Talk:RT (TV network)

Wikipedia and Russia Today: BOTH propaganda outlets?

“Since its foundation in 2005, RT has been widely accused as being a mouthpiece of the Kremlin. In an interview with U.S government-owned external broadcaster Voice of America, the Russian-Israeli blogger Anton Nosik the creation of Russia Today "smacks of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns." Criticism of pro-Russia bias within Russia Today

"In 2008, Tim Anderson, a senior lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney, said that Wikipedia administrators display a U.S.-oriented bias in their interaction with editors, and in their determination of sources that are appropriate for use on the site.” Anderson also said that Wikipedia "hides behind a reliance on corporate media editorials." Criticism of pro-American bias within Wikipedia

So perhaps both Russia Today and Wikipedia might be termed state information outlets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.181.232 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, one is funded by the Russian Federation, the other is merely open to intellectual corruption. As for Wikipedia being U.S. oriented, there are a slew of pro-lots-of-interests. If anything, on major topics, Wikipedia has a bite the hand that feeds it anti-US bias. So, again, no. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Involved in espionage?

The FBI says they've caught some Russian spies, and the complaint alleges a Russian state-owned media outlet was involved (but does not name it) [1], [2]. Watching to see if this gets any traction in reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Such Little Understanding of Russia Today?

Is not the timing of all this (anti-Russia) dis-information more than a little telling? For on top of the US government and media rubbishing RT, the FBI are busy putting out its' silly 007 (type) stories. All this anti-Russian BS - just when Uncle Sam is attempting to contain Russia and start a new cold war. While this might not be the kind of evidence Wikipedia demands, it seems to be a reasonable indication of attempts to undermine RT. And yet, instead of giving the appearance of being a US Department mouthpiece, should not Wikipedia put out balanced and fair information about the Russia Today and its' news output? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.50.129 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Get back to Olgino and tell them to find a better online machine translator.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like the allegations are aimed at Tass. [3]. Geogene (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RT did this to themselves, and luckily for them, they got away with their propaganda for a while, when they were believable. They had more than enough chances to keep a good image, but their abuse can only go so far before being noticed. Too bad for them, they didn't quit while they were ahead. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

But only later was Tass was put in the picture. At first, the news spotlight was aimed at Russia Today. As the reasoning went, not only is the station state-funded, but-at around the time of the conversation was recorded-RT put out reports about the New York Stock Exchange. And yet, the legal complaint was careful to avoid naming any news outlet. Not that cold war style attacks could have anything to do with US policy towards Russian or its' media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.49.137 (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Recognition heuristic. RT is by far the best known Russian media outlet in the West. Geogene (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. (Russian news got consolidated into the few state sponsored outlets there are) - Sidelight12 ^Talk 03:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RT: innocent until proven Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.86.96 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel that pumping out disinformation around the world on a daily basis is a far worse crime than facilitating a bit of spying. I'm sure RT would do anything that TASS would, so it's probably only a matter of time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum

I skimmed through this talk page, and I feel like it may be necessary to remind some people that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. - Anonimski (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pls feel free to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Quotes from Simonyan

This isn't an article about Western media coverage of the Moscow apartment bombings, nor is it an article about CNN. Putting in random, cherry picked quotes - and they are very much that, since overall both sources, NY Times blog, and Southern Poverty Law Center give a very much different picture than the quotes suggest - about what the editor of RT thinks about these things is inappropriate. They simply do not belong in this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever mainstream media comments on RT are, or whatever is said by others that is detrimental to the network, we just cannot have an article that has the silly ungrammatical heading "Propaganda etc." ([4]). I'm not personally worried about the content that follows. --Vrhunski (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Me neither, but when you are about to revert a user with five-digit contribution, sometimes it does not harm to look at the edit history: [5].--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I will self-revert now. --Vrhunski (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda as "axiomatic" instead of "alleged"

Could you explain what you meant, User:Galassi? Because it seems like your edit didn't contribute to NPOV. If we look at how CNN is presented, for reference, nobody has even bothered to cover the criticism of the pro-war content (Afghanistan, Iraq) and label it axiomatically as propaganda (the article however includes an allegation of propaganda for an Iran-related issue at the bottom). - Anonimski (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources have repeatedly and specifically called out RT's propaganda. There's no need to pretend that it's just one point of view; it's a fact. bobrayner (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing IRL content dispute - two political blocs describe each others' material as propaganda. I wouldn't disagree on that RT has broadcasted propagandistic material, although there should be a NPOV presentation of the accusations, whichever the direction. - Anonimski (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a strange way of putting it. Anyway, comparing RT and CNN is apples and oranges. Rotten apples and oranges.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And the bottom line is that it is alleged and not an "axiom". The so-called reliable sources to made the accusations including the former correspondents (Liz Wahl, Sarah Firth, etc.) still represent one political block which will be the same sources which - to give examples - will back Ukraine's government position over the eastern rebels; were ready to blame Vladimir Putin on day one for the Malaysian plane bombing which accorrding to the airline flew at low altitude and off the main flight path under instructions from Kiev, and similar examples. Meanwhile, you don't see RT criticised by other networks such as Press TV or CCTV (China) and yet their international coverage is in tune to each other, but when taking the views of pro-NATO pro-EU pro-Western Foreign Policy news outlets that constitute the western media, the reviews on those networks are also "propaganda", so it really is "one block versus the other". --Vrhunski (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Marek, In what way is it strange when there's a significant history of pro-war material from both of them? Remember the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction"? If you're putting it that way, why not "rotten apples and rotten oranges"? That would be more inline with the NPOV policy. - Anonimski (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

While I could ramble on about how ridiculous the previous two posts are, I’m too busy. Using "alleged" in a subheading in the criticism section is superfluous. Also I think one of the subheadings currently used is unneeded.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome to attempt to "ridicule" my remarks, if I am wrong in any way then I am all ears. In the meantime I will just add one thing, somebody here introduced the term "axiom" with the language of sanction to the point that "alleged" is not the case. When something is proven beyond reasonable doubt, nobody can dispute the term and this includes the RT Network. I am aware that many people to have edited this article have never actually watched RT but have paid close attention to the negative coverage it has received from the mainstream media - the same goes for people you may meet day to day as it is shocking how many people admit they "will not" watch it out of principle, and yet are under the impression that RT is somehow censored and acts like a North Korean style state tool for Moscow. In fact, RT watches over mainstream media like a hawk and tells its viewers exactly what is being reported in the corporate-owned networks - in particular when RT itself is the subject of criticism. A good example is when John Kerry some months back made his famous "bullhorn" speech in reference to RT. Obviously the corporate-owned western media and the BBC - for whom Kerry is a darling and therefore infallible - could find nothing to add to his comments. RT however devoted a good ten minutes responding to and refuting the comments through a set of representations. And of course, anyone to watch RT will also know that the persons interviewed are frequently scholars, authors and persons knowledgeable in what is being discussed (e.g. former advisors to U.S government positions), the very examples of what is considered WP:RS here. And given RT responds to absolutely every single remark against it, I believe that this could be added to the article too - and once that is done, anyone will see that the "propaganda" accusation has been trumped every time. Not exactly "axiomatic". --87.250.52.46 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My comments, logged out by mistake. --Vrhunski (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have done some work to the article. There are now seven clear sections on criticism with next to nothing on the response to these. Unfortunately, only RT can respond so nothing else can be used by any other editor. It is not for others to do the refuting for them. --Vrhunski (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the lead too biased?

