) POV

The current lead is :

RT, also known as Russia Today, is a state[1][2]/government-funded[3] multilingual Russian-based television channel. It describes itself as an "autonomous non-profit organization"[4] and retains "complete legal, editorial and operational independence."[5], although other sources have described it as pro-Kremlin.[6][7] Founded by the state-owned[8]RIA Novosti in 2005, RT, according to its corporate profile, "covers the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more."[9]

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_24

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.7.155 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 

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

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

from WP:OSE :

Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid.

When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.

Who are you trying to fool ? do you really think anybody here is buying your B.S ?79.183.7.155 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's your burden to prove that it should be used correctly, not mine. All you've been doing so far is whining about is how BBC and other article's leads are "npov" therefore RT should be too. Festermunk (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

See what happens when people don't take warnings about edit warring? Hopefully, some of the other editors who got fed up with it will at least opine on talk page now.

The lead has been put back to an earlier fairly NPOV version. The newest version was a bit too cheer-leadership. However, info about how popular the channel has become worldwide is necessary in the lead, including to make it clear WHY some in the Western media especially attack it. They just don't like competition.

I'm a bit burned out today and don't have the energy to see if there's something missing from my original version that might be moved back up. Maybe tomorrow. Will re-add Western media point somewhere also. Plus work in new material to my version of a more NPOV Criticism section and decide if to just be bold or to put on a separate page. ::In either case, I soon will do an RfC on that topic since I don't want to be fighting just with Festermunk whose negative POV is a bit much. CarolMooreDC 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't give me this crap about not taking edit warring seriously, I was in the process of reverting my last edit when I had to leave work and couldn't be bothered to care about this after work where I actually have a life to live, hence the four reverts instaed of the three. Festermunk (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The earlier Lead was exactly formatted like BBC World News, The German News Network etc Leads (check it). How then can it be POV? The current one is certainly not NPOV, it is founded on Western media allegations which are demonstratively not true (other Network mission statements) And just competitor slander. I am not sure you are even aware of your prejudice. in US and Germany it is called "federal Funded" but in the case of the Russian Federation (a democratic country) it is called "State funded" or "government owed" as if it was North Korea or some other Dark dictatorship. this is textbook propaganda.

I would think my other additions that were "collateral damage" of the big revert are good ones. (Response to allegations + the Margarita Simonyan chapter under "Criticisms and controversies of RT staff members"). I cannot edit the article for the next 2 weeks, while Mr. Festermunk received just a 48 hours block. All Heil WK Justice.79.181.23.90 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will compare articles and see what else lost. I do agree articles should be fairly similarly formatted in lead, but also have to recognize the greater hostility and explain from NPOV sources. And there have been a lot of different defenses, for sure, so deciding which to use where is an issue.

It would help if "you" actually registered as a user since if it is just one "you" who comes up as all these separate IPs and this has been defined asIP hopping". It easily can lead to WP:meatpuppet and WP:sockpuppet accusations which can lead to each of your IPs as you use them being banned permanently. Might even cause problems for the company hosting your IPs - Bezeq International - if it is a small one or you are only one editing from it, depending on the Admin in charge, especially if they should get the idea it's any kind of conflict of interest for whatever reason. CarolMooreDC 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments on NPOV

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

The idea of this section is to start itemized discussion, and to come to specific proposals. When replying (and expressing support/objection), feel free to refer by item number. Oh, and please try to keep discussion civil, and avoid personal attacks and foul language (BTW, IMHO, both IP editor and User:Festermunk are on the verge of blocking for disruptions); also please refrain from making generic statements (like those criticizing Wikipedia in general and specific policies in particular) in this section (policies should be discussed on policy talk pages, not here). Ipsign (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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

79.177.30.60 (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Ipsign: An NPOV certainly appreciated!

1 - I actually do have a couple refs for "WHY Western media criticizes RT" which were removed and put back. I am not sure if they are strong enough to put in the lead. I guess I should try to make my changes before Festermunk comes back and starts reverting away.

3 - But I'll stay away from lead for a few days cause I actually do have such a shorter and merged criticism section which I was holding back on til the behavioral problems dealt with. Will work on tonight and just put it in there.

6 - I think it's ok to say RIA Novosti describes itself as an "autonomous nonprofit" though whether in lead or in responses is the question.

AnonIPS 109.65.31.96 and 79.177.30.60: If you are same person it would help if you identified self as such. From now on I guess we'll have to check geolocates of all AnonIPs and if they all are from Bezeq International assume they are same individual and count the edits towards 3rr. More civil behavior also helpful so we can come up with a good article. CarolMooreDC 23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your recent edits; IMHO, the article became significantly better (much less bulky and easier to grasp) by casual reader; can't see the forest for the trees effect was significantly reduced, and this is a good thing. Obviously, there is still (and there always be) room for arguments about POV balance, but what is most important is that the article already became (IMHO) significantly better, so we can take it from here. Now to more minor points: a) can you paste those refs (on "WHY...") here on talk page (even if they're already in the article, it is very difficult to locate them there)? b) I do not object to quoting RIA Novosti as saying that RT retains "legal, ... independence" - and I tend to agree it does belong to the lead - but only as long as it is not asserted as a fact, but appropriately attributed to RIA Novosti (for example, as something like It describes itself as an "autonomous non-profit organization"[4] intending to cover "the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more."[9] RT was founded by the state-owned[8]RIA Novosti in 2005 under the name "Russia Today"; according to RIA Novosti, RT retains "complete legal, editorial and operational independence."[5]. c) as for IP editor - IPs on RT page from Bezeq International have already been identified as the same person per WP:DUCK (and BTW also block avoidance was identified) on SPI; action was not taken at the moment because disruptive activity has ceased at the time of SPI (it was done when the page was protected); so yes, we can assume that IP edits from that provider and in the same style do count against WP:3RR. Ipsign (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked it a bit more after a night's sleep. To respond to Ipsign:

One of the ways I think one is NPOV and encyclopedic is to NOT use a snotty quote from Luke Harding (in either existing ref or the one I removed) that makes the same point that Stephen Cohen makes in a more intelligent way about the kind of stories RT does that “reflect badly” on the US.

a) The western media issue I think is covered well now in Allegations of Kremlin bias, so I don't think it needs to be in lead, unless you think the case is sufficiently made there or more really good refs were to pop up.

b) Agree "It describes itself" best way to go

c) Thanks for the update on SPI; ran out of energy to investigate or report myself besides in general complaint in 3rr. Definitely case where best to just register.

Finally I looked at your couple earlier comments on sourcing in the lead re: UK and YouTube claims that I ignored earlier cause a bit burned out on that section at the time. Youtube source is solid. UK I tweaked. I doubt they would outright lie about it, so I made it a bit clearer what they were saying and where info came, from plus added another Russian ref which inferred that it is now number three. However, couldn't find WP:RS neutral info on that topic in news archive searches. Evidently only Russian News sources care - or care to advertise the facts. CarolMooreDC 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked over material removed in the paragraph criticizing Simonyan and it really was all pretty trivial and POV, except couple factoids from existing ref which I added in history. But if people want to re-add anything else, there's the link to find it. CarolMooreDC 02:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Further edits

I've made several edits today, sometimes being on bolder side; feel free to revert - as long as you're starting discussion here. (the main idea was to remove unacceptable self-serving references, and some WP:SYN) Ipsign (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I get point about self-serving - had been trying to balance off all the negativity earlier. Though I think the $1 million ad revenue mention could be added without other ref and one or two other things IF there are independent WP:RS mentioning the same issues. Also, I think it is important historically to mention specifics about why they were worried about their image, like the poll. Though perhaps more refs and/or info on that should be added. Will look around. Have to look at Simonyan material I removed first.

Also I think the Walter Isaacson issue is important. I know there was a bit of a flurry on blogs about it at the time. Perhaps with more WP:RS refs and the RT refs as secondary? CarolMooreDC 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Impressive job on Isaacson's quote (I've tweaked it a tiny bit, but it already was sooooo much better than stuff which I've removed). As for things like $1M ad revenue - IMHO, article is already long enough, and such minor detail (esp. not supported by independent sources, and subject to interpretation) is not really necessary (overall, articles with too many paragraphs tend to suffer from 'can't see forest for the trees' syndrome). Ipsign (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally agree with changes, didn't notice 3rd party claims in Press releases, agree on $1 million. Two other comments:

• If here AMEInfo says it is twice nominated/second nomination, then press releases that don't address 3rd parties can be used for minor details like here removed detail on 2010 nomination for story about Obama's trip to Russia. That's why I stuck the AMEinfo sentence in there. Other sources also mention twice nominated w/o detail, but didn't feel like looking for.
• Making out what Ioffe says about Ossetia is difficult - and she says a lot. Neither of our statements quite correct since she actually writes: Another correspondent, whose reporting departed from the Kremlin line that Georgians were slaughtering unarmed Ossetians, was summoned to the office of the deputy editor in chief in Moscow, where they went over the segment’s script line by line. “He had a gun on his desk,” the correspondent says. Even those who were not reprimanded—...' So we were both summarizing to more than one reporter from one incident. Also, I think her comments about Russian's seeing bias in US reporting and hers comparing Western and Russian reporting are important. Plus the final report conclusion that Georgia really did start it, like RT/Russia said, even if it was held Russia over-reacted. Putting that all in two or three sentences of course and being accurate difficult. Not going to think about it any more today....

