Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

WP:SYNTH, misrepresenting source

UKIP leader Nigel Farage, described by The Guardian as an admirer of Vladimir Putin,[143] has appeared on RT seventeen times since 2010.[113]

First, the source (Guardian) quotes Farage, it doesn't describe him as such.
Asked which current world leader he most admired, Farage replied: "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. "The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?"
Second, By not giving the whole quote, the statement is misrepresented, which would arguably be a violation of WP:BLP.
Third, there is no mention at all of RT in the source. Adding it here is obviously WP:SYNTH. That 4 separate editors don't see that makes me think this article likely contains many more problems. Ssscienccce (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • How come? This is quoted source, and it tells "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin, has appeared on RT 17 times since 2010.". Someone just replaced "confessed fan" by "admirer". This is paraphrasing, not WP:SYNTH. My very best wishes (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That source is misleading: it's not a "confessed fan" when he expresses his admiration for the cunningness Putin showed in the Syria dossier.
As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. "The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?"
Maintaining that he is a "fan" of Putin, when he says he doesn't admire him as a human being, and criticizes his politics and his regime is misrepresentation. It is contentious material about a living person.
And it is SYNTH because it suggests a connection between Farage's appearance on RT and his so-called admiration for Putin. Ssscienccce (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
He used the words Putin and Brilliant in the same sentence which to me suggests that he's either an idiot or on the payroll. Perhaps it would be preferable to re-work this to be more about UKIP and the Kremlin's combined desire to bring down the EU. I think I can find the sources? Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ssscienccce. Simply telling what source tells (as in current version) is not WP:SYN. However, interpreting views by Farage by a wikipedian (that is what you suggest) is indeed WP:OR, plain and simple. First you said the source was misinterpreted, but it was not. Now you tell that the source itself is "misleading". No, it's not, and that part of the statement is actually supported by another source, the Guardian. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
First you said the source was misinterpreted, but it was not. Now you tell that the source itself is "misleading".: I have not said anything about "misinterpreting", I said the Guardian source was misrepresented. You then removed "according to the Guardian" from the article and wrote in your edit summary that Buzzfeed was the actual source for the "Putin fan" quote. In my second comment I called that source misleading because "a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin", without the context (Syria, "as an operator, not as a human being", "Not that I approve of him politically"), misrepresents Farage's statement. Ssscienccce (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the bottom line. The statement you tried to fix [1] was not misrepresentation of sources or WP:SYN, even though it referred to two sources. You are trying to prove by quoting Farage that he is not an admirer of P. This is your WP:OR, pure and simple, because two currently quoted sources tell otherwise. My very best wishes (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ssscienccce:. I am afraid there is little hope for you to get your point of view heard here. I have tried before to no avail. This article is baby-sitted by a small group of dedicated editors who won't tolerate even the change of a comma. However, you have my complete support. What they claim about Farage is demonstrably false. Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

general comment:

While it is correct that the guardian sort of characterizes Frage as fan/admirer of Putin (self declared of sorts), it does so only in one sentence without any real analysis. In such cases it is for encyclopedia to adopt a defensive style rather than taken every word published in an individual newspaper literally without considering or providing context.

In other words one such minor line in the guardian in not enough for such claim, it needs to show up in various sources and preferably some that a more detailed look at Farage's notion of Putin. The buzzfeed article that was cited above is hardly a good source and certainly not enough.