So, its the first time I am viewing this RT article and the lead seems too biased. I mean, its alright to level all the criticisms in the Criticism section but the lead should not be that biased. Just look at the Fox/CNN lead and u barely find a sentence of criticism regarding bias; although they are also quite biased (being pro-US). Sohebbasharat (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead is accurate, because this is what it is, and this is its purpose. If we removed it, it wouldn't be accurate. (you see the situation in Ukraine today, which country is invading and being deceptive, and which is their state funded media) The only thing that is questionable in the lead is the ofcom statement, but to the British, it is an important statement for the lead. That statement needs to be nonspecific about overall tv sanctions, and have more refs behind it for the lead. Then the original ofcom statement definitely belongs in the article. The sanctions statement might be better off in the criticism section, to make the lead appear more balanced. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether the conflict is presented with WP:UNDUE weight, if we compare with similar CNN pro-war and pro-invasion material during the Afghanistan/Iraq time, and their comparatively low representation on Wikipedia. - Anonimski (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead with the exception of the Ofcom sanctions is due weight, for 2 reasons: they have a lot of reputable references, and because this is accurate. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, if there are references available that a channel is biased, should they all be lumped up in the lead? while giving not enough positive opinions? Fox is a war mongering channel that justifies every US atrocity. Go check its lead. It is not littered with criticism references. There is one sentence of criticism in the Fox lead with the second sentence rectifying that criticism. Compare that with RT. I know RT has criticisms. But it is WP:UNDUE if 80% of the lead is discussing the criticisms. There is a specific criticism section for a reason. And dont bring up discussion of Ukraine here. Be objective. Otherwise i can also name examples. You should read "Manufacturing consent" to get a good know how. All these channels propagate state objectives. Dont think that all the media in US is "objective" while RT is the first biased news channel ever.Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The criticism is a good part of this article because criticism is a lot of what's found in reliable sources. So the lede summarizes that. This is not WP:UNDUE (and it's nowhere near 80%), it's exactly as it should be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sidelight12, CNN reporting was fairly nuanced. They would say things like "according to the U.S. state department" or "according to Ukraine officials", rather than saying "Russia invaded Crimea today. A lot of the perception on the difference between RT and CNN reporting could be subjective. When a CNN reporter says "according to the U.S. government" we perceive that they are implying the statement is true, while when an RT reporter says the same thing, we perceive that the reporter does not necessarilty believe the statement to be true. TFD (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Because those sources are more credible than RT. At one point, RT had the benefit of being assumed credible. There are defected RT reporters who say they are fed up with RT. The wording of saying, who said what, is unbiased. It's up to the reader to determine if the US State Department, Ukraine officials, etc are credible; and apparently they at least have some credibility to many. Not everything in the news here is done by CNN. While RT once used legitimate instances to go on about to gain a base of followers: they used this to add false information to these concerns, to further their own purposes. I'd say find a new source, that supports the ideas and doesn't distort them to intentionally further Putin's corruption. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree on the credibility issues with RT, although the reliability gap to other equivalent news sources isn't of the extremely large magnitude like the current Wikipedia coverage suggests. A very notable example is how the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" thing got much more exposure than the later information about how the reports were faked so that the wars and invasions could be done with less public protests. Right now, we do have an issue with WP:UNDUE weight and bad adherence to NPOV policies in certain places. - Anonimski (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I partially agree. I may not agree if that was going on anything further. I knew "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" was a lie from the beginning, and things like this not getting enough coverage, like how people get away with cheating, after facts come out is unfortunately a fact of life. Many people, including Americans, are aware of this. Even Al Jazeera helped expose abuses in Iraq. RT is not the answer, in fact it makes things worse, by being done in a hypocritical sense. I'm fine with adding some balance, like a reasonable counter claim not done by RT, but im against removing the two sentences pertaining to propaganda and false information. However, I disagree with it being undue. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What are your opinions on clarifying the subsection title so that it's clear that the controversy is about allegations? I suggested it earlier because allegations is all that we have here at the moment, we don't have a situation where any side has faced an international court to settle the issues about war propaganda, etc. and agreed with the results. - Anonimski (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the subheadings are still overdone. It doesn't necessarily have to get that far to the international court for it to be noted as real, especially considering that Russia is one of 5 countries immune to the international court. The claims are also more than allegations. Wording something neutrally is fine, as long as it doesn't cover up facts, or truths about what reliable sources say. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC) On second thought, those subheadings are borderline ok. It seems overdone, but it does describe the passages well. For many reference points to find text and for organization its ok, but otherwise it is overdone. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 16:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the claims are way beyond a reasonable doubt. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparing RT with CNN or even Fox is false equivocation. Also, it's WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you have a problem with the CNN and Fox articles, take it up there. Don't POV this article on that kind of a flimsy excuse. Statements like "all these channels propagate state objectives" are ignorant at a level which suggests that the person making it may not be sufficiently neutral and/or competent to edit this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Comparing RT with CNN or even Fox is false equivocation". Wow. It seems to me that you have pre-decided and hence u will not be very objective. The lead of this article is already POV'd. I am only discussing to remove that POV. The OTHERSTUFF that i mentioned is to show you how an unbiased lead is constructed.Sohebbasharat (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, I have decided. Not "pre-decided", but decided. Based on the coverage in reliable sources. No "pre" there. Just following policy. Here it is, you should read it: WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The intro is fine. It simply reflects what sources tell. FOX may be biased, but the current reporting by Russian TV is simply not a journalism, but an outright propaganda, intentional disinformation and fear mongering. This is very different. My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Fox telling people what to think, biased reporting, and some propaganda. In fact, some of this is stated in their lead, and Fox News even has its own criticism article. RT takes the cake, it is so bad with disinformation and propaganda it makes Fox News look honorable. I don't know why I can't bring up Ukraine. Ukraine, and that plane incident is why more people started seeing RT for what it is, and RT's propaganda has been going on at least since the Syrian War.

It is the people's fault who initially tried to defend this article, by placing "by whom" tags behind the disinformation and propaganda statements. So now it exactly says by whom. Besides, it is Due weight, based on reliable sources. RT's mission is to promote propaganda and disinformation, and Fox at least has a little bit of real news. Sure, Fox has news then adds its own conclusion, but at least much of it was based on real news to begin with. It doesn't matter, you won't have to convince me, there are a lot more people who agree that the introduction is fine, and won't have it changed. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We've done this argument to death over the last year. If "new" contributors wish to contribute I suggest they read this talk page first. If someone wants to add new content to the article that is relevant and accurately reflects a reliable source they are free to do so. If someone has an idea for a "better" lead that won't just lead to re-run of the problems we've already had then post it here for discussion. Otherwise we are just wasting time--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The propaganda and false information claims are solid. There is at least one English source like Huffington Post that supports RT. If there are enough of those by more (real) sources, I don't mind adding a counter claim, that is done as I think is properly, to the lead. However, it cannot be too heavy, because of due weight, and to maintain fact. I don't have consensus to do that, but I don't mind either way. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here questionened propaganda or false or misleading information by RT. The argument is/was about whether RT is treated "harsher" than comparable outlets (such as fox,hungarian state media, cctv, press tv, voice of america).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly - and we should avoid a situation where the various emotions caused by the war in Ukraine make Wikipedia articles stray from the norms of having balanced and neutral representation of topics. - Anonimski (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "emotions" - please don't insult other editors. This has everything to do with reliable sources. That's it. As to "comparable outlets", take it up on the respective article pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a public dispute about reliability, it's not only local to Wikipedia. As RT is one of the media outlets involved in the dispute, this page is one of the places where the NPOV discussion belongs. And since when did the usage of the word "emotions" become an insult? You're not making any sense there... - Anonimski (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to falsely characterize those who disagree with you as making "emotional" arguments. This is a rhetorical trick. There's nothing emotional here. It's just following what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You're accusing me of a "rhetorical trick", when I'm describing the observation that certain topics got some really intensive attention and heated debates when the war started. That is definitively a real issue and a concern related to the NPOV goals. If there's anyone that has come with an insult here, it's you. - Anonimski (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's not. Again, you are just attempting to paint those who disagree with you as "emotional". This is dishonest and insulting, especially since it's those who disagree with you are the ones who are insisting we follow Wikipedia policy and follow reliable sources, whereas your suggestions for changes essentially amount to "my own opinion".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As has already been covered many times, the question of does this article treat RT more harshly than other articles treat their subjects is irrelevant. NPOV doesn't mean removing info because although no reliable sources can be produced, people don't like what an article says.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate RT, for distorting facts to support corruption at the cost of many innocent lives. There are editors here who I think have an emotional attachment to RT, because it starts off on subjects which may be legitimate concerns, then they cling to this blindly. RT has its base, then it uses that to distort, and influence events. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant if the harshness has undue weight compared to how similar issues are treated. Wikipedia must represent a worldwide view, and that means neither pro-US nor pro-Russia. No agendas. - Anonimski (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does not represent "a worldwide view", whatever the fuck that is. It presents the view of reliable sources. Period.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And how exactly are you supposed to define reliable sources when we have a significant reliability dispute IRL? We have several sides who have been actively spreading propagandistic and biased content in some certain contexts. You can't just come and dictate that one of them should be a special case with a special type of coverage. - Anonimski (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. It's in there. I don't know about "several sides". The criticism of RT are well sourced. If you really really really want to you can go to WP:RSN (again!) and argue that the relevant sources are not reliable. Just to save you some time, it's not going to work, it'll only waste people's time and energy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am for moving the ofcom statement from the lead, and putting in that RT drew criticism or action from government entities/organizations in the lead. Then inserting a mildly weighted counter claim by Huffington Post (not like they have it right, but I don't mind expressing their opinion) with more refs from other sources, and possibly a review too. The criticisms in the lead are well weighted, and my proposal here will weigh it more equally. Of course, I don't have consensus to do this, and I'm also worried that my attempts would get abused by people who support the network, but they haven't been around recently. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The current lede is fine and does not need changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would still like Volunteer Marek or Trappedinburnley to provide a link to any RT articles that fabricate facts. TFD (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There are too many examples. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 21:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is beside the point but I have provided such examples in the past, in discussion at WP:RSN and, IIRC, the discussion at Malaysia Flight 17 articles. Feel free to dig'em out. I'm not gonna waste my time endlessly repeating the same thing just because some people are incapable of listening or because they think that wearing and tiring out others is a valid Wikipedia editing practice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the question itself strays away from the purpose of this discussion, and into the field of WP:OR. We are dealing with a news outlet that has been involved in dishonest representation of some events, and we have a debate on how it should be treated in relation to other news sources that have displayed similar behavior. - Anonimski (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think the lead is too biased and there is too much focus on criticising Russia Today.A short one sentence stating that RT has been criticized by its opponents and accused of propaganda should be enough.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That goes too far, and many including me won't agree with that. I'll assume that is an honest intention. The first two sentences of the section are sound, if this seems like too much, it's because that is much of RT's purpose. Next, I'd like to move the Ofcom statement down, and replace it in the lead with something like, RT has drawn reactions from foreign government agencies. After that, a mild refutation by the Huffington Post and similar sources. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