Anyway, except for listing guests mentioned by WP:RS (and perhaps a few very high profile ones in categories established by a couple WP:RS if there are no WP:OR objections??) I'm pretty much done with new info unless something extraordinary shows up in existing sources or some new thing happens. (Would have put something in about Russian elections and protests but only mentions of RT coverage seen so far was of Simonyan snotty twitters, which seemed trivial, and report of RT reporters gassed. Maybe in a few days will look more.) CarolMooreDC 16:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As for AMEInfo and second nomination - it says nothing about Obama's trip, so even if we accept press release as a source for Obama's trip nomination (which is already questionable), using AMEInfo to combine the two will be invalid WP:SYN. Overall, the article already has lots of reliable information, so I don't really see why we should add something of questionable reliability which doesn't change things much (and can cause somebody to question the whole article). As Jimbo Wales have said: "it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources." Ipsign (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As for Ioffe's article: it is very clearly anti-RT, so any quotes/interpretations which create the impression that she supported RT, go against WP:QUOTE (emphasis is mine): "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source." Using her quote '...was at least as shrill and one-sided...' was completely out of context here, and goes against both WP:SYN (it IMHO directly compares to WP:SYN prohibited example "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.") and WP:QUOTE (see above). As for not quite correct wording - you do have a point, I've changed it a bit, now it IMHO is very close to the original. Also I should note that "final report conclusion" and "Georgia really did start it" (which is debatable, but here is not the right place to debate it) is completely irrelevant when we're discussing Ioffe's article (unless she mentions it). Ipsign (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As for further changes: one thing which I'm planning, is a clean-up of what I feel is misrepresentation of Marcin Maczka's views from his article (probably, given the fact that he's merely a PhD student, we should rely on him less heavily in general - IMHO using his article to support some neutrally worded statement is ok, but referring to his opinions where we need to name him, should be minimized where possible). Another thing I hope to do is clean-up of 'awards' section (finding sources, ordering by time, removing those for which sources cannot be found). I don't see much more than that, though (as usual) careful reading of the sources can reveal some inconsistency in the future. But I feel that as article already stands now, we can say it is reasonably NPOV, and remove POV tag (I'll start separate section right below on it). Ipsign (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: I'm pretty much done now. Ipsign (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

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

LOL. You are so transparent Ipsign.

"Worldwide view" tag removal totally Rejected : 99% of criticism is of western media et al and predominantly from the USA and UK.

NPOV tag remove request - Totally Rejected : who are you trying to fool ? let's hunt the blatant bias ,just comparing the intro's of similar structured News Networks of other Democratic countries :

RT, also known as Russia Today, is a state[1][2]/government-funded[3] multilingual Russian-based television channel. It describes itself as an "autonomous non-profit organization"[4] which retains "complete legal, editorial and operational independence."[5] Other sources have described it as pro-Kremlin.[6][7] Founded by the state-owned[8]RIA Novosti in 2005, RT, according to its corporate profile, "covers the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more."[9]

BBC World News is the BBC's international news and current affairs television channel. It has the largest audience of any BBC channel in the world.[1] Launched on 11 March 1991 as the BBC World Service Television outside of Europe, with its name changed to BBC World in 1995 and to BBC World News in 2008, it broadcasts for 24-hours with television programming including BBC News bulletins, documentaries, lifestyle programmes and interviews. Its main global competitor is CNN International, though it also competes with other major news broadcasting companies. It employs more correspondents, reporters, and international bureaus than any other news channel.[3]

Unlike the BBC's domestic channels, BBC World News is not funded by a licence fee. Instead, it is funded commercially by advertising.

• all citations are from BBC website.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcasting corporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom.[2] It is the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees, with about 23,000 staff.[3][4][5] Its main responsibility is to provide impartial public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

The BBC is a semi-autonomous public service broadcaster[6] that operates under a Royal Charter[7] and a Licence and Agreement from the Home Secretary.[8] Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee,[9] which is charged to all British households, companies and organisations using any type of equipment to record and/or receive live television broadcasts;[10] the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament.[11]

• all citations are from BBC website.

France 24 (pronounced France vingt-quatre [fʁɑ̃s vɛ̃tkatʁ] on all three editions) is an international news and current affairs television channel based in Paris. Its stated mission is to "cover international current events from a French perspective and to convey French values throughout the world."[1] It started broadcasting on 6 December 2006 under the presidency of Jacques Chirac and prime ministerial term of Dominique de Villepin.

The service is aimed at the overseas market, after the manner of BBC World News, DW-TV, and NHK World, and broadcast through satellite and cable operators throughout the world. During 2010 the France 24 channel started broadcasting through its own iPhone app.

• Citation is from France24 website

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

• no citation

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a non-profit corporation created by an act of the United States Congress and funded by the United States federal government to promote public broadcasting. Between 15 and 20 percent of the aggregate revenues of all public broadcasting stations have been funded from federal sources, principally through the CPB.[1]

The CPB was created on November 7, 1967, when U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The new organization initially collaborated with the pre-existing National Educational Television network. In 1969, the CPB talked to private groups to start the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).[2] In 1970, the CPB formed National Public Radio (NPR), a radio network consisting of public stations.[2]

The CPB provides some funding for the PBS, NPR, and, to a lesser extent, for other broadcasters that are independent of those organizations. In more recent years, the CPB has started funding some Internet-based projects.

• Citation is from CPB own website 79.180.21.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The best thing to do for AnonIP from BezeqInternational to do would be to find sources that describe all those stations as govt or state run or funded or whatever. Franky I don't think taking this out of the lead is the kind of battle you'll win with an RfC or NPOV noticeboard trip, which is why I wouldn't bring it there. (Being an AnonIP also tends to bring down credibility in such forums.) And all the new info in the article balances out the lead.

I do agree more sources from around the world should be quoted, if you can find them. I just haven't found that many searching google, highbeam and questia. I have included the good ones I've found. There probably are some in some languages I can't read but can be translated with google.translate (as all foreign language refs should be with google translate link presented in ref). CarolMooreDC 03:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is Festermunk willing to do dispute resolution?

At this diff Festermunk writes: (re-added unexplained deletion of paragraphs). This despite there was extensive discussion of removal of WP:Undue material above.

This diff shows how User: Festermunk has come back from his block for edit warring on this article to return to imposing his highly negative POV against RT (TV network). He has undo all the work done in the last week by a couple editors just trying to write an article inline with policy. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is for editors who "Are willing to discuss the issues in a calm and civil manner" and engage in some sort of compromise (as opposed to just reverting all the work done by others). I don't feel like filling out the form if he is not. I'm not sure if an RfC or WP:NPOVNoticeboard is best way to go otherwise. CarolMooreDC 01:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're removing information that is wholly in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines (esp. WP:RS) on grounds that you simply don't like what the f*** is going on because it doesn't fit into your pro-RT advocacy. It isn't my problem that there is a wealth of non-fringe and reliable information (particularly from prominent Russian figures, whose paragraph you unwarrantly deleted) and that that is (and should be) reflected in the article is in keeping with WP:UNDUE. Unless you come up with legitimate reasons as to why you are justified in removing those paragraphs, I strongly suggest you stop doing what you are doing. Festermunk (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted Festermunk; and I am going to do the same with any sequence of edits which significantly push WP:WEIGHT balance without discussing here first. This applies to both warring sides - BTW, semi-protection expires in 2 days, so we can expect opposite number of Festermunk to re-appear soon. As I see situation now: there is more or less an agreement of "mild" editors, with additional 2 "extreme" editors, each pushing article to their own side from this agreement; I am not sure if such situation qualifies as WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, but it is at least a reasonable facsimile, so unless significant changes are discussed first, I am going to try keeping status quo. Ipsign (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's deal with specifics. What is it exactly about the changes I made that constitute WP:UNDUE? Festermunk (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For huge changes (like the one with edit summary '(re-structure criticism section...' and adding over 3.5K of text) explanation is neither possible nor necessary. Approach of small incremental changes which you've took later (on Oct 12) is much more productive, as such changes can indeed be discussed. Indeed, I agree that you do have a point when you're saying that section summary (which you removed in your edit of Oct 12) was imprecise, and therefore might have had some POV; still, I think it would be better to keep the summary, just making it more precise (and therefore more NPOV). Please take a look at new version and comment and/or edit it further; I think it is rather precise now (if necessary, we could insert a dozen of refs for all parts of the statement, but as they already present below, I don't think we need to do it), but as usual, there is probably room for further improvement. Ipsign (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought should be done first but didn't feel I was the one who should do it. CarolMooreDC 14:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk: While you were blocked and/or not contributing there were discussions of almost every change to the article, including much of your work. Please feel free to comment on each of those discussions above and then we'll see what was missed. But I think you need to read WP:Neutral point of view because you keep pushing a very biased point of view, adding negative info and deleting info you evidently view as "positive" so that the article is very unbalanced. Read especially Weight section which includes sentence:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Also check out: Wikipedia:Collaborations. CarolMooreDC 15:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"But I think you need to read WP:Neutral point of view because you keep pushing a very biased point of view, adding negative info and deleting info you evidently view as "positive" so that the article is very unbalanced." Will you please stop with this victimhood shit it's not like you are any better (actually you are worse because your deletions of entire sourced paragraphs violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines) with your RT advocacy. It's not my problem that there exists a multitude of criticism of RT and a dearth of praise for RT, and that an article that reflects this imbalance of commentary is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.