Lastly in the enumeration of guests the additional quib about Farage is hardly needed and imho just creates essayist/journalistic rather encyclopedic impression (in terms of style).--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's why we have the additional quotation from the Guardian [2] that also describes Farage as a self-admitted fun/admirer of Putin. If there are other RS that tell something different, i.e. "Farage is not an admirer of Putin", please quote them here. An important word here is "self-admitted". It means the person does not hide his political views, publicize his views and possibly even proud of them. Actually, the quotation by Ssscienccce above tells exactly the same. This is not a BLP problem. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
THe very source you quote actually says something different than the unqualified and contextless description as admirer conveys:
"The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?"
So again as I stated above, the contextless needless added on description as admirer, is somewhat misleading and not needed in the enumeration where it was used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
"He is brilliant, but I do not approve him politically". This can be interpreted as admiration. But this is not up to you or me to interpret per WP:NOR. This is up to sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Understanding what you write and what a written wikipedia text is likely to convey is not "up to the sources", but requirement WP editors and the WP community. Having said that a correct paraphrasing or usage of that quote, describes Farage as admiring Putin's (technical) political skill with regard to Syria. It is anything but a wholesale and unqualified admiration for the person (as the description as "admirer" would suggest).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
No, this is your interpretation, but this is a source telling something very different. In addition, I did not write anything, but simply think that the text created by someone else was reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It is becoming a bit repetitive, but again what I said above is not just "my interpretation" but a more detailed description of what Farage actually says and how the guardian actually describes him. Meaning it provides exactly the context context and nature of the admiration, which is not conveyed by simply using the term "admirer". The latter is just cherry picking of single words from the source and hence ultimately mispresenting it.
More importantly this piece of information (misrepresented or not) is not needed in that enumeration at all, so why adding such an adjective disputed among editors? All other names in the numeration are described by their primary function only such as intellectual, journalist, head of state, etc. and not by their (presumed) attitude towards Putin. So why should we treat Farage any different in that enumeration?--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Why the qualifiers for Farage must be included in this particular context? Because this is something quoted source does. This source criticizes RT TV, and the qualifier from the source ("an admirer" or " self-admitted fun") serves that purpose. Per WP:NPOV, we should not be "neutral" with respect to anyone or anything, but represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Right now we have 1-2 sources and describe this exactly as in the sources. If you can provide more RS that tell something different about the involvement of F. on RT TV, that's fine. Please do. Only then this possibly should be fixed.My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If you use a source there is by no mans any requirement to use all its content (albeit the content used cannot not be misrepresenting the source). In fact selecting from a source what is relevant and appropriate in a given context is an essential editorial function. The purpose that sentence, where the source is used, is a simple enumeration of guests (with their primary functions and without their attitude towards Putin) and that is all the that it is needed of the source here. Note that the sources for the other guests contains additional information on them as well, which we don't mention in the enumeration either. I. e. by not having the "admirer" bit in that sentence we simply treat/use the Guardian in the same fashion as all the other sources used for the enumeration.
Now if you want to use the "admiration" bit then you need to describe it accurately as outlined above (rather than cherry picking the word admirer without context). That however gets us even further away from the simple enumeration of prominent guests and we're still without justification, why Farage and the Guardian should be treated differently than the other folks in the enumeration and their associated sources.
As far as you are referring to WP:NPOV is concerned, if you write an article on Farage's notion of Putin (or a related subsection in Farage's WP entry) you add all that (without misrepresenting it though) and all other reliable sources on Farage and Putin out there. But again in a simple enumeration of RT guests this seems simply off topic (and borderline WP:COATRACK). --Kmhkmh (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, we are no going to use all content of the source, but only something it tells about Farage (this is matter under discussion). But it only tells about him one phrase: "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin, has appeared on RT 17 times since 2010." That is what has been included. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
And by that we misrepresent what the guardian actually states (he admires Putin's political skill with regard to Syria) and we treat Farage and the Guardian different than the other sources and guests. Hence we should stay away from that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a "simple enumeration of RT guests" in the article. Any guests mentioned should be in the context of examining editorial choices, or the network's output, or because an interview was particularly noteworthy. Farage fits with Russia's anti-EU agenda, and therefore has been a favorite at RT. Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That is an argument one could make, but that requires an exensive rewriting and expansion of the whole section and probably additional sources (rather than adding a questionable "admirer" bit for Farage). Because for that you cannot simply (cherry) pick individual guests, that seem to favour a particular aspects of Putin's agendas, but you need some published of analysis of "all" guests.
Just judging from my personal watching experience I'd guess one can make that call, that is RT selecting guests to favour Putin's agenda. However since RT has a lot of guests as well who aren't particularly Putin friendly and occasionally openly critical of Putin/Russia in their interviews, such a rewrite requires good sources and some effort. If somebody wants to attempt that, i have no objection, but please no quick, contextless and misrepresenting shortcuts like the Putin admirer bit for Farage that has been discussed so far.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Since the first time I removed the "admirer" qualifier, I have almost taken no part in the discussion. I am already embroiled in too many disputes and anyway, it would have been hard to improve on what Ssscienccce and Kmhkmh wrote. Kmhkmh argument that the other guests are described by their primary functions and without mention of their attitude towards Putin and that, therefore, the same should apply to Farage is decisive. I think that we have now a consensus to keep the weasely "admirer" term out. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Farage is useful, because he makes the UE weak. Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In such cases it is for encyclopedia to adopt a defensive style which is to understand why some people are presented in RT, and another ones in CNN. Xx236 (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but for an encyclopedia a public figure is neither useful nor useless. Whether it is relevant to cite them or not in a given context should be the only issue. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
What is "the UE" anyway? Is it a typo for "the EU"? Againstdisinformation (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ssscienccce . I hope that my demoralizing comment didn't make you flee, it was silly of me, I was in a low mood. We need you here and appreciate your edits very much. Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. About your previous post, I don't know if there is consensus, but this has been discussed long enough. If anyone wants to add it again it should go RfC or WP:BLPN. Ssscienccce (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, please do not edit war over the content under discussion as you've done here. There has been absolutely no indication that there is consensus to remove the qualification as it is sourced, plus is WP:DUE in respect to opinions being espoused by individuals. The only 'support' for removing the qualification you've mustered so far is dubious (without elaborating unnecessarily on an article talk page). You have more than enough experience at editing to know that article content is not based on what you like or don't like. Please stop trying to push the BATTLEGROUND envelope. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No offense but you need to reread the arguments carefully. As far as the consensus is concerned, there is neither one for keeping it nor one for removing it. However if there is no consensus that it is properly sourced it has to stay out in doubt and I explained above in detail, why the current usage is missrepresenting the source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
No offence taken, Kmhkmh... but I have read through the arguments and disagree with your evaluation. The problem lies in the fact that this article is not an advertisement for RT, nor for their programming. As Trappedinburnley has already noted, there is absolutely no need for an exhaustive list of guest or contracted programming staff (i.e., essentially lists of every contributor's favourite 'celebrities/public personalities'). Picking and choosing whose programme is noteworthy, who is noteworthy, etc. is WP:POV and WP:OR. I was tempted to remove the whole lot listed in the programming in a WP:BOLD move subject to WP:BRD just a few days ago when I was updating and expanding refs. The notability of guests is a relative concept unless there is a benchmark to measure against. Your argument that it requires a comprehensive section rewrite in order to satisfy your sense of justification just doesn't wash as a solution at this point... unless the entire section is deleted. I would certainly find the deletion of the "Guests" section a reasonable compromise. You brought up the subject of COATRACK and, as it stands, that section smacks of nothing but... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Please, nobody is arguing for RT advertisement or an RT friendly article. However the critical description of RT hardly requires the misleading description of Farage as a wholesale Putin admirer. In fact such lines don't even serve a critical description of RT at all since they make the article look like cheap anti RT hack rather than an encyclopedic article with a proper criticism. There is enough critical reporting in proper sources on RT that can be used in the article (and often is already), so that there is absolute no need (or sense) to resort to descriptions which are borderline WP:COATRACK and which misrepresent the actual content of a source.
Now if you want to make an argument for removing the whole guest section, I have no objection. My issue is/was just with the misleading contextless description of Farage as a Putin admirer and to treat Farage differently from the rest of the enumeration. As I said above already I have no objection in extending the section to (critically) describe RT's use of guests in general nor do I have an objection against the removal of the section. I do however have an objection against any cheap hack by adding misleading single word descriptions (misrepresenting their sources).--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I do, in fact, understand your argument. As you're probably aware, the article literally went through 'the wars' (edit wars, that is) earlier this year. What has been left behind in the wake of spurious removals and additions is still messy. There have been a couple of attempts at trying to reshape it since that time, but they've ended in more grief. To my mind, the only realistic solution is still to focus structural and content discussions on this talk page. Unfortunately, editors involved are still tired and on tenterhooks: something that is not conducive to remodelling an article. I'm fine with leaving your last reversion omitting the disputed descriptor, but other editors also have the right to continue to present arguments for reintroducing it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Ssscienccce, I have no idea of what you're talking about regarding treating this as if it were a potential WP:BLPVIO. Why would well sourced information well represented by the subject himself (i.e., straight from the horse's mouth) need to go to the BLPN? An RfC? Your blunt statement sounds as if you have a licence to make a WP:POINT and WP:FORUMSHOP rather than having a basis on what has been discussed here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, calling him an admirer is against WP:BLP because it doesn't accurately represent what he said ("not as a human being"). You say that it can't be a BLP issue because he said it himself. We have a fundamental disagreement about WP:BLP and how it should be interpreted, and this discussion doesn't bring us any closer, so I will post it on WP:BLPN. Ssscienccce (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but this latest edit is a personal interpretation (which contradicts the title of the article!) of a source that does not tell anything about RT TV. Therefore, it is indeed WP:SYN, 101. My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well you can be sorry all you want, but it wasn't just "my interpretation" instead it did paraphrases the source's content clearly more accurately than the cherry picking you introduced again. What matters is the content of the source and not merely its title. You may paraphrase or quote the title as well, but not without correctly explaining what it actually refers to. Describing Farage as (wholesale) Putin admirer is not covered by the source and doing so is frankly a cheap hack.
Note the article literally writes:
"Nigel Farage: I admire Vladimir Putin" (title)
"Nigel Farage has named Vladimir Putin as the world leader he most admires, praising the Russian president's handling of the crisis in Syria. [...]While stressing he did not approve of Putin's annexation of Crimea[...]Asked which current world leader he most admired, Farage replied: "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically. How many journalists in jail now?"
There is simply no way to read that as a general admiration for Putin and describe it as such in the WP article, possibly leading readers to believe Farage would admirer Putin in general and approve of his policy, when in fact the source says more or lass the opposite.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Asked which current world leader he most admired, Farage replied: "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin..." [3]