We use reliable sources. Not what somebody happens to "think". The present lede is just fine. Changing it because of someone's IDONTLIKEIT, in contradiction of coverage in reliable sources, is the essence of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's not just "foreign government agencies" that RT has drawn reactions from. RT has been pretty universally criticized in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It already has that, it drew vocal reactions from news and other sources. It drew action from the British government agency ofcom, and from the US Department of State. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is that it's not just those agencies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If that means criticism and/or claims, the first two sentences in that section of the lead say that. I'm referring to additionally (actions, not just vocal reactions) sanctions from government agencies such as Ofcom, and the (reaction by the) US Department of State. What else are you referring to? - Sidelight12 ^Talk 07:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What's with adding back the heading propaganda, when the overhead heading says propaganda. It is harming our case to hit RT so hard, it turns readers away from learning that RT is real garbage. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 06:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ok that makes sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with "harming our case"? Could anyone of you two please explain in a more clear way, what is it that you want to do? - Anonimski (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It feels that many of the editors here are seeing all of this from a very "anti-Russian" angle and that is not good for the neutrality. Many people here are assuming that all the US media is inherently superior than RT; while reality is far from that. US media tows their government's line (Iraq War; a case in point) just like RT is towing its government's line. But reading the article here feels as if RT is somehow a convicted criminal while all the US channels are icons of honest journalism. Let me also say that i am not from US and not from Russia. I am from Pakistan; so I have really no side to take here. (neither pro-Russian, nor anti-Russian). But i do feel that the lead needs to be toned down to make it NPOV.Sohebbasharat (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make baseless accusations. No one here is "anti-Russian". Nevermind the fact that you are fallaciously equating being critical of Putin's policies with being "anti-Russian", which itself reveals a bit about your mindset and your capability to edit this article neutrality. And yes, most of US media is superior to RT. Hell, most of the media in Antarctica is superior to RT. They just don't set a very high bar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole approach of establishing what is "superior", and acting thereafter, is not really inline with Wikipedia's goals. Doing that kind of evaluation here on this talkpage, and basing our edits on that, would cause us to stray too far into something that could only be categorized as WP:OR. (Edit: And I am aware of that there are reliable sources and unreliable sources, although here we're evaluating news sources with different political alignments and interests (and similar incidents related to passing on POV-pushing material to the public), which makes the situation radically different to, for example, a dispute regarding a scientific publication and a religious text). - Anonimski (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll speak for myself. I'm seeking the balance of truth to NPOV. People need to see RT for what it is. No, my angle is not anti-Russian; my angle is anti-hidden-agenda by RT. At one point, RT had the same chance of being considered trustworthy as any other news source; and their propaganda efforts eventually exposed itself. At times, some, but not all American or other sources did tow their government's line, but not to the extent as this organization, afaik. But you are on about something, recently there has been anti-Russian, anti-US, anti-country sentiment across the web, because of recent global events, and media portrayal. This amount or type of anti- sentiment wasn't around 3 years ago. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 17:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective (who entered this dispute in a very late stage), all I see is an example of the "WP:But it's true!" syndrome. Completely removing everything about RT's problematic aspects would of course be wrong. In this case, however, there have been excessive emotional (this word is still not an insult, Marek) attachments to this whole ordeal, and this has made the coverage to be out of proportions to how issues like these are normally dealt with (if we look at pro-war apologism and misleading info from other media). We need to be concise and focus on the notable and important aspects of criticism against RT and not mindlessly absorb any comment wherever it comes from. And the articles about other news providers need to be updated so that they also display info on their equivalent controversies and problematic sides that have been noted. - Anonimski (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As has also been covered before all the major news network articles have accompanying "criticism of" or "controversies of" articles. You are welcome to contribute to them. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that someone scraped together every negative source available and put it in the article. These are but a tiny sample. As just about everyone who considers themselves a journalist becomes aware of RT promptly recoils in horror, they tend to write about it.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

'WP:But it's true' is an opinion essay. Truth is my fundamental principle in editing, NPOV is second. It just so happens that, it is verifiable, and well sourced. I've said, I was willing to work on neutrality of the article, without removing the well sourced facts, so I don't understand why such the difficulty. Secondly there were defenders of RT who appeared had an emotional attachment to the network. Also, I agree with Trappedinburnley's assessment below, with the addition that this costs thousands of lives where Russia intervenes; and this explains some of the anger at RT. Despite my personal opinions, I reason logically. So next, what are suggestions for a counter (which is mild, by due weight) by not-RT (including neutral and RT supporting) sources. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 22:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

After many hours viewing the channel since 2008 I firmly believe that RT is a hardcore propaganda service masquerading as the Russian (insert your own international news service). Its primary agenda is pretty obviously to manipulate the viewer (and by extension in a democratic country, the viewer’s government) into supporting whatever benefits Putin’s government. Whether it is trying to make everyone dislike the US, or prevent the spread of fracking to keep demand for Russia’s primary export high, or break-up the EU to facilitate the restoration of the USSR, or stop the west’s interventions in places that are friendly to Russia, just about everything they broadcast is suspect. The only believable stuff I’ve ever watched on RT is when the truth happens to fit the agenda. My goal here as with any other article is to give our readers a full understanding of the subject, but as always we are limited by the sources available to us. That’s not to say any other media organisation is blameless but this isn’t about them it's about RT.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, sir but I have also lately been viewing RT quite a lot and comparing it with CNN for example, i dont see but a small difference. Russian media propagates its foreign policy just like almost all of mainstream US media propagates its own foreign policy and neither is pro-world peace; both want the greatest share of the pie that is the resources and power. So, i disagree with the notion that RT is particularly bad. I have barely, if ever, seen any major US media diverge from the foreign policy that the gov is pursuing; and the few times they do are only minor to's and fro's. I can go from Vietnam war, to interventions in South America, to middle east, to Israel, to Iraq war, to Afghanistan etc but that is besides the point. I admit i am a human and so by definition subjective. Of course lots of RT criticism is valid and needs mention. My only humble opinion is to make the lead a bit balanced. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to take a more sober second look at US (mainstream) media, while certainly can detect somewhat of "pro american" bias and a lot of "jingoism", you cannot claim it doesn't critize the government's foreign policy (or the government a such), the rather often do. In particular the most propagandistic outlet (fox) does constantly criticize the current president over its foreign policy. Propagandistivc or biased reporting in US media is not pro government but pro various factions in the US, which may or may not be aligned with government policies. For istance under Bush fox usually supported US foreign policies whereas under Obama they often don't. They do not represent the opinion or propaganda of the US government but that of certain conservative factions and movements in the US. The same goes for historical examples as Vietnam and Latin America policies. Parts of the mainstream media were extremely critical of US policies there i fact one might argue that the press has lost the Us the war, as its critical reporting killed the war support at home. This was one of the main reasons for the current embedded war journalism, the pentagon changed its handling of the press, because it was so critical in the past. You find similar critical pieces about US policies towards Latin America, moreover there are even various major "Hollywood" movies directly attacking US Latin America policies (Costa Gavras' "Missing", Oliver Stone's "Salvador", ....). So the argument that the US media does not criticize US foreign policy or does not divert from it has really little to stand on upon closer inspection.

