Talk:Press TV

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Press TV|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Press TV|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Press TV|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Press TV|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Press TV|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Press TV|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Press TV|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Press TV|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Press TV|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Press TV|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

Anti-Iranian Racist War Propaganda Cited Sources

Far too many sources in this article are to war propaganda or media that are known to create dubious claims about long-held targets of Zionist War Ambition. For example, does John Bolton, represent a sober voice on Iranian issues or is he someone with a clear monolithic war agenda? Thus, the citations for this article, which regard an Iranian state run news venue, should be at least be critical as to whether or not they have a bias towards the same agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.228.18 (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this contention. The entire header of this article is filled with non-neutral anti-Iranian racist propaganda from the "Jerusalem Post", which was featured as having an deekfake journalist at some point. See: DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

This entire article might as well be a "controversy" section as that is what it has degenerated to. This article as it currently stands is not encyclopedic, but rather an out-and-out attack against Press TV. There is not even any attempt at balance. Laval (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I attempted to reorganize the article for now to reflect "Pros" atop and "Cons" on bottom. Let's review all of the sources. I think any "Jerusalem Post" citations should be removed as that is an IDF military censored newspaper and has been caught using even deepfake journalists: DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Philip Cross - please do not malign other editors in the act of removing bonafide edits. I am escalating this to admins. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not mention you in my edits. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Philip Cross (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no fringe or minority view here. You undid my revisions, so obviously your description of it inaccurately being "fringe" was insulting. You should allow edits to make it more neutral. Why does this article for a news venue read so inauthentically? One can go to PressTV's website and TV show and see none of this article's major critiques are reflected in the programming, nor were reliable sources used in the first place. The original edit was rife with grammatical errors and inaccurate summaries of citations. Most of the information hasn't been updated in years and was from pre 2010. There was an excessive restatement of external links in the article to provide more negative viewpoints. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Revising Press TV Article without Discussion

The article has been flagged for discussion prior to warring with undos. Relevant editors have been tagged and requested to discuss issues herein. The article was reorganized appropriately to create neutrality. What is the point of putting only negative information in the lede? The typical flow of an article should list the pros first and then the cons if there are going to be neutrality issues.

Please refrain from further ad hominem in debating these views. To call a reorganization of an article a "minority" or "fringe" view without any substantiation reflects, indeed, a non-neutral viewpoint by the editor making it and a poor accusation of bad faith in violation of WP guidelines against harassment. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I am asking that any wholesale reversions of meticulous edits in good faith made by me or others not be undone to prevent NPOV compliance. Please debate any contentions here by supply refuting reliable sources. The original article was rife with unreliable information, totally non-neutral, presented views of others as Press TV's, restated too much of the articles cited in the body for non-neutral effect without summary, and had tons of spelling and grammatical errors. Where are the objections? Please do not get into edit wars. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on you to justify your mass deletions of content. Wikipedia uses reliable sources for its content and citations are not required to have a positive (or negative) opinion of Press TV, but editors' summarise mainstream sources relating to a subject. Please do read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Philip Cross (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I did justify it in the comments as to why the changes were made. What is your contention with those justifications? You are just edit warring without even providing substantive debate after several requests to do so because me creating neutrality in this article appears to fit in the "I just don't like it" vein. Please provide specifics as to why my changes are "mass deletions". That's not at all what happened you. You are misframing this to achieve your objective and that is bad faith on display. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to create another page

Obviously, there was another page devoted to criticism, Press TV controversies, And it has been integrated into this page. I suggest instead of the existing writing war, separate the article, as in the past there is a separate article devoted to criticism, like the rest of the pages there is another criticism page as the rest of the other channels See also: Al Jazeera controversies and criticism BBC controversies CBS News controversies and criticism CNN controversies Fox News controversies MSNBC controversies The New York Times controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrahlawymasry (talk • contribs) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Many of those off-shoot articles would have been created because of the length of the principal article. At 51K, this article is not unduly long. Philip Cross (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, at 51KB, this article is above the 50KB or above threshold discussed in Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split and, because of its content, as suggested by Amrahlawymasry seems to be perfectly suitable for a split into a main article and one for controversies. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal and see no reason to allow PressTV to be a special exception. This entire article is not NPOV anyway. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Two separate articles existed until last year. They were merged only at the end of June 2020, see Talk:Press TV/Archive 3#Merger proposal. This article was not then significantly shortter. Philip Cross (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Changes - All Editors Chime In!