and the title of the publication is "I admire Putin". This is summary/interpretation by the source. Please do not bring your personal interpretations. And remember that a lot of people, especially in Russia, actually admire Putin. This is simply a political view, not a negative information about living person. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all your quote is already contained in the more extensive quoteIlisted above. Secondly even you partial quote does not justify the text you wanted in th article. 'confessed Putin admirer' and 'Asked which current world leader he most admired, Farage replied: "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin..."' are simply not the same thing. And the admiration of people in Russia for Putin differs strongly from Farage's admiration as a political operator and that is exactly why the text you've wanted is article is not appropriate. This primarily has nothing to do with an admiration for Putin being a good or bad thing (though it is fair to assume that in the English speaking world is mostly comes with a negative connotation), but that it is misleading to equate a (general) admiration (for his politics) and an admiration of his skills as political operator. I.e. it is simply a false/misleading description of the facts (independent of whether you few them as good or bad).
The claim that headline/title generally represents an appropriate summary of a source (in the source own words) is imho beyond ridiculous. But if seriously feel that this is just "my opinion" feel to to start an RFC and check with project sites dealing with sources. Something you can actually consider an appropriate summary of a source in its own words would be an abstract of an article or book but certainly not just the title.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Look, we now have two sources used in this phrase. One source tells that he is an "admirer" of Putin in the title. We can debate to nausea what "political operator" means, but that's irrelevant as WP:OR. The essence of the claim has been already summarized by the source in the title. Another source tells that he is a "confessed fun" of Putin (this is just a paraphrase of "admirer"). What else do you possibly need? If there are other sources which tell something different about views by Farage, please bring them here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to "debate" what political operator means, the meaning is rather clear. There is currently also no need for additional sources about Farage either. The only issue here from my perspective is, that you're trying misrepresent the current sources. And again newspaper headlines do not represent appropriate summaries of their contents imho for rather obvious reasons, if you can't see and don't want to take my word for it, ask other people (as I suggested above already).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course this is not only the title. The passage you quoted above is an expression of admiration. That is what quoted source tells, and I tend to agree with source. Admiring a politician does not mean to support everything he does. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is it a problem for you to describe the admiration in detail to avoid any misunderstanding or the potential misleading of readers? I can understand/accept the wish to include that Farage's admiration for Putin, but what I can't understand is the insistence on not describing the nature of the admiration and giving a more accurate and detailed description of what is actually contained in the source? Where does that need to reduce a source to its title come from?
Yes , admiring a politician does not necessarily mean admiring everything he does or stands for, but it usually implies admiring a large part of it and/or the things he's best known for. However there is no need to leave it to reader's imagination what exactly Farage admires, as the source (Guardian) states it. So why do you insist on leaving that part out and hence opening up the chance for misinterpretations by readers, that Farage might admire Putin for restricting press freedom, anti gay policies, running an autocratic and nationalistic government, creating military comflicts in neighbouring regions, annexing crimea, ... . This makes no sense to me, unless you want the chance for such misunderstandings.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with you. Unless one wants to conduct a character assassination against Farage, it cannot be included in the manner that a couple of users want it. Dorpater (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Added to WP:BLP/N#RT_.28TV_network.29 Ssscienccce (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like cherry-picking to me. Thanks to Kmhkmh for fixing this thing. Dorpater (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This + this do not equal 'fixing this thing' (sic): they equal WP:POINTy, illiterate WP:SYNTH. Refactoring what is said in the article to produce "... while disapproving Putin in general" is pure WP:PPOV. Stick to the quote from the article per My very best wishes. There is nothing ambiguous about reproducing what the article actually says. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to phrase it somewhat differently (for instance replace "in general" by "politically") or use direct use direct quotes only if you must. But in the latter case make sure you quote the entire statement rather than a cherry picked single word or phrase.
Also I've not noticed you are very apt in quoting policies, it would serve WP however better if you'd make a greater effort in applying them to your own edits.
The nonsense that Trappedinburnley has now edited in again, is neither literal quote from the cited source nor does it paraphrase its content correctly. Worse than that it is again cherry picking designed to create a misleading impression almost contrary to what the source actually states.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
(ce) I've now requested PP until this is resolved. All that's being accomplished at the moment is escalation to edit warring. Please let's try to resolve this on the talk page. The article has been through the wars enough times over the last couple of years to have created content problems already. Warring is not doing any of us any favours (myself included). Can we please continue deliberations trying to be collegial about a solution? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
So you keep saying and yet I see you repeatingly editing in nonsense again, even after you said, you wouldn't change it anymore. If want to avoid edit warring and resolve issues on the talk page, the best approach is to start doing so yourself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth to have a look at how Farage's WP entry handels the issue. And of course there is no simple "admirer" or "confessed fan" phrase or a quoted headline, instead there is a more detailed quote of the source's content that avoids misleading readers:

When asked which leaders he admired, Farage said "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. ... Not that I approve of him politically" (see [4]).

--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, I'm not going to leave an illiterate mess in place. Please note that your edit left the sentence as "Farage, while disapproving Putin in general, admires nevertherless his skills as a political political and in particular his handling of the Syrian conflict." I'm not prepared to copyedit a piece of synth in order that the spelling and grammar be up to par. Synth is synth no matter how eloquent I can make it sound. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There was not WP:SYNTH here, that was simply a paraphrasing of a single source. You probably can argue that there are better or more accurate ways to phrase it, but this has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH. More importantly there was/is no need to copyedit anything, you can write a completely new version. However there is one thing you should not do, that is reverting it to an old misleading version misrepresenting the cited source (as you yourself seem to have acknowledged further up), but unfortunately that is exactly what you've done repeatedly. However there no point is revisiting unfortunate past edits, if you have a better text suggestion that avoids the problems of the past edits make one here.
What I've find most disturbing sp far, that no matter what is said in the discussion here, we always end up again with the same misleading cherry picked line clearly misrepresenting the source. There seems to be no interest at all of the "opposing side" to address that issue. The only conclusion I can draw from that, that they want it to be misleading and simply do not care for a more accurate and detailed quote or paraphrasing. But maybe i'm mistaken and we're going to see alternative text suggestions after all ... --Kmhkmh (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
What I find disturbing is that you make a decision and are not prepared to WP:LISTEN to any other positions regarding appropriate or inappropriate content. I was fairly convinced that the sourced content was appropriate, but was open to well thought out arguments to the contrary. After following the arguments, I have tried to make the best NPOV call I can, being that I believe the content to be appropriate in the context. That is my prerogative, and being prepared to make a 180 degree turn on a previous decision in something all editors should be prepared to do when examining the arguments. It is clear that Farage's 'admiration' is a political one in context. If anyone reads that Farage is in love with Putin or wants to be his best buddy into the descriptor 'admiration', that's their problem (and a serious problem with their cognitive skills at that).
Further to there being no problem with the content, this article is about RT. It is not Farage's bio. The content you have being trying to pad the statement with is WP:UNDUE per WP:TITLE. Trying to squeeze in as many disclaimers about 'admiring' Putin reads exactly as being that: an awkward piece of apologism that calls for more POV scrutiny than the simply stated, sourced information in itself. You, or any other editors, are welcome to elaborate on 'admiration' on the correct article for the subject matter - his bio - where/if it is deemed to be appropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the other positions and the arguments, but frankly all I saw was a lot of policy citing (without actually applying to it) and a borderline ridiculous handling of sources (like choosing the headline of a source over its content). Now you're citing again two policies, which have nothing to do with the issue at hand and starting a ridiculous distraction argument about confusing "admiration for Putin" with "love for Putin". Nobody was talking about such a confusion but you, I explained above in detail, why the mere using of the word admiration is misleading here.
It is actually pretty simple, either you describe the content of a source correctly or you don't. And it is not hard to do that here either with absolutely no need for "squeezing" in "as many disclaimers" as possible. All it takes, is to write one full sentence instead of one word (imagine that, summarizing a source in sentence rather than a single word), but that is something you seem to want to avoid at all cost.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Pick a source. When asked "which world leader do you most admire?" Farage, with a wealth of options to choose from, opts for Putin. Yes with qualifications, but without them the statement would be political suicide. Explanation of why people allow themselves to be associated with RT is important. So far the only explanation for most is that they're intellectuals!? The implication I suppose is that if intelligent people go on RT how can in be a nasty propaganda outlet? The real answer is obvious enough. These people have messages that fit RT's agenda to support the geo-political goals of the Russian Government. Zero explanation is unacceptable, so we're going to have to find one that is. Trappedinburnley (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. In particular, this source tells about Farage on RT TV:

His admiration of Putin was no off-the-cuff remark. Since 2010 he has appeared no fewer than 17 times on the Kremlin’s international English-language propaganda TV channel, Russia Today.