As far as RT goes i'd consider it as particularly bad as far as any serious journalism is concerned, probably not much worse than Fox. However Fox is more or less the worst case in US mainstream media. However with RT journalistic quality depends on the subject, while it's Ukraine reporting and show's like Peter Lavalle are big biased propaganda mess, some of US reporting of RT USA is actually reasonable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is no forum to debate this issue. I can only advise you to please give "Manufacturing consent" a read. As you mentioned that RT is probably similar to Fox. I would advise you to check the lead in the Fox article and compare it with the lead in this article. I think you would understand why i am saying the lead in this article is pushing a negative POV.Sohebbasharat (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You started the "debate" not me. As far as the lead of the fox article and this one is concerned, instead of arguing that this one pushes negative POV in comparison, you could also argue the Fox one pushes (falsely) positive POV in comparison whereas this one is getting it right.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok guys, the thing is, your own personal impressions that you've gotten out of watching RT yourself are completely and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. As are mine. Bottom line is that what matters is how reliable sources talk about it. And that's exactly what we have in the article right now. You might not personally agree with reliable sources and that's actually fine. But Wikipedia is based on reliable - and MAINSTREAM - sources. There are other venues and outlets on the internet for expression of personal opinions and original research. But an encyclopedia isn't one of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia's emphasis for sources is more on quality than on mainstream aspect. Hence we rely primarily on reputable scholarly sources rather than the mainstream media/press. Also the question of similar/comparable treatment is not necessarily of question of sources, but the question why in some article have the sourced criticism in the lead whereas others just have it further down. However the WP might not have gotten it right for article A (yet), is not a good argument for not getting it right for article B as well (in the sense of "equal treatment").--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Since when do we avoid mainstream media/press sources? I think it is probably time to review WP:RS policy again. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't avoid them as such but we tend avoid them where scholarly sources are available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

RT TV network or channel?

The heading says that this article is about RT the TV network, but the lead begins like it is an article about one channel. Which is it? The two should be brought in conformity. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely an expert on RT such as yourself can tell us?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am no expert on RT. I dont know where you are coming from... I am just asking, is this article for RT (as a network) or RT (one channel from among others that are part of the RT network)? Because the opening sentences of the lead refer to "channel" while the article title is "network".Sohebbasharat (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The following would seem an improvement to me:

RT (formerly named "Russia Today") is a Russian state-funded television network that produces cable and satellite television channels and Internet content directed to audiences outside of the Russian Federation. RT International, which is headquartered in Moscow, presents round-the-clock news bulletins, documentaries, talk shows and debates, as well as sports news and cultural programs on Russia.[3] RT operates a multilingual service with channels in three languages; the original English language channel was launched in 2005. The Arabic language Rusiya Al-Yaum was launched in 2007, while its Spanish language channel RT Actualidad was launched in 2009. Since 2010, RT America, and 2014, RT UK have offered some locally based content for those countries.

RT is a brand of "TV-Novosti", an "autonomous non-profit organization", founded by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti (now "Russia Today") on April 6, 2005.[1][5] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian Government included ANO "TV-Novosti" in the list of core organisations of strategic importance of Russia.[6][7][8]

Any complaints?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks very good now. Much clearer. Thanx. Just one thing, "founded by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti (now "Russia Today")" so its not that RIA Novosti is now called Rossiya Segodnya; in fact RIA Novosti was closed and a new agency is started. So, i dont see any purpose of mentioning Rossiya Segodnya here in the parenthesis; the information is complete even without that. People can read further on RIA Novosti page that it has now been succeeded by another agency. AND EVEN IF it has to be mentioned, "Rossiya Segodnya" is enough, no need to write this as "Russia Today", because that confuses it up with the channel RT that was previously Russia Today. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already updated the first part (with some tweaked grammar), and I think that the rest is fine too. - Anonimski (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. looks good now. just that rossiya segodnya point that i mentioned in reply to Trappedinburnley needs to be discussed. Sohebbasharat (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it as it is already linked in the "not to be confused with", but I'd prefer to wait for other editors to comment before changing the article.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"RT is a brand of "TV-Novosti", founded by RIA Novosti on April 6, 2005."

Can someone clarify this sentence in the lead? The two references are in Russian. What does it mean "..is a brand of ..."? If someone can confirm from the reference and explain that here. Thnx, Sohebbasharat (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've linked to the article on brand--Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what a brand is. Thank you for your explanation. "TV-Novosti" has no wiki link. So, i dont know what this is. I merely want clarification for this. Because the references given are in Russian, so if someone who understands Russian could comment...ThanxSohebbasharat (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Simonyan's "Larry King" quote

The quote "Whether a president or an activist or a rock star was sitting across from him, Larry King never shied away from asking the tough questions, which makes him a terrific fit for our network" was recently removed obviously because it is pointless fluff. However it seems surprisingly important to User:Mercy11 that it remains in the article. Although I doubt anyone cares enough to get in a argument about it I thought I'd mention it for posterity.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Trappedinburnley. It was still in there, so I've removed it per WP:UNDUE and WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is not a PR company for promoting RT's programming. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent developments section

I know this article has been through a serious POV edit war recently, but the "Recent developments" section reads as a massive violation of WP:WEASEL, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:OPED from go to whoa (beginning to end). The tone is unencyclopaedic and journalistic in itself. I'm just giving other editors a heads up on the fact that I intend to redact it heavily per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Stringing together bits of bitching and various other WP:UNDUE incidents does not meet with WP:BALASPS standards.

Feel free to argue a case for the majority of it being retained now... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved with the article back then, but I think that someone thought it a good idea to move some of the older content from the Criticism section to History. Some of the content (or the sources at least) may be more appropriate there, or in a new Controversies section that I've previously suggested.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The previous section is also messy. Basically, Development and expansion (2007-2014) and Recent developments (2012-2014) are forks for the same topic. They should be trimmed, merged, and perhaps segmented into subsections (for example by year). As for the trimming, for some reason we have quite a lot of overweight on the 2012 part, there are some low importance things there that just take unnecessary space. - Anonimski (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in agreement with you both on this matter. The first paragraph of "Recent developments" alone is completely redundant. The merge idea into yearly subsections of "Development and expansion" would work, as would creating a "Controversies" section. I'll have to find that proposal again and refresh my memory, Trappedinburnley. Would you consider the two proposals for a clean-up mutually unworkable, Anonimski? "Development and expansion" could be proscribed to the nuts and bolts, while "Controversies" should be able to be developed without overlapping. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear my feeling is that the current "Responses to news coverage" subsection in Criticism should be turned into a "Controversies" S2. Other contributors have countered with: you can't have Criticism AND Controversy sections; there shouldn't be either section, the content would be better incorporated elsewhere; or negative content shouldn't be allowed because it is un-encyclopedic / western government propaganda / the mainstream-media ganging-up on RT.

I suspect that by the time the History section has been cleaned-up, it won't need subsections, but if it does, I'm relaxed about the headings. Obviously ambassador McFaul's treatment by the Russian media (who seemed convinced he's a CIA revolution specialist) is significant, and may be relevant from the angle of RT's links to other Russian state-owned media outlets. But I agree that the issue mentioned in the article is pretty insignificant.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning as to having criticisms and controversies as separate subheaders if necessary. My concern about proscribing how they are handled (whether under the one subheader or both) revolves around the fact that either/both sections have the potential to be turned into POV spin-off articles. Of course, that only reflects my own predilection for containing as much as possible about any given WP:TITLE content in the one article, particularly when dealing with potentially op-ed/journalistic content where the issue at hand is adherence to the project's (Wikipedia's) NPOV, encyclopaedic content premise.

My intention in starting this section was in order to get some civil and rational discussion underway in light of the edit war mess without triggering a fresh bout of edit warring. I, too, am flexible as to how this is handled, and prefer not to approach it per WP:BRD but by consensus on this talk page. I'd prefer not to remove content I consider to be relevant simply because it could be merged "elsewhere" where instances of "elsewhere" will probably be dismissed as being UNDUE. Given that we've allowed for a few days between discussions, I would suggest that, if there is no other input here, we should allow for another couple of days then start on a restructuring. Anyone with doubts as to how we handle it will, then, be welcome to express them in this section. Cheers, Trappedinburnley! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual but not neutral

A self-test for bias: What is the first thing that comes to your (and mine) mind when you hear or see "RT"? Is it: a) a televisions network? b) funded by Russian state? c) alleged propaganda for Russian government? d) adversarial to west?

If you say funding, allegation (very plausible),... check for bias

"a television network" and then all the others should be explored (factually with sources) in appropriate sections of the article.