Now since you have issues with multiple edits (the edits are in bold) that I've done, let's take them on one by one:

Some have described RT's reporting of Russia as tendentious: Marcin Mączka, a PhD student at the university of Jagiellonian University, writes where stories of Russia appear at all, "it is usually related to the progress of Russia’s “modernisation”, economic achievements and the growth of foreign investment"[35 and, "embarrassing information about Russia is usually omitted and RT never broadcasts programmes showing Russia’s social problems, condemning corruption or administrative incompetence."[35] Similarly, a 2008 the New York Times article wrote that in RT’s Russia, “corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy. And concerns about street thugs, poverty and Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership trump fears over Vladimir V. Putin’s grip on power.”[16]

In addition to Western commentators, some notable Russians have also been critical of RT: a 2011 article by Accuracy in Media quoted former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky criticized RT as "a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation"[64 while Andrey Illarionov, former advisor to Vladimir Putin, has labelled the channel as “the best Russian propaganda machine targeted at the outside world.”[35] Alexei Navalny, an anti-corruption blogger who has exposed crooked schemes in companies close to the Kremlin, was reported in an article in The Independent as having "come in for particular disdain from the state-funded broadcaster."[17]]

What is it about these paragraphs that militate against their addition in the article?

[As per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_(TV_network)&diff=517265235&oldid=517259338] Wikipedia is not a link farm so why it is included in this article again is beyond me.

[As per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_(TV_network)&diff=517257681&oldid=517255667] what is wrong about: 1) creating a section on the controversies of RT staffs; and 2) specifying RT coverage on specific news events that the station for which the station has been a target of criticism.

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

When a couple people agree that the article is unbalanced and delete a bunch of stuff, putting it all back as you originally did is problematic. Discussing a few things that you think are important enough to put back like you did above is more appropriate.

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

Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not grinding axes here. CarolMooreDC 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk's response to Carolmooredc

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

• • Learn to read. Did you miss, among others, the title of the article that says, "The Propaganda Machine"? Or perhaps this sentence (i.e. the thesis) from the article that says this about the station: "The drawback of the RT project is that it does not promote objectivity of the reporters and does not attempt to find the truth."

2.The Russia criticism (especially from an AIM source) was one of those things I couldn't decide about, so I figured if someone wanted to argue about why to keep it in they could.

• • So let's discuss it: on what grounds should it be deleted? I argue that it shouldn't because it conforms to all Wikipedia editing guidelines and that there is nothing that can prove that it doesn't.

3.This diff, not link farms but information of interest. Though it does occur to me maybe some of the info belongs in a "Reception section"

• • So how do you decide who is an information (i.e. person) of interest and who isn't. And where do you stop with the list of people RT has interviewed, which can go on indefinitely?

4.Note discussion at Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Per_WP:Criticism_rename_Controversy_OR_Criticism_section which would be Neutral or Postive stuff - or even all commentary, with controversies as a subsection. Assange obviously of historical interest, as is the fact it's doing so well one youtube and that these various international channels are doing very well. Just cause you don't like the fact does not mean it is NOT encyclopedic to mention that WP:RS think this is what is going.

• • But the section isn't talking about historical interest, it's talking about the history of RT. Also, the Assange show is a program on RT, so if you don't know what the difference between a program on RT and history about RT then you shouldn't be editing a page like this.

5. Staff stories all were integrated into other controversies. The story is about the station.

• • Where's the section of Simonyan?

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

Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not grinding axes here. CarolMooreDC 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Learn to read. Again. If you read the paragraph on Simonyan, there's at least 3 citations detailing the oligarchic relationship between Simonyan and Putin (and by extension RT and the Kremlin).Festermunk Festermunk (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Carolmooredc response

1. I might have been confused but that specific example seems to have been said already. Do we need to list even variation on the same criticism over and over and over again? That's what POV and WP:Undue is all about. If you like that ref and sentence better than an existing one, why not trade them?

2. I don't have a problem with Russian section being in because it IS from a Russian source. Put it back if you like.

3. OK. First, try to be a bit more civil. Having Assange on was a widely reported historical event for the program, certainly more reported than other factoids. I was thinking of listing more of his guests under programming but hadn't though to much about the propriety of it.

4. I actually somehow missed your deleting all those guests. a) I see you included the WP:OR of saying "guests who have appeared on RT frequently" which I did not have because I don't have such statistics. b) It's hard to figure out but it looks like you even deleted one or more people mentioned by reliable sources. c) You also took out all former US government officials and US representatives, leaving in others who had no better references. That certainly looks POV. I was not adverse to cutting a few people from each category (unless there was a WP:RS they'd been there). But cutting just people in one category that might make RT look more legit is questionable.

5 &6. I actually thought more could be added into the intro on Simonyan about her ties to Putin but the other editor was cutting a lot of stuff I put in, so I just wrote: Simonyan was a reportedly well-connected former Kremlin pool reporter, only 25 years old, who had been working in journalism since she was 18. However, your WP:OR of "oligarchic" connection is a bit much [added later to clarify: if you want that POV in the article]. Just say Putin sent her flowers. I mean she WAS a Kremlin pool reporter who doubtless ran into/interviewed Putin (i.e., the relevant "big shot") a lot and maybe she's just a really smart well-organized and personable person and a "patriot" who deserved the job. Like everyone in this country who is a major producer even on most private stations. Again, it's not our job to list EVERY POV partisan criticism of any specific individual. CarolMooreDC 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk response

1. I might have been confused but that specific example seems to have been said already. Do we need to list even variation on the same criticism over and over and over again? That's what POV and WP:Undue is all about. If you like that ref and sentence better than an existing one, why not trade them?

Now you are changing the argument. First we were talking about your editing that distorts the main point of Marcin's article ("I didn't see this as criticism as much as an NPOV accurate description of reality."), but now you want to talk about Marcin's content as being a repetition of other forms of criticism of RT, which is strange as his article raises specific criticism of RT that isn't found in other sources that exist on this site. (e.g. his use of the concept of objectivism)

2. I don't have a problem with Russian section being in because it IS from a Russian source. Put it back if you like.

3. OK. First, try to be a bit more civil. Having Assange on was a widely reported historical event for the program, certainly more reported than other factoids. I was thinking of listing more of his guests under programming but hadn't though to much about the propriety of it.

3: You talk like you think you have a point with your argument. Aside from the fact that you have to prove how it was a historical event for the program (the fact that, if it was, it was widely reported doesn't mean it was historical for the program as it could classify as WP:RECENTISM). And since this paragraph is being disputed, I'm going to remove it as per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD

4. I actually somehow missed your deleting all those guests. a) I see you included the WP:OR of saying "guests who have appeared on RT frequently" which I did not have because I don't have such statistics. b) It's hard to figure out but it looks like you even deleted one or more people mentioned by reliable sources. c) You also took out all former US government officials and US representatives, leaving in others who had no better references. That certainly looks POV. I was not adverse to cutting a few people from each category (unless there was a WP:RS they'd been there). But cutting just people in one category that might make RT look more legit is questionable.

4: I didn't take out all former US government officials and reps as Ron Paul was still on the list. Also, you've still yet to answer my questions: "so how do you decide who is an information (i.e. person) of interest and who isn't. And where do you stop with the list of people RT has interviewed, which can go on indefinitely?"

5 &6. I actually thought more could be added into the intro on Simonyan about her ties to Putin but the other editor was cutting a lot of stuff I put in, so I just wrote: Simonyan was a reportedly well-connected former Kremlin pool reporter, only 25 years old, who had been working in journalism since she was 18. However, your WP:OR of "oligarchic" connection is a bit much. Just say Putin sent her flowers. I mean she WAS a Kremlin pool reporter who doubtless ran into/interviewed Putin (i.e., the relevant "big shot") a lot and maybe she's just a really smart well-organized and personable person and a "patriot" who deserved the job. Like everyone in this country who is a major producer even on most private stations. Again, it's not our job to list EVERY POV partisan criticism of any specific individual. CarolMooreDC 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

5&6: You need to learn how Wikipedia guidelines work. It's only WP:OR if I write in the article implying a connection between Simonyan and oligarchy, not in the talk page. Also, reducing the Simonyan controversy to a one-sentencer violates WP:UNDUE as it does not fairly represent the amount and type of material that have been critical of her. There's nothing in Wikipedia that states, "it isn't our job to list EVERY POV partisan criticism of any specific individual" and even if there was, the edits of Simonyan wouldn't classify as POV partisan criticism.

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

Carolmooredc response

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

RE: Assange in history Festermunk wrote: 3: You talk like you think you have a point with your argument. Aside from the fact that you have to prove how it was a historical event for the program (the fact that, if it was, it was widely reported doesn't mean it was historical for the program as it could classify as WP:RECENTISM). And since this paragraph is being disputed, I'm going to remove it as per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD

CM: I bet I can find a WP:RS that says it's historical. Why be in such a hurry to remove ref'd material?

FM:I just told you, but apparently you can't read, so I'll read it again: I'm removing it as per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. But even if you could find a reliable source show that shows the Assange program is historical, the fact that it is historical doesn't mean that the program should be part put as part of RT's history; wouldn't it be more appropriate to put it in the program's section since the Assange show functions as a program of RT?

Festermunk wrote: 4: I didn't take out all former US government officials and reps as Ron Paul was still on the list. Also, you've still yet to answer my questions: "so how do you decide who is an information (i.e. person) of interest and who isn't. And where do you stop with the list of people RT has interviewed, which can go on indefinitely?"

CM: If you left in Ron Paul, you obviously have a view on that yourself. I think if you put Wikipedia:Lists#Purposes_of_lists together with WP:NPOV and editors make an honest attempt to list an NPOV cross section of editors, there is no problem. I started a list and then waited to see the response. What noticeboard would you suggest we go to for other opinions??

FM:You haven't a clue what you are talking about if you go back to your original comment you said that I deleted all U.S. Senators and Reps from the list. I gave you an example that invalidated your ridiculous claim, but because you can't disprove that you're now resorting to mind-reading.