Just as another, already quoted source, it makes direct connection between "admiration of Putin" and contributing to the propaganda RT TV channel. Not telling this would be an outright misinterpretation of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The reason no one actually bothers to read wikipedia is precisely because of biased editing like this. False portrayal of sources to agree with editors opinions is clear to neutral readers and they just stop reading wikipedia. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this is not a valid policy-based argument (unlike the argument by Trappedinburnley who provided sources to support their comment). Based on your previous comment on this page [5], it seems you did not read this discussion. Simply telling "false portrayal" will not convince anyone because this is not false portrayal.My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes Its a chopped quote - its not difficult - even worse was your addition "a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin" - totally biased reporting and the reason the article was fully protected, go ahead, make a case here for your addition Govindaharihari (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Speaking about my last edit, the only thing to be done is a different location of "..." because this is literal quotation. It tells: "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin, has appeared on RT 17 times since 2010". No, this is not a chopped quotation because this is the only phrase in the publication about Farage on RT TV. However, given new sources provided by Trappedinburnley above, one should also use these sources per WP:NPOV, meaning "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". So far, all the sources on this subject (currently provided on the page and quoted by Trappedinburnley above) tell essentially the same. There is no problem with bias. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
your addition "a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin" - totally biased reporting and the reason the article was fully protected - bias? Govindaharihari (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari This article is currently locked because this dispute turned into an WP:EDITWAR, not because of the content anyone was trying to add. Additionally if you bothered to read this discussion, I think @My very best wishes has consistently offered the position that the sources support the text. I don't see why anyone should have to repeat themselves to you. Either contribute constructively or go and do something else. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yea, nothing in your comment is reflective of neutral value, either stop pushing your bias or go do something else. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

the reason for the full protection

this addition by My very best wishes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_%28TV_network%29&diff=683890244&oldid=683888706]] UKIP leader Nigel Farage, "a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin" Govindaharihari (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, sure, I included these words to have this text exactly as in the quoted source: "UKIP leader Nigel Farage, a confessed fan of Vladimir Putin, has appeared on RT seventeen times since 2010". What's the problem? This source does not tell anything else about Farage on RT TV. Therefore, this is not a "chopped quotation". We had "chopped quotation" before my edit. I fixed the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • When I first removed the now infamous qualifier (00:57, 26 September 2015), I had no idea that it would lead to such a protracted controversy. I just wrote NPOV in the summary, as it seemed obvious to me. The reason is very simple. You don't have to know anything about Putin or Farage, or RT, for that matter. It is enough that in a list, all items are described by a property (size, for example) except for one which is described by another (colour), to see that there is something wrong. In view of this logical inconsistency, it is my opinion that those who are in favour of inclusion, like My very best wishes, should bear the burden of gaining consensus. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Buzzfeed said he was a fan of Putin Govindaharihari (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, why are you making things up about "the reason for the full protection"? I applied for it because editors like you have escalated this into an edit war swooping in straight from the BLPN and treating this as a battleground. If you don't understand how Wikipedia works behind the scenes (you've had very, very little editing experience), don't imagine that the sysops are sitting on top of Mount Olympus knowing and seeing all, then zapping an evildoer (because you've decided you know who the evildoer was). The moral of the story is that you shouldn't create your own religion based what you imagine to be true... and that Againstdisinformation still doesn't understand the most fundamental policies any better than does Govindaharihari. WP:BURDEN has been met, so stop making up your own rules as to where, when, how and why they should apply. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@my very best wishes: First of all thanks for listing additional sources, which provide a better picture of how the issue appeared in the British media. I'd even agree that at least based on the Telegraph as source alone one could formally label Farage as "putin admirer" without any further context, or rather to be more precise that Rifkind of the Telegraph describes him as a "Putin admirer".

However just because because just because might something might be formally in line with policies based on a single source, doesn't necessarily mean that it is advisable thing to do nor that it is really in line with policies looking at all the available sources. The problem I have with the sources above is that they partially yellow press and partially strongly politicized articles, which ultimately are all refer back to an interview in the GQ magazine on which the the guardian article is based as well. From that interview however we know already (via the Guardian article), that Farage admires Putin solely for his skills as an "operator", but he does not admire him personally or his political positions, but on the contrary he disapproves them (as he literally states in the interview, see Guardian citations above). Knowing all that we should not simply introduce a description into WP article which can easily be misunderstood by readers (for instance reading it as Farage admiring Putin's political position), but if we use them at all it should be in a way that avoids such misunderstandings. Moreover it is bad encyclopedic writing to portray politicized claims or descriptions from individual (often low quality) news media articles as facts or universally accepted views. That is exactly where encyclopedic writing and journalistic and/or ideologically/agenda driven writing differs. Not everything (and in particular any insinuation or tone) that may be appropriate for a newspaper article/editorial/essay is appropriate for an encyclopedic article. WP should not assume the role of Rifkind or Nick Clegg intentionally reducing Farage's actual statement into a simple "Putin admirer", which ultimately is political sloganeering. What WP can or should do is simply avoiding such a controversial and potentially misleading descriptions or to describe them correctly with more accuracy. In other words some sentence like "Rifkind describes Farage as Putin admirer", "Nick Clegg calls him a Putin admirer" or "According to his own words Farage admirers Putin as a skilled operator but disapproves him politically" might be ok, but the contextless 2 or 3 word phrases "Putin admirer"/"confessed Putin fan" are not. The best solution for the current text however might still be to simply skip any such additional and controversial description.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

farage biography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Vladimir_Putin

is a lot different from Fararage is a confessed fan of Putin. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That's because what has been going on here on this page is blatant cherrypicking, misquoting a part of a larger quote to create a false impression. That simple it is. --Dorpater (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