Hello, please see the following diff with proposed edits by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Press_TV&diff=1001470989&oldid=1001470811

The reasons for the changes were as follows: (1) Inaccurate framing of the contexts; (2) Non-Neutral Headings; (3) Re-pastings of copyrighted content to give article false appearance of negative breadth; (4) Re-organization of article to list "pros" atop and "cons" on bottom; (5) Re-wording of terms to present more NPOV. For example, "Sanctions" have been changed to "restrictions". "Blocking" has been changed to "censorship". Although PressTV, like all USAGM programs and FCC approved US news media, has government filters, it is still a journalistic venue and terms like "sanctions"/"blocking" suggest a non-NPOV; (6) The fixing of several grammar and spelling mistakes; (7) The removal of unreliable sources like the Jerusalem Post, which was found to have entire deepfake journalists (see https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-deepfake-activist/deepfake-used-to-attack-activist-couple-shows-new-disinformation-frontier-idUSKCN24G15E); and, (8) The addition of reputable sources to back existing content that qualifies as neutral and important for WikiPedia articles such as this.

Please review and cite the actual DIFF in order to support your reasons for accepting/refusing the edits, if you accept/refuse them at all. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. What you're stating doesn't seem to connect with the fact that you removed 17k information. There's still a lot of stuff you've omitted from explaining. Also, I suggest taking Jerusalem Post to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Also, how are terms like "sanctions" not neutral? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a single example of anything omitted above. I cited the DIFF page showing all changes to the article. Jerusalem Post's reliability should be questioned based on the interceding information available like them using a deepfake journalist, especially re: subjects on Iran. The term "sanctions" is a euphemism for "economic warfare". Warfare is always a conflicted context. "Sanctions" are a euphemism for "censorship" when it comes to venues purporting to be journalistic. All journalistic venues of PressTV's caliber worldwide have sponsors paying into them with government filters. Thus, even though some here clearly disagree with PressTV's viewpoint, it does not suddenly undo them from being a journalistic venue subject to censorship by varying parties who deem their censorship to be "sanctions". DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, you removed 17k information, I doubt what you stated would result in the removal of 17k information - heck, a quick glance at your diffs clearly shows that there was much more to it [1]. Also, I think you're looking too much into it, sanctions are just sanctions, nothing special about it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't provide substantive arguments, you just are basically saying you don't like it, which isn't a dispute of content or editoarial validity, but your personal point of view. And saying I just "deleted 17KB" without any scrutiny simply isn't an accurate or factual restatement of my edit, and you are accusing me of bad faith without proof. I removed significant portions of copyrighted text re-pasted from the links bearing criticism of PressTV's content to give the article a look of being bulked unnecessarily of negative content found right through those external links. The external links weren't even paraphrased, the bulk of the Press TV article was composed of text directly re-pasted from the external sources, among which, are biased and conflicted venues like the ADL and not "numerous" or credible ones. What substantive arguments do you have to support your points like that "sanctions" cannot be viewed as censorship? Are they not restricting PressTV's ability to broadcast what is, from an Iranian POV, a journalistic venue? To achieve neutrality, you can't just claim PressTV is "bad" and that censorship of it is legitimate under the euphemistic tenor of "sanctions". This is not NPOV. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Once again and for the record of me asking you repeatedly to no avail so that Admins can clearly see it: can you please cite the portion of the DIFF you disagree with and why? I'm asking for substantive discussions here in line with WP guidelines and not some sort of ad hominem or "I just don't like it" perspectives. This article has SIGNIFICANT NPOV problems. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've said my piece, you're free to disagree, but that's how it's gonna be. It's not my job to analyse your whole 17k removal, please just come clean with what you removed. And oh, please, I accuse you of bad faith? That's rich [2] [3] [4]. Don't even make me start about the personal opinion part, ultimately you're in no position to make more unfounded accusations towards other editors just because they don't agree with you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@DeweyDecimalLansky: This administrator would like to point out that, based on what I've seen in discussions at other articles, it's hard to do a massive, sweeping change (and your proposed change clearly fits that description) in this fashion. Your proposals will gain more traction if you break them down into succinct, easy to analyze proposals. In other words, start small and be clear in the discussion. Also, go one at a time, rather than trying to push a bunch through at once. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fair. Thank you for the helpful advice. For organizational purposes, I am going to separate the proposed revisions into new sections in talk. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)