When the FIRST word after the name of the entity is its funding source, it begs to invite criticism of biased writing/editing. Every one is biased by nature. Please try to stay neutral. Someone had mentioned that only cited FACTS are added. is the following not factual? RT is a Russian state funded, highly criticized adversarial television and internet network and is alleged to be an arm of Russian Federation's foreign policy. These are facts written in a biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just a descriptor, and the sentence flows better that way.

What is the first thing that comes to your (and mine) mind when you hear or see "Google"? "Internet", perhaps, or "search-engine"; but our article on Google uses the word "American" before any of those, because that's a helpful adjective and in English we typically put adjectives before nouns. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fair; I will change to Russian television... Again, I understand the funding issue is important, but before mentioning its a television network doesn't seem logical. I read the first line and it popped out as being written by some one who wants to emphasize "hey this is propaganda". Same goes for placing a whole paragraph of specific criticism in the introduction. ex: (Prof so and so, who is about to lose his job, has been associated with college of ....) The first line is crucial for setting the tone. Please keep it neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Added Russian before television... as is the case for google article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Good question. What is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear about the contemporary "Russian state-funded television" ? None of the above. What comes to my mind is disinformation and propaganda of hatred. "Kulture" channel was good a year ago. Now one can only watch Dozhd, but this not a state-funded, but a state-persecuted channel that was recently evicted to a private apartment. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

you proved the point. The first thing that comes to your mind is your opinion. Look in the mirror and see the bias. Or don't. There should be at list a minimal respect for neutrality. No is interested in your opinion or mine. Stick to facts, and place them in appropriate are. This article needs to be flagged. I'm working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.105.237 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Funding compared to other articles

Comparison article on Voice of America which is also a gov funded broadcasting network mentions the America first (as is now the case for RT) and funding is mentioned in line 3 (as it is important, but not for the first sentence). The article needs to read neutral and not emphasize one fact over another by placing it in the first line. 209.59.106.25 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)209.59.106.25 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is neutral. If you got a problem with the Voice of America, then discuss that there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about how Voice of America is, but I can't really agree on that this article is neutral in all aspects. There are neutrality issues that other users including me have debated about earlier on this talk page. But as for now, the best idea would be to bring up those questions at the Voice of America talk page, as Marek said. As for the overall neutrality, I think that it would be good to start a WP:Wikiproject about neutral representation of media where category-wide trends can be examined without having the discussions get stuck on individual talkpages. - Anonimski (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Economist description of RT

Article in The Economist describes RT:

At home Russian media, which are mostly state-controlled, churn out lies and conspiracy theories. Abroad, the main conduit for the Kremlin’s world view is RT, a TV channel set up in 2005 to promote a positive view of Russia that now focuses on making the West look bad. It uses Western voices: far-left anti-globalists, far-right nationalists and disillusioned individuals. It broadcasts in English, Arabic and Spanish and is planning German- and French-language channels. It claims to reach 700m people worldwide and 2.7m hotel rooms. Though it is not a complete farce, it has broadcast a string of false stories, such as one speculating that America was behind the Ebola epidemic in west Africa.

-- GreenC 18:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just reading The difference between real journalism and Russia Today in the Spectator, and plan to incorporate it into the article.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While sources with a distinct POV/agenda are okay, they should be incorporated into Wikipedia with NPOV as a guiding principle. Furthermore, in this case, there's an active dispute on how to narrate certain parts of geopolitics and assign guilt for tragedies, conflicts and incidents. The two mentioned sources are not wrong to include per se, but they are of low quality, even if they do have a point in several cases. It would be better if someone could find sources that analyze these disputes from a third-person perspective and compare the interests of different geopolitical actors in a non-participatory way. - Anonimski (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The Economist as a source is fine, although the text based on it should be attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

let be neutral and only mention the negative. All Media organizations have biases. I should add a few quote from RT to The Economist's page for balance. Wow since when the economist is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.105.237 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Economist presents views acceptable to millions of it readers, RT presents the opinions of Russian leaders. The Economist isn't able to misinform on many subjects during long time, RT is able. RT could be much more succesful telling 90% of truth and 10% of propaganda but it doesn't care. Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The economist has masters just like RT does. They don't owe anyone the truth. It is up to us to be skeptics. And your statement here demonstrates your POV which you are entitled to. But I'm afraid it is not left at the door (or by the keyboard) when you edit. Again I understand your view and respect it. But It seems like it's taking away from neutrality of your edits. Wikipedia is best left factual and not popular.Paulthemonk (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No, actually it's not. It is up to us to follow reliable sources. Please see WP:OR and WP:NOTTRUTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Elsewhere, the author of the Spectator editorial writes, “This (human-caused climate change) is a monumental fraud… we are cracking the fraud wide open.” How do we assess what weight to give this writer's opinion? Are his views on RT any different from his views on the mainstream media? TFD (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really aware of author's previous work, but given that this is in The Spectator, I would expect his views to lean toward the conservative, old-fashioned end of the spectrum. Surely an old-fashioned, conservative who doesn't think much of global warming, would offer a softer view of Putin's pet news channel? Oh but no, he's just as critical as everybody else.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This explains why you insist on leaving criticisms in lead of article. "Putin's pet", "end of spectrum", No wonder why the article looks like this.Paulthemonk (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies section

The constant vandalism of structure of this article is shameful. There should be a section dedicated to "criticisms" or "criticism and controversies". Examples for this are these articles Wikipedia, BBC, Press TV, Communism, Facebook, and list goes on and on. There are some that repeatedly remove this section and place criticism in the introduction section of the article. Please stop doing this. Have respect for neutrality and logical structure of article. 209.59.105.237 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you had bothered to familiarize yourself with the history of this article, you would realize that your view has been covered here many times and is strongly disputed. If you had ever watched RT, it should be pretty obvious that we are not being unfair to them at all.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"If you had ever watched RT, it should be pretty obvious that we are not being unfair to them at all." Your opinions of RT, whatever they may be, do not give you the right to push WP:OR on Wikipedia. We describe the neutrality dispute - we should never participate in it. - Anonimski (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no neutrality dispute. Nobody is coming to this article with new independent reliable sources that fundamentally disagree with the views already prevalent. Apparently they think I don't like it, claim it doesn't represent a neutral point of view (because it doesn't say what they want it to say) and then start trying to remove or hide content. This issue has been thoroughly covered already on this talkpage. We can't be expected to keep repeating ourselves, going over the same ground again and again. The alleged "constant vandalism" is being carried out by experienced editors, who all have at least a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies. In the event someone actually points out a real policy violation they will likely be willing to compromise. Either bring something new to the discussion / article or go and do something else with your time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop trolling. You're trying to say that there's no neutrality dispute, inside a neutrality dispute? Just look at the previous sections of this talkpage. As for the content; we have groups of media from two sides of a conflict that dispute each others' reliability in certain war-related topics. I'm suspecting that you're trying to push your POV by stalling possibilities of work on neutral media representation by creating situations where people have to spend time explaining rudimentary stuff "this is a neutrality dispute" inside a neutrality dispute. If the history of pro-invasion arguments in media is represented in unbalanced ways and it correlates with political blocs, then it's a breach of NPOV (this issue has been mentioned earlier). And just to make it clear, I don't condone any edits that would totally erase all descriptions of RT's problematic sides. We simply have a problem with WP:UNDUE weight. - Anonimski (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't refer to other editor's comments as "trolling". There's a contrived "neutrality dispute" which is really a couple editors (yours and an anon IP who's looking more and more like somebody's sock puppet) WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what impressions you get watching RT. It irrelevant. The introduction section should be neutral to subject. You are vandalizing the article to place what you think is important where it doesn't belong. I'm right in the middle about RT. The have a bias, but so does most of the reliable sources used in Wikipedia. Stick to the principle of neutrality and that no one wants to know what an individual editor think on wiki. I suggest all the vandalized to creat their own blog pages where they can pour the highly sough opinions in. I will warn and report every attempt to break the structure and neutrality of the article. If you believe RT is a propaganda machine, only by allowing people to read a neutral article and make their own mind you will achieve that. Other wise you will set some off like me who is appalled by your what being done to this article WP:UNDUE 209.59.105.237 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We say what reliable sources say. This is what reliable sources say. That's neutrality. End of discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Don’t mix me up with anon.. I am editing from school and home. so it should only be 2 IPs for me. (disclosure: I have had an account in the past and for the life of me I cannot remember what it was - years ago). I am tired of making account for every website and keeping track. But Wiki may just be worth having an account in. I usually don’t edit unless there is something as bad as what I see in RT. I graduate student and very up-to-date on world affairs. My conclusion is that the biases (on all sides) create the political issues we sea and allows for groups of people to take advantage of majority of others. That’s why I am committed to neutrality. What I see here is either misinformed editors or editors with malicious intent. RT is what it is. Introduce it as neutrally as possible and then add related topics in well organized sections. So please stop breaking the logical flow and structure of article. I gave a few days to sea if this would be reversed and it is not.209.59.106.25 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline on the introduction section basically says "the lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". Given that the sources in this article almost uniformly heavily criticize RT (to the point that this appears to be the mainstream view), it should be mentioned at the start. The summary of the criticism that you keep trying to remove, has developed in response to a number of previous attempts to remove earlier versions over the last year. It will not be removed. If you would like to change the wording, that is open for discussion, but I suggest you read previous talk sections, as offering ideas that have already been dismissed is likely to irritate people.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how to recognise a misinformed editor according to 209.59.106.25 . During the time of Soviet rules people were punished because they allegedly misinformed, so please don't use the Soviet langauge. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take back the wording and tone of my argument. Trappedinburnley, "will not be removed"? I respect your sense of self righteousness. It will be removed if there is a enough support for it. When it comes to articles like this, the group who is more familiar with Wikipedia policies and has more time on their hands get to dictate the truth. That is a fundamental flaw. Even the use of "main stream" sources. Every forget how main stream is owned by private entities with their own POV and agendas. I wonder what articles on slavery would have been back when the majority of people and "main stream" sources were okay with it. I personally am skeptical unless a verifiable documentation on subject is provided. Wikipedia has a lower standard. This allows POV taking hold. How? Editors who are biased one way will search and collect "main stream" sources only demonstrating their opinion. Based on Trappedinburnley point, if an editor loads the article with 50 statements and subjects that are favorable to RT, the lead section would have to reflect a pro RT view. That does not make sense. Look at press TV, as I mentioned in other sections, they are worse than RT, but the article is written neutrally. Paulthemonk (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that your viewpoint on RT greatly differs from mine. This is exactly why Wikipedia relies on information published in reliable sources, rather than just allowing us to write whatever we believe to be true. This is not a forum on WP procedure. Your idea to compare the content of other articles to this one is flawed. All articles are a product of the contributing editor's efforts and the sources available, they are all incomplete. As I said, if you or any one else can find a sufficient independent reliable sources that fundamentally disagree with the views already prevalent, then the lead should be altered to reflect that. The paragraph you keep trying to move is a summary of information already in the article, and is intended for the lead section. Therefore moving it to the (currently title-less) Criticism section is incorrect.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Too many sections on the same subject in talks. I suggest continuing in the "I propose..." section as its more to the point. Response to above: I agree RT is %100 pro Russian and propagates russian gov POV. (Personally, which shouldn't matter, I gave up on relying on few sources for news. I assume ALL reporting is biased. By readying from many, mainly independent, reporting I try to make an assumption of reality.) RT being a propaganda for Russian gov is a no brainier. I argue the neutrality of tone, bot the content. I think a statement like: "RT is widely believed / understood to be a propagation tool for Russian gov .... citations" would be fine in the lead. But when specific examples are given, its not a summary like some have suggested. Paulthemonk (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