Festermunk wrote: 5 &6. (Quoting Carol)... However, your WP:OR of "oligarchic" connection is a bit much [added later to clarify: if you want that POV in the article]. ... Also, reducing the Simonyan controversy to a one-sentencer violates WP:UNDUE as it does not fairly represent the amount and type of material that have been critical of her.

CM: So put in two sentences; Proposing something here would be better than edit warring on it, don't you think? WP:Undue goes the other way too. CarolMooreDC 19:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

FM:Points 5&6 I propose this article reinstate what it previously had before you deleted it:

staff controversies===

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

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

Please remove your comments from inside mine immediately, as I have had to do twice and as I have asked you to do on your talk page. Your behavior is disruptive and edit warring and copying my warning on your talk page to my talk page does not hide that fact. CarolMooreDC 14:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am confused, how is putting my comments inside yours disruptive editing or edit warring?Festermunk (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard case filed

In case anyone else wants to opine. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#RT_.28TV_network.29 CarolMooreDC 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why was the new intro by FeelSunny removed?

After reading through the talk page and a bit of the history I have to ask why did Ipsign remove the new introduction by FeelSunny? As it really only removed text was it not a good starting point (at least while the discussion rages on on the talk page) for the future editing/not editing of this page? Criticism belongs in the criticism section, not in the intro --Hentheden (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is not an advert for RT, nor is WP the RT defense league. RT's birth, existence, and editorial policy all confirm its role to play regarding Russian state media regardless of its being incorporated as an "autonomous" organization. FeelSunny additionally took mainstream views and facts and weaseled them. ("Some...") VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not suggesting it should be an advertisement for RT nor that Wikipedia should be some sort of "RT Defense League", merely that in comparison to the BBC world service article (which is funded directly by the Foreign and Commonwealth office) and CNN etc. the article is very, very biased against RT and that Criticism does not belong in the intro - the intro serves to provide an introduction to the article, not to set out the tone or POV for the rest of the article --Hentheden (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that BBC article says " As such, the BBC's international content has traditionally represented – at least in part – an effective foreign policy tool of the British Government." However, although there is a whole article on criticism of the BBC, none are mentioned in the lead. I think "Other sources have described it as pro-Kremlin.[6][7]" could be removed because that can be inferred easily by the various mentions of govt funding in the lead and because there is a whole section on that below. CarolMooreDC 06:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is exactly what I meant. --Hentheden (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If no one objects I'll remove that sentence in a day or two and fix any ref problems. CarolMooreDC 20:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Festermunk's revert today, I don't have a problem with state owned in the first sentence since other channels have similar statements. However, no one commented on my removing "Other sources have described it as pro-Kremlin" but Festermunk now did now add "also drawn criticisms and controversies." without commenting. Perhaps he could do so now, since he said we should look at talk? Perhaps he should read section on controversies below also? CarolMooreDC 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the first source on the page states that RT is state funded, not state run. Secondly, I thought it had been agreed that "Other sources have described it as pro-Kremlin." could be removed. Thirdly, I was a bit overzealous in removing "but have also drawn criticisms and controversies.", I apologise. Hentheden (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Come now, Putin's entourage came up with Russia Today with the singular goal of fixing Russia's image. The notion that RT and the BBC are identical is as preposterous as it is uninformed. Next someone will be opining that RT is just as objective as BBC as well. There is no basis for removing pro-Kremlin or its origin with RIA Novosti the press organ of the Russian state government. That is different from merely being funded. Were you all born after the Soviet Union collapsed and are therefore unfamiliar with the workings of Soviet, now Russian, propaganda machinery? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In this instance I was not arguing that RT=BBC or CNN, merely that Pro-Kremlin is an opinion/criticism/controversy and does not belong in the intro. But now I am: RT reports on news that traditional western media ignores and while I fully understand that effectively any article on Russia/Syria does not represent the full story, RT does a far better job of reporting US, EU or general international news than the BBC or CNN, who very often spin it (or just ignore it entirely). I read the BBC when I want to know about Russia, global news and interesting tidbits of info and I read RT when I want to know about US, international geopolitical and UN news. Whether or not I was born after the collapse of the Soviet union is irrelevant, thank you very much! Ad Hominem is, as we all know, a logical fallacy. Hentheden (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as we are engaging in general discussion, User Vecrumba, All government owned media are essentially propaganda outlets. (And since the US has started far more major wars/invasions/attacks than Russia since WWII, I'd say they are probably grosser propaganda. Though of course, when you starting adding in which country had the most partisans in control and who their allies in any attack were, it gets a bit more complicated. If you look at the last 20 years, it's obviously the US aggressing here, there and everywhere.)

Anyway, the question is, do all the other ones in wikipedia emphasize this by including a couple of negative comments about it or just this one? Actually, it's probably best to include such comments in the other government owned stations articles' leads, than to argue for removal here. Thanks for the suggestion. CarolMooreDC 21:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Hentheden, I find the Financial Times is best for global developments even though it's not a general news publication. That you watch and trust RT is your choice. That they report a lot on what has happened, having bottomless funding, is worthwhile--indeed, I watch RT for that very reason. But the constant ooze, and periodically stench, of propaganda 24x7 is unmistakeable. If you're not detecting that, then you're just another dupe. Nothing personal, just the situation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well Vecrumba, I also read the FT, European edition (almost) every single day and while I do agree that it is far superior to both the BBC and RT and that it is best for global developments it is, by definition, slightly capitalist, it is also only published once per day and not on Sundays. While it may seem silly, I enjoy reading the news during the day, especially if there is some election result to be posted or a major speech to occur. While I do "trust" RT per say, and I agree that it is biased in terms of ignoring all anti-Putin material, so is the BBC in putting a pro-UK slant on all articles in relation to the UK as a whole. For example, the recent articles on Cameron vetoing EU budgetary measures had a decidedly less "The UK is trying to kill the EU" slant than Swedish (I am a Swedish resident) news outlets or the FT. Also, the articles on Scottish independence had a decided "This will never work because the Scots will lose all their business" slant. No media is perfect, and while I would agree that the BBC generally has better quality articles than RT, RT reports on a wide range of issues that the BBC does not cover. If I had a choice I would, in fact, pick Swedish media as it is generally very unbiased but there are no good sites and the news generally takes several hours to appear. :D Hentheden (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Criticism rename Controversy OR Criticism section

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

Just discovered [clarified later "essay"] WP:Criticism which is linked from Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-0 which reads:Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.

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

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

Note that WP:Criticism is an essay, not guideline - however, the current title is pretty bad. I would recommend "Controversies" as the new title.

Not really related to the current topic, but the controversies section could be structured somewhat better (same goes for the rest of the article).

--Sander Säde 07:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Removal of Assange show from history

Festermunk removed this saying it is "under discussion" - here's an opportunity for others to opine. I'm going to beef it up a bit and put it back in history with a longer list of speakers under guests. The very specific search "Julian Assange" "The World Tomorrow" "Russia Today" returns 961,000 general search hits and 69 news archive ones. Certainly far more than a number of issues currently in history. Or does he want all of those removed too? Frankly, given the absurdity of this reversion, I think Festermunk should read carefully WP:disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC 21:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"I'm going to beef it up a bit and put it back in history with a longer list of speakers under guests." I suggest you don't do that as the material is still under dispute. Also, you don't judge the historicality of something based on the number of hits on a search engine; Jenna Jameson's birthplace on Google reveals only 97,900 hits but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong to Jameson's history section. Festermunk (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

When one has that many hits, obviously one can come up with 8 or 10 high quality ones. You have not come up with a rationale for not putting it there, just an uncivil comment above. CarolMooreDC 23:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I did by way of analogy with the Jenna Jameson example, but as usual you didn't read it. Festermunk (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point about hits on a movie stars birthplace doesn't make any sense, which is why I ignored it. (Helps to give wikilinks.) But it's useless to debate numbers until I present a text. But since I've had to waste so much time dealing with your behavior issues, I haven't focused on that yet. CarolMooreDC 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Absurdly Festermunk put Assange back in the History section and then blamed me for putting it there right here.) Anyway, I do intend to put together all the new info I have on this shows relevance to RT history soon. CarolMooreDC 21:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please explain "Layout" tag

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

I certainly get the impression that what you want is a restructuring that will allow you to push your negative POV and delete neutral and positive information. At Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#RT_.28TV_network.29 both the volunteer and I have reiterated to you that mostly critical articles are problematic. (See WP:Attack page.) Again see the essay WP:Criticism which is linked from Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-0 which note reads:Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template. If that's true for sections, it's more true for whole articles.

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

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

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

New list POV Issues

Since there will be lots of them with Festermunk deleting anything that is presented in a neutral or positive light, I'll start listing them for NPOV noticeboard when I decide to go there:

• Obviously, my comments above (Please explain "Layout" tag) on yet again having to revert whole sale change.
• Deletion as "soapbox" of interesting info on why guests appear from two reliable sources.)
• Putting in a bunch of new negative material, even as removed neutral and positive info above: here and here.
• Claim here that unresolved discussion of whether to put Assange in history was resolved? (Especially absurd since Festermunk put Assange back in the History section and then blamed me for putting it there right here.) I do intend to put together all the new info I have on this shows relevance to RT history soon.

CarolMooreDC 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Response to edit summaries (was "Incivility")

For the 3rd or 4th time I have to ask you to be civil, including in edit summaries where you just wrote:

• wrote at this diff (readded Marcin + Heyman as per discussion, complete bullshit how you deleted those 2 paragraphs). As it happens, I thought that comment had been returned to another section where it used to be and perhaps still should be, but evidently it was not. Don't assume the worst.
• Here you write an edit summary saying (seriously what the hell are you doing, we've already discussed this on DNR that it belongsin the programming section). But if you will look it was you yourself who added Assange back to history right here.