current state

Since activity at the talk page and the article has died down somewhat, I'm wondering whether everybody is ok with the current version or can at least tolerate it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming that almost everybody has come to the conclusion that we all have other things we would rather be doing. But that doesn't mean that the argument won't flare up again. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess on that we can certainly agree that in doubt time is better invested elsewhere in WP:-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, I believe editors are still feeling burnt out by this last episode of edit warring. This does not, however, mean that there is any general sense of satisfaction about the outcome: just that it can be tolerated for X period of time. There is still the glaring issue of there being two entries for 'guests' which need to be amalgamated into the one. I don't have the energy to make any proposals as to how this should be structured lest it initiate a fresh bout of edit warring, but it should certainly be next on the agenda. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Now the slander is in indirect speech. Surely, this must be pretty unsatisfactory to you all. "can be tolerated for X period of time..." says it all; hoping it's a temporary thing that people insist on a neutral article instead of your biased worldview.Spotthehelloutofyou (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a few edits to attempt to address the bias in the article, more needs to be done though Govindaharihari (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent removal of entire Criticism section

Pretty sure this could be considered whitewashing and is uncalled for. Especially as the editor is confusing "reception" with "propaganda". --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that can be seen as a vandalism and it got reverted already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mention the source of RT criticism

I think it would be quite deceptive not to mention in the lead that the sourced criticism is coming from countries that were either enemies of Russia during the Cold War or are actively at war with Russia (like Ukraine). Its sort of like slipping in commentary about South Korea that just happens to come from the North Korean news. It is, at the very least, worth mentioning where the criticism is coming from, if it is going to be included at all. Masebrock (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The ethnicity/nationality of sources isn't really relevant if the coverage is widespread and the sources are reliable. This appears to be an attempt to poison the well. Volunteer Marek  21:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The coverage is not widespread and that is my point. All the coverage presented comes from either NATO allies or countries actively at war with Russia. If the only sources with criticism come from enemy countries, then maybe these accusations should be met with skepticism.Masebrock (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You call it poisoning the well, I call it acknowledging the bias in your sources. Masebrock (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you present any evidence to suggest the sources are biased. Or that propaganda and disinformation is not the commonly held view (amongst those who have ever heard of it) on what RT does? Anything that we could have a useful conversation about? Otherwise all I see is POV pushing. Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got a question for you: Do you have evidence that propaganda and disinformation is the commonly held view even in countries that are not opposed to Russia? Because if you want to make the argument that this belief is widespread, you've got to have evidence. And is it really necessary to point out that countries actively at war with Russia might be biased against Russia? When it comes to Russian issues, of course Western sources are biased against Russia. I could point you to dozens of sources, in fact here is a whole article about it: Media_portrayal_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis#Media in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Masebrock (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Your "source" doesn't back-up your argument. From the bits I've read you've got Russian's and Russophile's claiming the western media is too pro-Ukraine and the Ukrainians saying it's to pro-Russian. This is the criticism you would expect for impartial media in a dispute situation. I can't find anyone suggesting that RT is being unfairly criticized? This is the last I'll be saying on the subject unless you provide some actual sources. Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You have failed to provide evidence that these views on RT are in fact "widespread". I don't know what to say, if you can't back up your beliefs don't include them on the Wikipedia page. If all you have are Western sources, then it will be described as such. Masebrock (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me offer you an analogy. When a politically charged movie comes out, the Wikipedia page often includes criticism of the movie from political opponents. Lets use Sicko#Response as an example. Including criticism is normal and good. But what is also good is to say where this criticism is coming from. Instead of saying "some critics disliked this movie", it is better to say "conservative critics disliked this movie", or even better "this prominent conservative critic disliked this movie". This is a more accurate statement, and also helps clarify that some people actually like the movie. Do I really need to find evidence that conservative critics are biased against a left-leaning movie? Is mentioning that the criticism is conservative poisoning the well? You would rather leave it as "some critics disliked the movie" out of fear of implying that only conservative critics disliked the movie? Please. Masebrock (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The lead, as it is written, violates WP:NPOV. It will be changed soon unless you have anything else to say on the subject.Masebrock (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The lead doesn't violate WP:NPOV. I regret you're verklempt that it violates your personal point of view. Don't threaten to vandalize it under the notion of "fixing" it. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It violates NPOV because every source is from Western media. This is a bias clear as day. Where is a single Russian media outlet calling RT "propaganda"? Might as well put criticism from Venezuela and Iran on the CNN lead. Don't pretend like YOUR viewpoint is the NPOV viewpoint. Masebrock (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The Western doesn't mean biased. The relativism is. But regardless - it all boils down to WP:RS. And if the RS tilt a certain way - we have to oblige.--Galassi (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I question whether these sources are reliable when it comes to Russia, but I recognize that I am in the minority here and will surrender this point.Masebrock (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Masebrock, you are in the minority only because this article is monitored by a small group of editors who will oppose the slightest change to its wording. If more editors had a look at the article, you would be in the majority. Your comments, though very sensible and clear, have been described as "an attempt to poison the well", "POV-pushing" and threats to "vandalize" the article. With the effect that you "surrender this point". It's a shame Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Masebrock. You tell that "the coverage is not widespread and that is my point". If that's the case, one must be able to provide alternative 3rd party sources (i.e. any RS that are not controlled by Putin's administration) which tell something different, for example, that RT TV is a highly reliable news source. Please bring them here. There are a few Russian independent news sources of course, although not too many on political subjects, given that a lot of editors-in-chief are receiving instructions from the Kremlin, directly or indirectly. But there are many sources from other countries, and it does not matter if they are "Western" or not. P.S. Which "countries actively at war with Russia" are you talking about? No one declared the war, even Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes, your allegation that a "lot of editors-in-chief are receiving instructions from the Kremlin, directly or indirectly" is unsubstantiated and looks like OR, at best. I therefore kindly ask you to either strike it or provide evidence. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
[6] [7] [8] Is this good enough, or do you need more? These are among the top five in the search results.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes, would you truly support altering the lead section if I find reliable sources that call RT a legitimate news organization? But that hinges on them not being dismissed for "indirectly receiving orders from the Kremlin" (a bold claim needing evidence). Masebrock (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I said a "reliable news source", not a "legitimate news organization". Of course it is legitimate in the sense it operates legally. I can't tell without looking at sources and suggested changes in text. My very best wishes (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In January 2010, the article described RT in these terms: "RT sets out to present the Russian point of view on events in Russia and its 'near abroad' and give the viewers an opportunity to get acquainted with Russian views on world and domestic events. Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor-in-chief, says the station was born out of the desire to present an "unbiased portrait of Russia". A major part of RT's airtime is devoted to Russian and world news, but it also airs business, sports and culture news. In addition, RT features documentaries, travel shows and commentaries on present-day life in Russia and Russian history" [9]. Is the current lead an improvement towards more neutrality? Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Short, but revealing. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