ad of the month

I think the only remaining dispute on the article is whether the stuff about "ad of the month" should be added. I think one editor who wanted to add the material missed the part that it was "of the month". Another editor wants to add it "for balance", which is a basic misunderstanding of WP:NPOV.

So can we just remove it and unprotect the article (although semi-protection would be a good idea)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for allowing this to be restored. With all of the reverts, I didn't realise this slipped through. It's OSE at the very least and is a truly bad attempt at GEVAL by an editor at some point during the previous edit war. It really needs to go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Marek, why are you saying that this "ad of the month" thing is the only remaining dispute? Look at the previous sections, nothing has been resolved there. I've been attempting to bridge the gap between the two sides regarding on how to describe RT in relation to other media, but I've come nowhere yet. - Anonimski (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that some editors JUSTDONTLIKE what reliable sources say is not a "neutrality dispute". If persistent enough, it's disruption.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What you're doing is WP:WIKILAWYERING. The protests and remarks have been backed up with argumentation, and you're pretending like those parts haven't been written. - Anonimski (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As the claim was originally sourced to RT I looked for a better one, once I found this [6] I thought it pointless to continue. Also someone may want to sort out the section titles when we get unlocked --Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice bit of research, Trappedinburnley. I'd say this is an excellent reason to lose the advertising award... or should we act as PR proxies for networks and append a trivia section for every network featuring which network came up with "Must see TV", ad nauseam (pardon the pun)?

I would also appeal to admin for semi-protection on the basis of discussions as to how to clean up the unencyclopaedic content added during the last bout of edit warring. Please see recent discussions (above) which are policy and guideline-based, and dependent on consensus before the fact. Serious problems with the layout and content of the entire article have been presented. Any of the contributors who disagreed with the proposed changes to sections, started here on the talk page, have had ample opportunity to join in and present solid arguments for their objections changes before they were initiated, yet there was no activity here until the content in question was changed in the article. Does being held to ransom with reverts after the fact of discussion equal "Edit warring / content dispute" on behalf of good faith editors who are discussing changes before initiating them, only to be pounced on and reverted by edit warriors only lurking in the wings of the article itself? This should be left open to discussion, not simply as what can be understood to be a punitive action in shutting out all editors without evaluating the processes being followed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection would be nice, but to be honest I think the only way we're going to get an serious work done is to create a sandbox version and switch it out when we're ready.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's for creation of new articles. I've never seen that kind of solution used in a minor case like this. The sandbox approach would favor the status quo unfairly, as it is too easy for one side to stall everything through small technicalities. - Anonimski (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware of a reason why it can't be done. This is not a minor case, it's part of a longer term pattern. Every time people show an interest in fixing the glaring issues in this article the following two things happen: edit warriors get the article locked or at least make every change a painful experience, and "new" contributors appear insisting that we rehash every old argument. The end result being very little change. Otherwise I suppose I'll see you all here in a week for more of the same.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not aware of any policies or behavioural guidelines preventing development of content (particularly messes that keep getting locked by edit warriors who don't even bother to engage in how to improve the article as stands) in their own sandbox. We're never going to make progress with a trashed article otherwise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 March 2015

Dear Team,

I watch Russia Today regularly and I realised that the name of the anchor I see most often, Thabang Motsei, is not mentioned in the anchors list. Is there any reason for that? Or is it an unintentional omission?

Thank you.

Regards I. Pinto 2A01:E35:8B51:BFA0:3CB5:2B22:9C88:DA55 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, she is clearly notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent developments ?

2012 isn't recent.Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Is early 2012 recent? For me recent starts with Euromaidan and Crimea.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

About Russian propaganda

Not only about the RT specifically but more general [7].Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2015

I wanted to add a section on High-Profile Resignations because they are dramatic and very unusual for a major international news network. There is already a big section on Liz Wahl, and something on Abby Martin who didn't resign, but I thought there should be a bit more on Sara Firth, and importantly that they should be moved all together into one section, together with William Dunbar.

There is currently a section on "responses to critics" with both Abby Martin and Sara Firth defending RT. I propose to leave those statements in but to put them in the section on resignations. The Abby Martin quote would be there as a kind of balance, showing that she didn't resign and RT allowed her to be very outspoken against the Kremlin.

Incidentally there is something clearly wrong in that because of the headings, "Responses to Critics" is currently a sub-section of "Anti Israel" along with three other sections. Really all four should be given the same weight as "Anti-Israel". But, as explained above, I propose to replace "responses to critics" with High-profile resignations" and put the responses in there.

PussBroad (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Having a separate section on high profile resignation is not a bad idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel they unarguably constitute controversy rather than criticism, as they all had to do with RT content. The Ofcom judgments too. However these proposals would be a good start. At the least we should tidy up the section titles. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is such an agreement on creating section dedicated to different aspects of the subject, how come you guys keep removing a section on criticism.