CarolMooreDC 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you even talking about this edit shows that I put the Assange program back in the programming section!Festermunk (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Read more carefully. As I said above [right here you put the Assange section back in history. Then you accused me of putting it there with comment "seriously what the hell are you doing". CarolMooreDC 03:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, you are right. First misstep for me in our debate. Festermunk (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Sub-sections for the "Allegation of Bias" section

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

Comment from involved editor: General NPOV overview needed: Festermunk is requesting an RfC on a topic he refused to address in the above section Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Please_explain_.22Layout.22_tag. The bottom line issue is that User:Festermunk repeatedly has added negative information to the controversy and other sections while deleting neutral and positive information from various sections with questionable excuses. After Festermunk was blocked for edit warring on this article, a couple other editors and I made it more NPOV by cleaning up the WP:Undue controversy section and adding more NPOV material. As soon as Festermunk returned to this article he reverted most of our changes in a series of edits, which were reverted back in this one edit by another editor to the more NPOV version. He then asked for Arbitration and I took it to WP:Dispute Resolution here where he steadfastly defended such editing habits. At the conclusion he again reverted back to his version of the Controversy section which I reverted here. He's now beginning to engage in fairly obvious WP:Synthesis, and I'll be tagging the most obvious of those soon. So opinions on NPOV in this article are what is really needed. CarolMooreDC 04:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Readers would be wise to note the following Wikipedia editing guidelines: thatWikipedia articles (with properly referenced sources) need not be written from that viewpoint are "consequently objectively true", but written in a way that "describe debates rather than engage in them.", that the NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. and that Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. Festermunk (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Festermunk blocked 1 week/reverting/archiving

• Because Festermunk just kept reverting neutral/positive material and adding gobs of negative info, despite my complaints here and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, doing 4 reverts in 24 hours, I did an Edit Warring report. He was blocked for a week for "battleground behavior". (His response made it clear he really does not understand what 3rr means.)
• I suggest we revert back here to a version before he went on his latest binge, and then go through making any valid newer changes. If no one responds fairly soon, I'll just do it because the article right now is so negative and POV.
• I also suggest we archive all discussion (except the RfC and this) and hopefully start again in a more cooperative fashion.
• Starting with someone proposing how to do the lead that doesn't go too far in either the negative or in the "rah rah" directions as it has in the past, i.e., something more like Al Jazeera, BBC, etc. (i.e., it should mention it's funded by the Russian state but doesn't have to dwell on/keep repeating the subject ad nauseum.) CarolMooreDC 03:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your proposal to revert to an earlier version. That is fine. I changed some section titles, but that only took a minute. If you want to do the revert, I can change the titles again afterwards. Or, it may be more convenient to just take the current version and restore any material that was improperly deleted? --Noleander (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Some good changes there and certainly need input from another editor so it's not just me! Will give it another day for others' responses and work on something else - for a break! And then come back late tonight or tomorrow and see how to integrate it all, possibly in one fell swoop :-). CarolMooreDC 16:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

International sources needed ... new section titles

I improved the section titles to conform to WP neutrality requirements ... so I think the article is good in that regard. I did not change any content. The big remaining problem with this article is that it reads like a long list of criticisms by Western sources. Although those are valid and belong in the article, RT is a global network, so reviews/assessments from around the world are needed to round out the article and make it encyclopedic. Maybe inquiries could be made at other WPs for input ... e.g. to get translations of their RT articles & sources. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree on foreign sources. Just haven't found too many. Hmmm, I guess we could look up articles on RT in foreign language Wikis and then translate and see what info by what WP:RS seems good :-) CarolMooreDC 16:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've done that a couple of times with foreign WPs ... although strictly speaking, the editor adding material must read the sources themselves (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). Also, foreign WPs are not valid sources. There was a debate I saw once about whether it was legitimate to copy & translate material from foreign WPs, but I don't think there was a conclusive Yes or Not that it is permitted. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me it's grown more acceptable last couple years, probably because of google translate. But it shouldn't be in an article unless there is such a translation. CarolMooreDC 18:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I used some of your section titles and put "expansion" note where new info is needed in my revert to the October 12 version and good changes to that version. I actually HAVE some of that info spread out over several "add" files which have to put together, plus do some more research since accidentally deleted a whole file of new add material. If at first you don't succeed... CarolMooreDC 18:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Notable guests" section discussion

I put back the big list with a "discuss note" so here's the discussion:

• Title: I can't remember why Festermunk was against "Notable" since all the guests I listed ARE notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. So if someone has an opinion on removing it, do tell.
• About four are mentioned by WP:RS (underlined) and I've collected about 5 or 6 more not overly notable ones. However even Festermunk wasn't adverse to mentioning some of these. I guess anyone who cares can put an X on the ones who only have RT link to inteview to see which ones might be considered for the list. I'll put in my Xs as most notable/interesting.
  • Politicians (can be described by nationality or not?) British politicians Nigel FarageXx Laurence Kaye (UK Pirate Party UK) and Jeremy Corbyn; French politician Marine Le PenXx; Israeli politician Avraham BurgXx;
  • Former US government officials Henry KissingerXx, Jesse Ventura, David Stockman, Richard PerleX and Paul Craig Roberts;
  • United States Representatives Ron Paulx, Dana RohrabacherX, Walter B. Jones, Jr., Dennis Kucinich and former United States Senator Alan K. SimpsonX;
  • think tank intellectuals John Feffer (Foreign Policy in Focus) and Lawrence Korb (Center for American Progress);
  • journalists and writers Jacob Sullum, Pepe Escobar, Chris HedgesXx, Naomi WolfXx, (Danny Schechter and Glenn Greenwald I'll just mention elsewhere in article)
  • current and former professors Craig Calhoun (head of London School of Economics)Xx, Patrick Michaels , Jeff Cohen and Norman FinkelsteinXx;
  • assorted guests like former lobbyist Jack AbramoffX, investor Jim Rogers, trends forecaster Gerald Celente, Israeli military analyst Uzi Rubin and Apple Inc. co-founder Steve WozniakX.

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 18:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks okay: the key thing is that each guest is notable. My only comment would be that the list is a bit large ... I'm thinking 16 to 20 max, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Maybe move some of them into a footnote if it gets over 20? --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm paring the list down by asking people to put an "X" next to ones they like. :-) CarolMooreDC 18:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, above put a small x for Festermunk's choices, and adding a few more ref'd ones. CarolMooreDC 00:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's too early in Am to start reverting stuff like Anon Ip's addition of Nick Griffin - with no reference. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 16:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Staff section?

What about a "Staff" section listing a few top-tier managers/executives? At least name them. I think there was a section with 3 listed in the prior version. --Noleander (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned that in the more NPOV version most of that material had been moved to the issues criticism paragraphs because what happened was seen more as an RT policy issue or incident related to a specific story. That includes the the broader RT actions on Alexei Navalny/the election/the protests issue of which the Simonyan tweets were just a small part which need a better context. (Question on that in edit/conflict putting in soon.) However, I think there are higher management issues that need to be added under the Organization section, including regarding Simonyan, and whoever else is in charge higher up in Ria Novesti. I don't know right now but have seen mentions and have to research. CarolMooreDC 18:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally researched the info on opposition leader Navalny and the protests and see there were a couple different stories there, McFaul which seems more relevant to history since the real story is after their dust up he appeared on RT and coverage of him as a protester. Of course, the larger context of Russian paranoia about western governments organizing street protests to replace pro-Russian with pro-US leaders is not explicitly covered and maybe will throw in a sentence when I re-find relevant source. CarolMooreDC 05:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

RT as source about itself and news/opinion source in this article

Another editor deleted some of RT's statements about itself as self-serving (two or possibly all three "citation needed" sentences) - as opposed to, say its claims about viewership. Because of the intervening contretempts I never got around to discussing this, or the fact I doubt they'd lie about these things. Any thoughts?

Also I know there is at least one, probably more, RT Opinions and/or article about the Alexei Navalny issue that is relevant to putting in a paragraph on him and the protests and Simonyan's tweets. As long as it is clear it's RT's news or opinion story, and it is more a response to allegations than an assertion of what is true, I don't see a problem with using that material. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RT funding and ownership

I have done some reading in the RT Wikipedia article in Russian regarding funding and ownership, and did some more digging. I think the intro/lead in English is still a mess and inaccurate Here is the information i managed to gather : So we have the article quoting RIA Novosti -

"RIA-Novosti said in a statement issued last month that it is "neither a sponsor nor a backer of Russia Today" and merely participated in establishing the channel as an Autonomous Non-Profit Organization, which provided for its complete legal, editorial and operational independence." http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/03/23/230310_rt.html

RIA Novosti even published an article on the inaccuracy of the Wikipedia English article here itself (good read) : http://en.rian.ru/agency_news/20120206/171179459.html

I believe that RT in Russia is officially/legally an "Autonomous Non-Profit Organisation (ANO) “TV-Novosti”" as also stated in their disclaimer http://rt.com/about/disclaimer/

A quote from a senior government official from 2005 : "Russia Today will come as an independent company, said Mikhail Seslavinsky, in charge of the Federal Agency for the Press and Mass Communications.