State funded vs. publicly funded

There is no difference, except one has a negative connotation. Media outlets that are anti-RT call RT "state funded" while pro-RT outlets call RT "publicly funded". You can find sources saying both if you want to. The solution is standardization. We give PBS, Voice of America, and BBC a break and do not call them "state funded" even though that is objectively what they are, and one could easily find sources that call them "state funded". Masebrock (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is difference. PBS is publicly funded, and RT is state-funded.--Galassi (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
From Cambridge Dictionary...
  • "State Funding" is defined as money that a ​government ​provides for something
  • "Public" is defined as ​supported by ​government ​funds
They are synonyms, except one has a negative connotation, which is why it is used by Western media outlets to describe RT. Masebrock (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Masebrock. It is wildly inappropriate to call RT publicly-funded. I struggle to understand how any sensible adult would try to claim it is. RT is a foreign language, external broadcaster, that provides zero service to the Russian public. However one of RT's classic "not-propaganda" defenses is to claim it is just a Russian BBC. I certainly don't think that this article should be supporting their BS.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
RT is of course state media. But you may be confusing being "publicly funded" with being a public broadcaster. You are right that it is not public broadcasting like BBC or PBS, but it is publicly funded like them. The question is whether we are going to use the pejorative phrase "state-funded" or the more neutral phrase "publicly-funded".Masebrock (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Also we could say "government funded", that seems fairly neutral.Masebrock (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Well then are you going to undo your revert of my edit or shall I? Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"Government funded" it is. Just looking for the most neutral wording, happy to make a compromise.Masebrock (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I was perfectly happy with state-funded and I can't say this will stick, but I can accept government-funded. Also, while not directly related to this discussion, you might want to read WP:WEASEL, especially the bit about WP:LEDE, before using it as you just have. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
"State funded", when used in the context of a media outlet, is almost always used pejoratively. Some neutral synonyms of "state funded" are "publicly funded" and "government funded". The funding section of RT should at the very least be modeled after Voice of America, which like RT is publicly funded but not a public broadcaster. Regarding the attribution of criticism in the lead: you are technically correct that WP:WEASEL doesn't apply here. But isn't it extremely relevant that the criticism is coming from Western media? If I was writing a lead for BBC and I wanted to put in the lead criticism that was coming exclusively North Korea, China, and Iran, don't you think it would be relevant to mention that the criticism is coming from exclusively non-allied countries?Masebrock (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There are a vast range of issues with this and I can't bothered to go into them all. I'll opt for the most basic: from which WP:RS have you taken the opinion that the criticism is only coming from the western media? And for that mater which have you found that call RT publicly-funded? Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Do I really need to find a reference that proves that the New York Times is in fact based in New York? I'm just describing an important aspect of the references provided. If you have criticism from countries allied with Russia, feel free to add it.Masebrock (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that only Western media has criticism. But Western media is all that is referenced. If I say "John likes Pizza", that is quite different from saying "only John likes pizza".Masebrock (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You DO need to find a source that says that R,T is only criticized by western sources! Adding your own commentary on the origin of the sources isn't acceptable. Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
If I were saying something so bold, I would certainly need a reference. Saying that BBC is based in the UK is not "commentary."Masebrock (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't say the BBC is British or that the NYT is based in New York! You looked at the sources used to support an exceedingly carefully crafted sentence, decided they are all western so the sentence should start "Western sources say..." WP:OR. Leaving aside the policy issue, you surely must be aware of the pejorative use of the term "western" in Russia? Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not WP:OR to describe the BBC and NYT as "Western" in the Cold War sense, anymore than it is to describe RT as "Russian". I think it is relevant to mention that all the sources provided are from strategic enemies of Russia. I think it is deceptive to leave that out. I've started a new topic on the talk page.Masebrock (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It's you who are resurrecting the Evil Empire. The USSR is dead and buried. Russia is not the USSR. The BBC is not a anti-enemy-Russia propaganda outlet. You are demoniznig the "West" as "strategic enemies" of Russia. Who talks that way anymore? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Anti-Russian bias in Western media is well documented. The Cold War II is a thing that is actually happening.Masebrock (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
State funded, publicly funded, Government funded? Perhaps, we might close the loop to "State funded" again, and go on with a given periodicity. In the meantime, The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is the public service broadcaster of the United Kingdom, headquartered at Broadcasting House in London., France 24 is an international news and current affairs television channel based in Paris and CCTV News, formerly known as CCTV-9 or CCTV International is a 24-hour English news channel, of China Central Television (CCTV), based in Beijing. remain unchanged and don't attract controversy. Why is this? Should we not wonder whether this is trying to tell us something? Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
RT TV was described as funded not by Russian public (read "the people"), but by Russian government (read "the Kremlin") in sources because this particular government was not elected by the people. No so in UK. My very best wishes (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The NPOV position is that Russia is a democratic republic. Funds from a democratic government are considered "public". Masebrock (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes, your claim that the Russian Government has not been elected by the people is highly biased, not to say straight out false, could you provide sources? Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Not only it is funded by the Russian government, but according to Putin himself, "he never expected it [RT TV] to serve as a Kremlin mouthpiece", but it "cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position." [10]. That's important. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance to the question of whether RT is publicly funded. Masebrock (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • OK. The difference between "state-funded", "publicly funded", and "government-funded" are not immaterial and our wording should a. be guided by NPOV and b. reflect what reliable sources say. An RfC is the answer for this narrow question.