The article on google does not go about how people accuse google of spying right in the introduction. RT is controversial and may very well be biased. I don’t know if we do the cause of neutrality any favors by being AS biased. On multiple occasions I have corrected the problem with the structure (Section on criticism and controversies) and it keeps getting undone without a logical explanation. Would you please discuss this?209.59.106.25 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you did something wrong (moving the criticism paragraph from the lead), while doing something right (fixing the damaged section titles). As the article is locked because of editing disputes, it requires an admin to change. Unless an admin comes along it will have to wait until we're unlocked.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You just tell me I moved the criticism paragraph (which is inescapably what it is) to the criticism section? Why is that something wrong? Don't you see my point?209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've given a relevant response to your similar comment in this discussion and see no point in repeating it here.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose adding a “Criticism and controversies section” please discuss

The article is on a controversial or provocative subject. It needs a section dedicated to all information related to this. As it is now, it reads like an opinion piece to bash the entity (which I am all for… out side of wikipedia). My 2 concerns are 1. Introduction should remain introduction and not an opportunity for propagation of editor’s POV. therefore the third paragraph “..has been called..”does not belong there 2. the term state funded is preceding the nature of subject. It reads: this subject is funded by the bad guys and happens to look like a TV network. The source of funding is very important, just like other state funded networks they tend to influence the coverage and tone of reporting. But maybe for the sake of the editors biases not being as in-your-face as it is now, it should be moved to the second or third sentence. I am not stupid and I’m sure the people who keep undoing the corrections are not stupid. This is being done to make a point…. Make that point with sources in the criticism section. Don’t ruin the article’s integrity.209.59.106.25 (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You want other people to stick to the talkpage whilst you add controversial content, and "This is being done to make a point"..? People around here will have little patience for such attempts at gaming the system, and might wonder what account you used before you started gaming. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

the title was bad. I get the point. Now: what content did I add that is controversial?? I added a section, moved a paragraph to it. I moved 2 words from 1st sentence to 3rd or 4rth. And added a sentence that RT is subject of controversy with reference. Which one of these are you referring to? I was caught by surprise when a group of editors started undoing these. Then I started discussing. Is that odd?209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

bobrayner, awaiting you response.Paulthemonk (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Accord a little respect to other editors, IP 209.59.106.25. You've had plenty of opportunity join in the multiple discussions of the proposed merger and/or tidy of the sections dealing with the content already in place (where the threads are still active, incidentally), yet are informing us of your executive decision on how you are going to "add" a section? Get with the programme: you don't WP:OWN the article, nor do you propose your own take on WP:BRD when others are discussing the details collaboratively. You're only going to get the article locked, yet again, if you persist with your WP:NOTHERE attitude. Per bobrayner: no gaming the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No disrespect was intended! I did not get the article locked. Some other esteemed editor requested that. Lets discuss. I hope you are as good with facts as with undoing.

The title was a mistake and was changed.

1) I did not have "plenty of opportunity to join" since I recently read the article in full and noticed the state that its in.

2) I am not trying to game anything. Let's discuss. Does the article need a section for "Criticism and Controversies" or not. It looks people are just adding what they find about the subject without following a structure. Just go through section 6. Look at 6.5... 6.5.1-4 do not match the title (Anti-israel).

6 Propaganda and related issues

   6.1 Mouthpiece of the Kremlin
   6.2 Putin and Medvedev off-limits
   6.3 Anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism
   6.4 Airing conspiracy theories
   6.5 Anti-Israel
       6.5.1 Response to critics
       6.5.2 Choice of guests
       6.5.3 Responses to RT's news coverage
       6.5.4 Hanne Nabintu Herland RT interview

Instead of (what appears to be) ganging up, let us improve this. Are there any standard of accusing people of gaming? Is there anything in my editing and talks that suggest I'm not willing to discuss? I don't care about POV. I agree with almost everything in the article (which should not matter). I'm trying to fix the structure and have become very alarmed by some editor's vigilance in keeping it broken.

Here is an example of another "mouth piece" Press TV which is not any better/worse than RT.

Contents:

   1 Background
       1.1 History of website and satellite TV launch
   2 Funding and management
   3 Coverage
   4 Controversies
   5 Removal from Western and Asian satellites
   6 Personnel
       6.1 Iran staff
       6.2 North American staff
       6.3 International correspondents

When we are done with this, we can work on neutrality issues. But at least lets get the structure right.

And how would an agreement look like? Let's discuss. 209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

and created an account since this may take a while. 209.59.106.25= Paulthemonk (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The only reorganization that I can see is needed is to separate out the section on prominent resignations, per the discussion above. Otherwise, this article's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Great, make a discussion section about it and we will discuss that. Here I made a proposal and it seems you have not responded to it directly. I see a problem with the structure. would you explain why I should not correct it. I showed an example and more examples in the past. There is a dispute and it would be nice to concentrate on that. I do not disagree with you point though. Just make sure you don't undo your own edits accidentally.Paulthemonk (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The majority of 3rd party reliable sources agree that RT has been involved in propaganda and occasional disinformation. There is no any controversy or serious dispute about this in reliable sources. Therefore, I do not think we need special "controversy" section. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You have a point on "controversies". The title of the section would then be just "criticism" as there are plenty of them around and already in the article. your response? Paulthemonk (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OK there seems to be some confusion here. Paulthemonk Please can we have one discussion about this issue not three, and try to remain calm and more importantly civil. Volunteer Marek: Do you not agree that the section headings are currently messed up? Apparently as a result of this edit [8] by Bobrayner. I see no reason why an editor can't immediately return the previous headings. Then the 'criticism can't be in the lead' argument that Paulthemonk is pushing can be treated as a separate issue. Hopefully Ymblanter will agree.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Im sorry if I have come across as uncivil. With all the undos efforts to improve this article I'm just frustrated. On the subject of whats in the lead section, I didn't see it as pushing. I truly assumed someone had just moved a paragraph from the content into the lead to make a point. It really reads like that. I also tried to separately fix the headings so people who disagreed on lead would not undo the correction to structure. No success there. Regardless of moving that third paragraph to content section or not, the article badly needs a criticism section.Paulthemonk (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, at the moment there's less than a day before the current lock expires. By the looks of the talk page, I wouldn't blame Mike V or Ymblanter for extending it. If not, edit warring is on the agenda again and it won't be long before it's locked again. I'd suggest that one issue at a time is addressed starting here, at the talk page.

Is there at least a preference for what the most immediate concern is, preferably the most simply addressed? From there, the next issue on a list of priorities should be addressed. It appears that there's a lunge at complete rewrites, including section headers, on contributor's minds. A mass reworking is not an approach that will work. Baby steps, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there is still some convincing to do in regards to the lead section and the criticism paragraph (3). So that can wait. I think the priority would be to fix the sections/headers (not adding or removing content). There are a lot of criticism in the article and they would fit nicely under the general title "criticism", then that section would have sub headers like "propaganda", "bias", "choice of guest". It just looks pretty messy as is. I haven't used sandbox yet, but if that helps I can attempt to make a sample. Paulthemonk (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a plan. I'm not sure as to whether Trappedinburnley has been developing an alternative in his sandbox, but, rather than disrupt the actual article, it would be far better to have sandbox versions to discuss proposals. Rather than posting the url to sandbox versions here, I'd say that pinging the editors involved in this article from the sandbox article's talk page for comment would be the least obtrusive method of working things out. Perhaps an unintuitive name for the sandbox article is the way to go (if not, it's likely to attract trolling). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've not done anything yet as I'm not looking to lead what I suspect will be a time-consuming project. But I do like the idea and would contribute. My concern is who else would be likely willing to help. As my several previous posts on the section titles have been virtually ignored, I suspect that people's stamina is running low. I again point to how the section titles looked before the last edit wars [9]. Undoubtedly an improvement to the current arrangement, and I see no reason not to return to them once we're unlocked.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You've just described my own sentiments to a T. We can wish away the edit wars, but that's not going to change the reality and, as you've noted, regular editors are worn down and still suffering from PTSD and are 'discussed' out to the point of being 'disgusted' (or vice versa). Personally, for the time being, I'd be content to eliminate the 'Ad of the month' irrelevancy and slowly try to reconstruct a better presented, encyclopaedic article. Being worn out by POV warriors on various other articles I'm involved in, I'm on edge about major reworks as much as anyone else. That said, I'm also amenable to using an alternative venue to the article itself to work through any glaring problems. If Paulthemonk truly feels that s/he has the energy to create their own sandbox version from which to start, contingent on being prepared to accept both constructive criticism and PTSD regular editors on invitation, I am entirely amenable to such a strategy.