The federal government intends to call the State Duma, parliament's lower house, to amend the year's federal budget for Russia Today financing. The channel will be funded through the Federal Agency for the Press and Mass Communications, by grants and from advertising revenues." http://www.rianovosti.com/society/20050607/40486831.html

the above statement is connected to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_of_Russia

And the 3 references in RT Russian Wikipedia article Do show that they are (RT and RIA Novosti) 2 separate entities having 2 separate budgets : http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=lenta.ru%2Fnews%2F2010%2F08%2F06%2Fsmi%2F&safe=off

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.ng.ru/politics/2006-09-05/1_svobodaslova.html#submit&safe=off

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=www.infox.ru%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F01%2F21%2FRussia_Today_ekonomi.phtml&safe=off79.181.8.18 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Alas, the Russia government and those supporting its official positions and statements are not reliable sources for anything else than what they have said, not that what they have said is accurate. When independent authoritative sources indicate RT is genuinely independent of its origins within the Putin cadre with the specific mission to improve Russia's image and promulgate the Russian view of the world--and no longer has those as objectives in any way shape manner or form--we can reflect that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest when you have a few spare moments you watch it. The news programming is the same as BBC, CNN. Fox, etc. You seem to be confusing news coverage with editorializing. We continually certify Fox News and MSNBC as reliable despite the polemical nature of some of their talk show hosts. (Do you remember Glenn Beck talking about the Founding Fathers and Christianity? Not mainstream, but his show is not news programming.) TFD (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with adding what Russian govt sources say, as long as you identify them that way. Though I think we have more than enough on that topic in the lead; put it in organization/budget. Do articles name anyone as being above Simonyan? A normal nonprofit would or she would have some other title, as does the head of Ria Novosti. I do have more neutral and positive "reception" material to put in, if I don't get too sidetracked tonight by other articles and - external events. ha ha ha. CarolMooreDC 00:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Doing some detective work with Google translator in Russian , I found Margarita Simonyan's boss. Basically RT channel is owned by (ANO) TV-Novosti. "ANO" is a legal definition in Russia "Autonomous non-profit organization" It has a Russian Wikipedia entry https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F

translated to English: http://www.worldlingo.com/SYls3jUpdI3JtVCnVOf2_FpoIXlrXk91qsZbrxpDzkcM-/translation?wl_url=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D0%2590%25D0%25B2%25D1%2582%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B0%25D1%258F_%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BA%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B5%25D1%2580%25D1%2587%25D0%25B5%25D1%2581%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B0%25D1%258F_%25D0%25BE%25D1%2580%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B7%25D0%25B0%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D1%258F&wl_srclang=RU&wl_trglang=EN

The General director (highest executive position in a company, analogous to a U.S CEO) of ANO TV-Novosti is Mr. Sergey Frolov http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.broadcasting.ru/newstext.php%3Fnews_id%3D25223&usg=ALkJrhh69ime8pXTdvKr8M9_bMuqB4SwVw

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=www.broadcasting.ru%2Farticles2%2Fallauthors%2F8%2F&safe=off

I even found the Deputy Director-General , Mrs. Elena Sokolova http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://sokolova-dev-tsukanova.moikrug.ru/%3Fnocookiesupport%3Dyes&usg=ALkJrhiH4MSGNLh9PqEU95fERT6dKyM3oA79.183.1.105 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't edit war? (Guests continued)

Thanks for the advice, I suppose, if that's what it was, Carolmooredc. A list of notable guests invited on a network, even if reliably sourced, is in no way encyclopedic. Do you care to add such a list to the BBC article? or even Newsnight? Or Late Show with David Letterman? Come on. It reads like resume padding. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

First, there is a "Notable guests" section discussion above, thus I've added that topic here. Feel free to move this up as a subsection.

If I revert you and you revert me without discussing. we start getting into edit war. we've had a lot of that lately here.

Anyway, the section was started in part because an editor added SO MUCH negative material there needed some balance. The article is better now. Another place to mention guests would be in the programming section as a counter to the harsh criticism of past guests. In the interest of NPOV, a little bit of primary source referencing - in addition to secondary source mentions - isn't really a violation, if editors are working to make a good and fair article. Also note I've seen a couple "list" articles that actually list all the guests on TV shows, so it's not that totally out of line. CarolMooreDC 06:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

But primary source referencing on a tenuous section in an already disputed article is a really bad idea: it sounds like we're inventing something positive, disregarding good editorial practice, in the interest of presenting a balanced article where, for all I know, balance may not even exist. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

First, the discussion of the kind of guests who appear is relevant under programming and mention of guests who are described by secondary sources really should not be a problem. So far three editors feel a limited listing of guests with RT links is ok and thus I've been paring it down. If you put this section up with previous guest discussions, it might help.

Moving it all to being a reply to criticism would not be called for, though I may have another source to counter the early complaints about guests. CarolMooreDC 16:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Undue McFaul detail additions

Re: This diff: First, this is a minor incident only notable because it got an Ambassador on the air; and not really much of a controversy or criticism. My one sentence "In early 2012 Michael McFaul, the newly appointed US ambassador to Russia, rejected Margaret Simonyan’s tweeted charge that the United States government had paid for opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s 2010 Yale World Fellows Program semester." is more than enough info for this article and the rest is WP:Undue silliness, in my opinion.

Plus, I find it rather odd that an AnonIP from Bezquez Intnl has added all that negative and even silly detail to the McFaul incident, when AnonIPs from Bezquez usually would add positive info. It was another (twice blocked) editor who always wanted to added the full quotes of the tweet exchange, so I have to wonder who is behind that edit. Does it rise to the level of asking for a sock puppet check? Or did that previous editor just forget to sign in? CarolMooreDC 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was me Carol. BTW Simonyan did not tweet anything. I think now the story is more clear.109.67.33.28 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it is a violation of WP:Sock puppetry to edit with both a user name and a registered name and can result in another block for you. I would sign your name to both messages asap.

I'll check and see if I misunderstood the mode of her comment to him later since busy now; but the detail is unnecessary and WP:Undue. CarolMooreDC 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol I'm not Festermunk, I'm the Annoymous guy who was fighting with Festermonk a month ago109.67.33.28 (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I should have said Festermunk (but didn't want to beat a hopefully dead horse) to clarify but I forgot AnonIps also blocked. Anyway, I'm a little burned out on this right now, but my WP:Undue length of content comments stand. Will propose something else later. CarolMooreDC 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a short version that makes the story clear but removes unnecessary detail they can get at the links if they really want it. It incorporates your edifying link to Panarin article - and I leave in all your refs:

In early 2012 Shortly after his appointment as the United States Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul challenged Margarita Simonyan over Twitter in regards to allegations from RT that he sent Alexei Navalny to study at Yale. McFaul was found to be referring to comment in an article by political scientist Igor Panarin which RT had specified were the views of the author. Ambassador McFaul then accepted an interview by Sophie Shevardnadze on RT on this and other issues and reasserted that the Obama administration wanted a "reset" in relations with Russia.

Hopefully acceptable? CarolMooreDC 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable79.180.0.84 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reception section

The entire section looks like cheerleading for RT, especially the lede paragraph. I've have placed in a POV tag for now on the section and reported the user who has been making these changes to the ANI, although all other third-party observers are welcomed to comment on the ANI. Festermunk (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My reply here. Meanwhile, I think it can be hard to separate neutral and positive reception from criticisms (and whatever one can find that WP:RS actual call "controversies"). I actually wouldn't have a problem with calling the section "Reception and criticism." The paragraph on criticism of the criticism could go under objectivity, but it really does introduce some of the more strident criticisms. Rational good faith discussion can sort it all out. CarolMooreDC 19:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You've still yet to answer my questions, why did you: (i) remove content for which there was consensus and (ii) why have you not reinstated them. Simple questions, simple answers. Festermunk (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You WP:ANI was closed as a content dispute. I countered your fantasized claim that there was any consensus (except on one reliable source) at Dispute Resolution at this diff. You still retain your aggressive stance of pulling out every stop to make this an attack article instead of working with others to make it a balanced article. Why not see if any other editors chime in here? CarolMooreDC 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't have a clue what you are talking about, I wasn't talking about consensus for the RT section I was talking about consensus for specific points in the RT section. In any case, then by your admission via your link, I can re-add the Marcin, Heyman and Simonyan paragraph (The simonyan paragraph I'll put under the staffing section, barring further discussion on that) However, that still leaves your baffling edit for the Assange paragraph as there was consensus that the Assange program shouldn't be in the history but rather programming section.

In addition to all that, you've yet to explain why you removed all the extra sourced information I put but then added extra sourced information of your own, especially for the reception section. Why is that? Festermunk (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

n this talk page we try to get input from a number of people. This isn't just you and me and our past conversations which obviously we both can't even keep straight. If the issue is covered in a section above, why not continue the discussion there? If it's a new one, explain here or in a new section. I'll put something in Assange right now. CarolMooreDC 00:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you even talking about the the DNR on RT makes it clear that the Assange program should be in the programming section. That user's comment: "Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)" to which you never responded. As the DNR shows consensus on that, I suggest you move it to the programming section instead of leaving it in the history one. Festermunk (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD and consensus on either the relevant sub-sections on the RT talk page or through the RT section on the DNR, I am going to restore and modify all of the aforementioned text that was achieved through consensus, but overridden through the unilateral edits by the user CarolMooreDC. Specifically, I'm going to make the following changes:

1. As per the RT section on the DNR, moving the Assange paragraph from the history section to the programming section. In particular, make note of the lines by third-party observer User:Noleander: “Okay, since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section.” and “Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path.”

2. As per this edit by third-party observer User:Noleander, reinstating all the the properly sourced content under the criticism and controversies section in the-then current Wikipedia version of RT. In particular, note the user’s opinion that, “Although those are valid and belong in the article…” However, as per the RT section on the DNR, a resolution over the name of the headings has yet to be decided upon, so I'm going to leave the headings as shown in the current version of the Wikipedia article as they are for now

2. As the content to be hypothetically reinstated is lengthy, please note the specific issues that were disputed and subsequently resolved:

a. The Marcin Maczka material: in particular, note this sentence by User:Noleander: “Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one?”

b. NY Times article by S. Heyman: In particular, note this sentence by User:Noleander: “Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used.”

c. Section for chief editor Margarita Simonyan: In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this paragraph between myself, User:Carolmooredc and User:Noleander: "FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"? Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position." Note that my suggestion has yet to be disputed. - this paragraph could go under the staffing section.