That said, I have to return to the world of doing my best to moderate a lot of articles under duress (not waving but drowning). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Liz Wahl

At the end of the little section on Liz Wahl there are two sentences that are loaded. The first says Ron Paul said he wasn't censored but that is irrelevant as Wahl said a question she was wanting to ask was censored, so it never even got put to Paul, that's how I interpret that bit, and then the next sentence says a journalist was quick to publish his 'exclusive' about Wahl quitting and had been in contact with her for six months but how can her on-air leaving of the propaganda channel be an 'exclusive'. Both sentences look like an attempt to present things in a stupid lurid light that just is not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.3.229 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Badget

Concerning this part that was re-added : [10]

Can any one explain what is the relevance of the comparison in this section of RT organizational budget. When the comparison to the BBC (which has different structure, financing methods and country of origin) it is like comparing salaries of people from different countries, while disregarding purchasing power etc. If needed it should be compared to other channels within the country that are financed by Russia, like everywhere else. --Elysans (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Also the information in that same line is incorrect. The source doesn't say that RT budget for 2014-2015 was $300mil (only that it was more than 300 by 2010, its BBC budget for that year). And according to this, RT figure is incorrect:

"While RT had a budget of $445 million in 2014, based on an exchange rate of 30.5 rubles to the dollar, this year it will have only $236 million"

The roller coaster shows again that the superficial comparison to BBC budget is meaningless. --Elysans (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well the source which is given makes that comparison explicitly. Basically, the relevance is that it's huge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

First, the text in the article right now, is not supported by the reference and contrary to the source I provided. Second, many US\UK based papers made that comparison under titles like "Russia boosts global 'media offensive'..we need more budget" which has no place in the organization budget section (i.e. the POV i was talking about ). Third, in all other media articles I seen the budget is compared to other local outlets (e.g. BBC to sky news) --Elysans (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a NPOV issue, the content (or title) of the source doesn't have to be neutral to make it reliable. I also disagree that the comparison to BBC World Service Group (a division of the BBC) is improper. Both operate state-funded international news services in multiple languages directed to foreign audience (obviously the BBC does actual news not the made-up kind). However I agree that the current wording isn't an entirely accurate representation of the source, but the $300mil figure is common to a number of sources. This is the first time I've seen anyone claim $445mil, can you find other sources to verify that it isn't a typo? Also I must thank you for giving me a reason to read the source in more detail, who knew that Simonyan has a secure Kremlin phone on her desk?--17:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you be specific how the reference does not support the text? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Me? The ref'd source says $300 mil per year by 2010 for RT and $376 mil for BBC WSG in 2014–15 in the prose, however I hadn't previously noticed the graphic next to it that does match-up with the article text.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"The content (or title) of the source doesn't have to be neutral to make it reliable." - I didn't question the source reliability, only the relevance\value of that comparison to this section about RT organization budget. Noting that the only reason to compare RT with BBC (and not another local media as it done everywhere else) is linked to the 'Criticism' section.

"Can you be specific how the reference does not support the text?" - Apparently I was wrong on that point, as Trappedinburnley pointed out, there is a graphic that I hadn't previously noticed, that state that.--Elysans (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer the first question, Elysans, the budget comparison is highly relevant in terms of how much money the RF is prepared to throw at giving (what is essentially) themselves/their outlet a global profile, global penetration, and wooing an audience. The contrast between the entire budget for worldwide BBC news/current affairs/comprehensive analysis of global and local issues and RT is significant. It demonstrates that the RF has a serious agenda in creating a competitive profile as an 'alternative' outlet. If we were looking at election scenarios in the USA, for example, comparing the campaign budgets allocated to any party/party member for an election would be a significant issue.

As regards your second issue, the difference between the text and the graphic needs to be cleared up. One or the other is wrong. The best recourse is to cross-reference against other RS reporting on the same issue in order to find out which figure is correct. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy You guys making strawman arguments, all you said about the comparison is correct just not to a section detailing RT organization budget... Add it to background (i.e. "RT was created to..." and add all of that), but in here it is meaningless compression, especially due to fluctuation in conversion rates. And It is far more logical to note how much extra budget Russia allocates to its international channel on top of its domestic outlets.--Elysans (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And you are making WP:OR arguments regarding fluctuation in conversion rates, et al. Any RS for this assertion? As to whether whether your personal take on where this information is DUE and UNDUE... well that's your personal interpretation. The only conflation of sourced content I'm seeing here is your own. While we're about it, please explain your 'observation' "You guys making strawman arguments...". Who are 'the guys' you're levelling this accusation at? Have you actually read through this talk page and its archives? Please don't personalise your objections when you're not familiar with the history of discussions surrounding the article's content or prior WP:CONSENSUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I already posted a source showing the fluctuation in RT budget based on the exchange rate of dollar to rubles, it is the second post here. As to your personal take on this information, this section provide a breakdown of RT organizational budget over the years, not about its "global penetration, and wooing an audience". Just the same while "The contrast between the entire budget for worldwide BBC news/current affairs/comprehensive analysis of global and local issues and RT" is significant to the article, it isn't to the topic of this section and we shouldn't use a useless comparison whose sole purpose is to vague imply that. Since this section mostly note changes in Government funding, it would be far more useful to put those numbers in context of russian budge and/or other media outlets there. --Elysans (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced, and offers an insight into the budget for the RT 'project'. Nevertheless, as it would need to include the cutbacks and cross-referenced in order to establish whether the written text or the (image) chart are correct, I'm reticent to retain this content as it currently stands. If any other editors consider that it's still WP:DUE, I'd suggest that they make their arguments as quickly as possible.

Note, however, that I don't actually see a problem with using both the "Time" source in question and the Moscow Times article in tandem. The Moscow Times article ties the budget cutbacks to the downward trend in the RF budget. Note, also, that we don't need to have a chart for the budget for all major news outlets around the globe as that is an article entirely unto itself (which would have to map the shareholder stocks, advertising revenue, etc. for commercial outlets), therefore WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:OR for the purposes of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've not really had time to get into this, but here are a couple more sources on funding. [11] [12] It does seem that prior to the rouble collapse, the budget had climbed higher than the article currently suggests. Also that someone was a bit premature adding German and French channels to the table.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the same position, Trappedinburnley. I have, however, found references for German and French language RT (both launched at the end of January this year). As regards the budget, I agree that they should stay as being pertinent, but merely in need of development. The allocated budget is relevant to the article's content, therefore being dated information is immaterial to its relevance. We are under no obligation to develop it immediately simply because it is dated; nor are we obliged to remove it because it needs updating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Urm Iryna Harpy, unfortunately I'll now have to take issue with your edit. As far as I have read, whilst there are now French and German websites, the TV channels have yet to be launched, due to weakness of the rouble. If you've got time to take another look, then great, otherwise I'll try to do something ASAP. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

By all means. I couldn't find anything to back up TV channels. I'm going to give myself a trout slap and boldly remove those two, plus the Russian language channel (again, I couldn't find anything to substantiate a Russian language version). Well, if we're really going to follow policy to the letter, whoever added these was being bold, so I'm removing them as WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks for pulling me up on this. I've become so irritated with this article that my attitude to it has become sloppy. The prospect of every syllable removed or added triggering off an edit war is enough to knock the stuffing out of the sturdiest Wikipedian... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Bias

I thought it went without saying that every news source has a point of view. Maybe that's just something you learn in Poly Sci class as an undergraduate. When you're 19 years old. So we can either plaster this warning over every intro to every news source, like we do with RT, or we can just skip it. What we shouldn't do is deface one media outlet's intro with warnings about how biased they are while shitty corporate media like CNN or British government media like BBC is introduced with no such warning. Since it took you all of 2 minutes to revert my last changes Winner 42 I'm especially talking to you. MarkB2 ^Chat 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't understand the policy of WP:NOTAFORUM. You also might want to review policy on ownership behavior regarding this article. MarkB2 ^Chat 03:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have notified MarkB2 of discretionary sanctions regarding this topic area. MarkB2 if you wish to engage in discussion here about meaningful, non pointy changes, you are welcome to do so. Before you do, I suggest you actually read WP:OWN, followed by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Also WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE are also relevant. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I plead guilty to violating WP:CIVIL. But I'm not the only one. I actually have read WP:OWN. In fact I was editing Wikipedia long before you were. Though not as obsessively. You are aware you won't be paid for the thousands of hours of your life you've lost editing Wikipedia? And I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If I wanted to do that I would plaster citations to reputable sources about how biased this or that media source is all over the intro to CNN, the BBC, CBS, NBC, etc. Which I could easily do. I posted here to have a discussion about the issue instead of getting into a revert war. Which reminds me that neither of you have responded to my argument. And both of you are babysitting this article, looking at the edit history.MarkB2 ^Chat 17:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You've expressed a personal opinion. Without new sources, without bringing anything new to the table, to a discussion that has been had numerous times. Hence all it was was just a personal opinion. Which is not what article talk pages are for. Hence, WP:NOTAFORUM (and honestly, it's just not my problem if you can't see a difference between CNN and RT - that has been explained numerous times and it gets tiresome, especially with people who don't listen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

RT always has been and always will be Putins unfiltered mouthpiece. CNN sucks, Fox is terrible and RT is an abomination...just admit it my ruskie brethren