An extra note, as most of these requested changes already have consensus, if I don't receive a response to the points I'm raising then as per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, I'm going to tentatively reinstate the changes. Festermunk (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus yet. Could you please post the proposed material here in this Talk page (or in a subpage of this Talk page) so everyone can see it? The specific issue is not so much RS but rather the WP:UNDUE policy: if too much negative material is added out of proportion to the "positive" material, that is an issue. Information, even if perfectly sourced, can be excluded from an article if it misleads the readers by giving an especially negative impression. Also, the section titles as of yesterday were very neutral and satisfactory. Can you clearly post proposed new section titles here? --Noleander (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Could you please post the proposed material here in this Talk page (or in a subpage of this Talk page) so everyone can see it? " I could but I'd prefer not to because the talk page (much less this section) would then become too unwieldy. Basically, what I said above which is content that you and I both agreed on, but for brevity's sake here they are in abridged form:

1) The Marcin and Heyman paragraphs which you, myself and even User CarolmooreDC says is a legitimate Wikipedia source.

2) Reinstating all the the properly sourced content under the criticism and controversies section in the-then current Wikipedia version of RT which you agreed to as "valid and belong in the article"

3) The paragraph on Simonyan.

Of course, we can debate other issues later, but these three seem to be the most important ones for me to address first. Festermunk (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As Noleander said, except that Marcin is WP:RS, there was no consensus among the only two editors editing at the time and a volunteer dispute resolver on WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I clearly stated that in this diff], also linked above. (Do I really need to quote it here?) Plus now there are several editors getting involved and issues also should be run by then.

1) What Marcin and Heyman paragraphs where?

2) Reinstating all the WP:Undue negative criticism? That is the problem that I've been trying to correct.

3) All the Simonyan material has gone into areas more relevant to the article, except to the extent it was WP:Undue. Your preference for pushing an attack paragraph constructed to make her look really bad is a WP:NPOV and a WP:BLP violation. CarolMooreDC 04:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1) It's in the DNR, I'm not going to find it for you when you can do it yourself.

2) As opposed to having the lead paragraph for the reception entirely pro-RT POV? How about I remove all that on grounds of WP:UNDUE? Actually I can't. Here's why: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." In any case, where do you get this idea that only pro-RT sources can be put into the article? I'm proposing that the content be introduced and merged alongside the pro-RT content, while you on the other hand are dedicated to removing only content that is critical of RT.

2) I should also remind you that there is already another user who has said that the content you're referring to is, "valid and belong in the article" so as of right now, the only person who is advocating that properly referenced criticism from valid sourced be removed from the article is just you.

3) No it hasn't the Simonyan material about her connections to Putin aren't in the article anywhere, and the McFaul issue she had with him is weirdly under the history section when in fact we discussed that it should be under the staffing section.

4) I forgot to put this in the original list but the Assange section is still under the history section even though DNR shows that there was consensus that it should be in the programming section. As of today, you've still yet to put the Assange program in the programming section. Festermunk (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk: You can put the proposed material in a subpage of the talk page: that way we can see it, but it won't clog up this talk page. All you have to do is create a new WP page such as Talk:RT_(TV_network)/proposedMaterial (click on the red link) and put the text there, with citations. --Noleander (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done @ Talk:RT_(TV_network)/proposedMaterial. In essence, what you said was O.K. except I changed the heading and added relevant content in the current version of the RT article and merged it into the propsed material content. Festermunk (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Noleander has a good idea. As for specific responses:

• 2-first one)OK. Since the reception subsections are all negative material followed by responses, it seemed NPOV to have the first paragraph be some neutral or positive statements. The second paragraph is below. The first sentence obviously is relevant; I really wasn't sure where to put next two sentences which seemed to support that statement:

Journalists have noted that RT has received "considerable" criticism.[89] Glenn Greenwald wrote that RT showing the Julian Assange show led to "a predictable wave of snide, smug attacks from American media figures".[46] Mark Adomanis rebuts some of the "fevered denunciations" against RT and Julian Assange in an article in Forbes.[45]

• 2-second one) Just be specific. What is the most important and different negative material that has been removed that you think must be in? Put that on another page per Noleander. Just wanting to re-add all those hostile opinions saying something already there once or twice or three times is what is WP:Undue and that's most of what you were adding after User:Ipsign reverted you after you returned from your first block.
• 3) Simonyan: I thought I had put in the flowers and more than one source about her connections in the 3rd paragraph of history, but with all the cleanup and retrieval work I had to do, evidently missed it.
• 4) I never agreed Assange belonged in programming so please stop misrepresenting me. No one else supported your cutting it out of history, in the discussion section above. That is because WP:RS worldwide covered Assange program and especially the Hezbollah leader "scoop". CarolMooreDC 05:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

2) "Since the reception subsections are all negative material followed by responses, it seemed NPOV to have the first paragraph be some neutral or positive statements. " What kind of logic is that?

2) As opposed to having the lead paragraph for the reception entirely pro-RT POV? How about I remove all that on grounds of WP:UNDUE? Actually I can't. Here's why: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." In any case, where do you get this idea that only pro-RT sources can be put into the article? I'm proposing that the content be introduced and merged alongside the pro-RT content, while you on the other hand are dedicated to removing only content that is critical of RT.

2) I should also remind you that there is already another user who has said that the content you're referring to is, "valid and belong in the article" so as of right now, the only person who is advocating that properly referenced criticism from valid sourced be removed from the article is just you.

3) But it doesn't go in the history, it should go in a section called 'RT Staff' or 'Staff' as we discussed at DNR.

4) Doesn't mattered whether you agreed or not because we've already discussed this at DNR. I can't help you if you think "noe on else supported your cutting it out of history" when Nolelander clearly says that he thinks the the Assange section should be in the programming section as he says at the DNR. If you don't move it to that section, I will. Festermunk (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk: Your tone is becoming very belligerent again. Please be calm and respectful, otherwise you will get reported for Edit Warring again. My statements made in the DRN case were made based on the prior outline of the article. The new outline is much improved, and that change impacts the assessments I made beforehand. Regarding Assange: I made it clear in the DRN case that either location was fine - it is not a big deal. The article has many more important areas that need improvement. --Noleander (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am calm and respectful, where do you get the idea that I'm not? I understand that in the DRN you said basically that it was a coin-toss, but when I pressed you further on it you said that it should be in the programming section as the program is still on air, in fact you even said that it was the best path if the program was put in the programming section. Your exact wording: "Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)" Festermunk (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The concern about your behavior stems from your 3 recent reverts (immediately after returning from a 1 week block) plus comments like "If you don't move it to that section, I will." Regarding Assange: I still consider it a coin toss, and we really need to be focusing on the quality of the article and the overall balance. Insisting on moving a paragraph from one section to another equally good section is not a good use of time. --Noleander (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an idea why you keep going on about my "behavior" I am calm and respectful. I understand we need to be focusing on improving the balance of the article...which is why we're dealing with the Assange program issue. It's unclear how you say that you still consider it a coin toss when you wrote this in the DRN ( Your exact wording: "Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path. --Noleander (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)"). You say that it's because of the change in outline, but that is confusing as the outline for the article is still the same as it was when we initiated the DNR. Perhaps you can elaborate further.

2) If you want to be logical, please reply to what editors actually wrote. AGAIN: Re first sentence of Reception lead, Positive comments do NOT just come as a reaction to negative ones. That is the simple logic. Or we could just make a separate section on positive comments then? Obviously sentence about their being criticism is relevant; where to put two replies is up for discussion. As for the rest, the DNR is old history now, and it was just you and me - and a volunteer dispute resolver who has now decided to become an editor of this page. There are other editors here though I can certainly understand why with your aggressive and hostile attitude they might want to avoid interacting with you. That is the way you disrupt collaboration on a page. CarolMooreDC 17:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed material page

In addition to this, I would also like to remind you that I'm still waiting for your feedback on the changes I've made at Talk:RT_(TV_network)/proposedMaterial. Festermunk (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you update that talk subpage and indicate what parts you are proposing to add. It is a bit confusing: some of the text is boldface ... is that all you want to add? Other paragraphs (not bold) are already in the the article. Note that starting a paragraph with a few bold faced words (as in Libya) is discouraged by the WP manual of style. --Noleander (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"some of the text is boldface ... is that all you want to add?" That's right so for brevity's sake I won't indicate what parts I'm going to add. Somehow when I wrote that what I would merge the relevant content in the current version into the proposed version of the reception section would be bolded, it didn't come up on Wikipedia, so the confusion was probably due to a technical error? In any case, yes the boldface text is what I want. As for your concern about the bold faced words, that's just a stylistic issue I'll change that when we reach a consensus on the content. Festermunk (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An addendum to my last post: "Other paragraphs (not bold) are already in the the article." Alright, I see what you mean, the bolded paragraphs denote the paragraphs that I would merge from other sections of the paragraph. In that case, I'll put in italics the information I'd like to see added in. Festermunk (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• As you will see some of the things you are complaining about WERE taken from your version and put in current version of article. Did you ever read it? Also criticisms should be in somewhat dated order since first couple years it was more amateurish and had more questionable guests than more recently. I do have one ref to that effect haven't put in yet; and I'm sure I've seen others I'll keep eyes open for.
• A separate section for RT Staff...this was agreed upon in DRN. Untrue. You don't want to hear what others say
• Margarita Simonyan - she acknowledged that she once received flowers on her birthday from Mr. Putin.[6] I already said YES. Everything else is redundant or trivial.
• Peter Lavelle - September 11 attacks. Trivial example as part of your attack article mindset
• "peddling the softer side" of former Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin, - there is one negative opinion I believe, if there were two, a third more neutral one would have to be added for balance, and I have one. Is it worth all those sentences?
• Later critical opinions on RT have included:" First separate propaganda and anti-American criticisms are already in separate paragraphs. What do each of these add that is NOT already in there? Putting in every single quote you can find that is some shade of the same criticism is just WP:Undue POV attack behavior.
• Marcin Mączka writes' etc. Most of that in there now. Adding more becomes WP:Undue
• , the "brainchild of former Information Minister Mikhail Lesin and Putin's press spokesman, Aleksei Gromov" Is in there now. Have you bothered to read the newest version?? Rest is repetition of points already in there. If you think any sentence makes a BETTER case than one in there already on the topic AND comes from a more reliable news source, instead of just some opinionator spewing distain, replace it.
• quoted journailst Ed Lucas as saying that the core of RT was, "anti-Westernism."[29] Isn't there a paragraph already on that? I don't have a problem with adding it since it's funny to see someone on Al Jazeera saying that.
• Alyona Show could use mentioning; rest is just piling on WP:Undue
• Evgeny Morozov pointing out Point already made...just piling on WP:Undue

So that's my view, as I've stated repeatedly. CarolMooreDC 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• A separate section for RT Staff...this was agreed upon in DRN. Untrue. You don't want to hear what others say

Then prove that I am wrong.

• Margarita Simonyan - she acknowledged that she once received flowers on her birthday from Mr. Putin.[6] I already said YES. Everything else is redundant or trivial.

But it's not in the right section, it should be under the staff section as we discussed on DRN. This edit by User Nolelander: The Staffing section should certainly contain a paragraph on the chief editor. Right now, there is no section called, 'Staff' and the paragraph on Simonyan isn't in there.

• Peter Lavelle - September 11 attacks. Trivial example as part of your attack article mindset

Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit" in the lead paragraph of the reception section?

• "peddling the softer side" of former Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin, - there is one negative opinion I believe, if there were two, a third more neutral one would have to be added for balance, and I have one. Is it worth all those sentences?

Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit" in the lead paragraph of the reception section?

• Later critical opinions on RT have included:" First separate propaganda and anti-American criticisms are already in separate paragraphs. What do each of these add that is NOT already in there? Putting in every single quote you can find that is some shade of the same criticism is just WP:Undue POV attack behavior.

Because they aren't in there. Where are they?

"Putting in every single quote you can..." Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit"?

• Marcin Mączka writes' etc. Most of that in there now. Adding more becomes WP:Undue

The original paragraph, which was said to be O.K. on the DNR. Also, it's not in the receptions section where we decided on the DRN that it should

• , the "brainchild of former Information Minister Mikhail Lesin and Putin's press spokesman, Aleksei Gromov" Is in there now. Have you bothered to read the newest version?? Rest is repetition of points already in there. If you think any sentence makes a BETTER case than one in there already on the topic AND comes from a more reliable news source, instead of just some opinionator spewing distain, replace it.

But it's not in the reception section.

• quoted journailst Ed Lucas as saying that the core of RT was, "anti-Westernism."[29] Isn't there a paragraph already on that? I don't have a problem with adding it since it's funny to see someone on Al Jazeera saying that.
• Alyona Show could use mentioning; rest is just piling on WP:Undue

"rest is just piling on WP:Undue" Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit" in the lead paragraph of the reception section?

• Evgeny Morozov pointing out Point already made...just piling on WP:Undue

Like your edit here quoting a statement by Tracy Quan, that "RT is a far more interesting network than some care to admit" in the lead paragraph of the reception section? Festermunk (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Absurd description of VOA

From the Reception>Objectivity section : "After the 2005 announcement the station would be launched, the U.S. government-sponsored VOA[86]". really? just sponsored? sponsored is a nice whitewash for the word funded. but it is not just funded . it is owned by the US government :

"The IBB supports the day-to-day operations of Voice of America" "The position of IBB Director is appointed by the president of the United States, with Senate confirmation" International Broadcasting Bureau

The IBB is part of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, guess who is a member of the board of governors ? Hillary Rodham Clinton the 67th United States Secretary of State. http://www.bbg.gov/about-the-agency/ Should be - "the U.S. government-owned/controlled VOA" 109.67.33.28 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Festermunk: I could not find that info on the source page so put what I did find. Feel free to correct it. A long derisive post is not necessary to correct a simple error. CarolMooreDC 19:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Festermonk. I'm the guy who put in the Glen Greenwald original quotes.109.67.33.28 (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Corrected my error. Obviously another reason to get a handle. Feel free to correct with the proper reference, whatever it might be. CarolMooreDC 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Subsections in History

I added subsections to the History section and spread it out slightly, as it was very cramped and very long. I am not 100% sure about the subsection titles, any suggestions of better names would be welcome.Hentheden (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see it needed to be divided a bit, though I think that's too many.

• It could be done like BBC is done by year, say: 2005-2007; 2008-2011; and 2012 (adding "to present" on January 1 2013).
• Or it could be done topically and yearly: Foundation (1st three paragraphs); Growth (next six paragraphs); and then 2012 (adding "to present" on January 1 2013). I have a slight preference for latter myself. Meanwhile tweaked it a bit and moved awards paragraph to that section. CarolMooreDC 00:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Travelodge

How did Russia Today manage to get shown on almost all UK Travelodge TVs in the early part of the 21st century, even sometimes to the exclusion of nationally-local BBC News 24 which was also available on the "freeview" setup that the Travelodge TV setup was using? Was it part of a global Travelodge/RT deal? I think I've briefly seen an explanation for this in reliable sources somewhere, but it needs to be fleshed out properly and mentioned in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Quotes from Margarita Simonyan

Two quotes from RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, but im not sure where to add them  : "Simonyan said it was good that countries like Russia are spending money to make their voices heard "after so many years in which the international media scene was reduced to the points of view of Anglo-Saxon countries. For five years, I have been watching BBC and CNN news every day — they have almost exactly the same topics, the same wording, the same order. And for so many years they were the only international TV news sources. … It’s great that there is a channel with a different view, different experts and a different order."

"In regards to Western media criticism of RT's "Coverage of conspiracy theories" Margarita Simonyan, the channel's editor-in-chief argued that the channel’s policy was merely to provide a platform for marginalized points of view that otherwise got little coverage, like the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. "I personally do not believe them. But I believe that if there are people out there who think so but do not get into mainstream media, they deserve an audience — and we should give them a forum,”. Simonyan noted that viewer resonance and audience numbers confirmed that the policy is right. She also added that giving airtime to “truthers” was morally comparable to Western media coverage of the 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow and two other cities that killed 293 people. "What about Western media reports saying that Vladimir Putin was behind the bombings?".http://rbth.ru/articles/2010/03/23/230310_rt.html79.180.0.84 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I already put in short version on apartment bombings. The other is one of a number of good ones she's said on that and similar topics. What's already in there already on the same topic? Is this one shorter and punchier? ("Sound bites!") I have a whole list of them myself I was waiting to look at later to see if they were needed to fill in any obvious holes to balance the article. CarolMooreDC 00:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Scrap

...this sentence from the lead: "RT, according to its corporate profile, "covers the major issues of our time for viewers wishing to question more."" What they do (or don't do) according to their corporate profile is not of any relevance to us or the reader, and the sentence contains only corporate fluff. Right now it's the first sentence of the second paragraph; as it happens, the second sentence works just as well, even better, to open that paragraph, describing that the network does. Not that I want to get involved with this article, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is their slogan and several WP:RS talk about it, but I lazily left it as is. (It runs ads with the slogan several times a day.) Will put on my list to properly place and ref. CarolMooreDC 04:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Or just remove it as unnecessary, since it is. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It could go as well in History or elsewhere depending on how WP:RS frame it. I'm just staying away from lead while it's reverted. CarolMooreDC 17:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol, this has nothing whatsoever to do with reliable sources. Not everything that is reliably sourced goes in an article. We don't do mission statements, for instance, or visions, or programs, even if they are reliably sourced on the main page of the outfit's website. It's a matter of editorial decision: this is not what good articles anywhere, in the lead or otherwise, unless it is proven to be of special interest (I assume Fox's "Fair and Balanced" is well-written about). I'm going to go ahead and remove it; it can only improve the article. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

AnonIp editwarring again

Hey, Mr. Bezeq International, you can NOT revert other's material more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please read and study WP:3rr. Adding new material is ok if it doesn't delete other existing material. If you remember a few weeks back the article was protected so AnonIPs couldn't edit at all and that will happen again if 3rr violations continue. So please a) stop doing it and b) consider getting a registered user name so we don't get confused and have to keep checking if it's you or some other AnonIp. Thanks! CarolMooreDC 04:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol what do you think of the new lead ? doesn't it sum up everything in a straightforward, respectful and Non POV way ?79.182.22.161 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Carol I"m truly sorry, but , as usual Festermunk is abusing the revert function to block anything that even smells neutral and not negative .

I have no choice but to revert him back. I"m not even assuming, I'm declaring zero good faith by Festermunk. All this mess is happening ONLY with him.79.182.22.161 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I get dizzy with the back and forth I really would need more parties to opine at this point to have an opinion besides keep it like it was. CarolMooreDC 05:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)