    The other issue, of who criticizes the network as what, is interesting as well and should also be settled in a separate section if it is to be settled at all. To some extent, those who say that "criticized by Western media" is OR unless reliable sources say it's Western media who criticize the network; on the other hand, if it's the NYT and AIM, it's pretty obvious that it's Western media and organizations and one could make a charge of UNDUE. In between is common sense. I see no harm in our article saying something like "many Western sources" or whatever if that is indeed the case; it is no more non-neutral than saying that the NYT is a newspaper and AIM a media watchdog. No one gives a damn about what the North Korean media have to say about anything, but it is not inconceivable that other media worldwide have commented on the issue, indeed it is very likely; as long as those opinions aren't presented, we are presenting evidence selectively and the pro-[fill in the blank] editors have good cause to tag the article or scrap all of that talk. A way to alleviate the presence of selected evidence is to indicate that we're dealing with selected evidence, and saying that "Western media and watchdogs" or something like that present criticism of RT does not in itself diminish the value of that criticism, which after all should derive its strength from evidence. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That would involve a whole bunch of OR. What are "Western sources" exactly? Do Russian sources which criticize RT count as "Western sources"? Do sources in EASTERN Europe? Or SOUTH America? Or Western Asia? By some people's definition - and this is very much a fringe/undue view, not to mention circular - any source which criticizes RT/Putin is automatically "Western source" even if they are not in the West because, you know, if they dare to criticize RT/Putin, they're obviously "controlled" by Western sources. This whole thing is pretty much a non-starter unless some very serious academic sources are brought to the table. Volunteer Marek  00:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Marek, not really. NYT is American. AIM is American. BBC is British (or English, whatever). Those are Western. I'm talking about the sources that are talked about here. If you want to settle for "US and English media and blah blah", that's fine too. Or "US and Western European". You have to find a reasonable way to settle this, because if you don't, well, tags and all that. UNDUE. It's not hypothetical.

No one is talking about "controlled" and what not, and Putin doesn't have a say here. If you find Russian sources that criticize RT, add them. If they're Russian you can call them Russian. Seriously, it shouldn't have to be that hard--I know some of y'all are exasperated with some editors who seem to be little more than roadblocks, but the solution is not to bring up every single hypothetical objection--that is also waging a war of attrition. Come on Marek--in the spirit of cooperation, let's work this out. Obviously tomorrow is a different day. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Saying "NYT is American. AIM is American. BBC is British (or English, whatever). Those are Western." and then translating that into "RT has been criticized by Western media" (or "American and British") is textbook OR. You need 1) multiple sources which state "RT has been criticized by Western media", 2) sources which state that it has been exclusively criticized by Western media. This is actually exactly the kind of synthesizing and interpreting of sources which WP:OR is suppose to prevent. What you are really complaining about here is our reliable sources policy. But that's not a relevant complaint. Volunteer Marek  01:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It does not matter at all if a source was American or British. It only matters what out policy tells. The media in certain countries are more independent and known for fact checking than media in other countries. Some media are more independent and known for fact checking than other media in the same country. That matters. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If someone has an idea for a new statement to summarize the criticism directed at RT that has been reported in just about every English language media outlet on the Internet (including the dozens in this article) I suggest they post it in a new discussion. I am open to suggestion, but I really don't want to go through another 2 years of argument. However as I've seen obviously fabricated news on RT on a regular basis, I see zero hope that this article will ever stop being a battleground, so why bother? Trappedinburnley (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No difference between a propaganda organ funded by the Russian state and publicly (private donations) funded broadcasting? Such comments have nothing to do with improving objectivity, only promulgating the false notion that RT is a legitimate broadcaster. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted label "propaganda network" in first sentence.

An IP user changed "television network" to "propaganda network" with the edit reason "clarified" and i reverted it, as i consider this to be WP:OR given that the source only states that RT conveys "the Russian viewpoint" but does not label the network a "propaganda network". The consideration that it is seen as a propaganda network is conveyed later in the lede in a dedicated paragraph. One should not define the controversial aspect in this way, but rather should pare back to the least common denominator of all viewpoints in the lede sentence. SageRad (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I am reading some of the archives about this topic, and i think i see that there appears to be a strong argument to mention the label of "propaganda" in the lede, but this is not consensus to define RT as propaganda in the lede sentence. I am open to hearing arguments as to whether it's appropriate to define RT as a propaganda network in the lede sentence. I reverted it to be safe while discussion is underway, not to determine a final conclusion. SageRad (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you here. It should be mentioned in the lede but not in the first sentence and not in Wikipedia voice. Volunteer Marek  02:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was good revert by SageRad - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
SageRad If you go through the archives, you'll find a lot of attempts to start constructive discussions as to how best to address concerns ranging from the lead to the entire construct of the article (merging sections with repetitive content; redundant content, etc.). Unfortunately, as with the archived 'discussion' you've found, these discussions began during serious edit warring (or initiated edit warring) with missives flying left, right and everywhere in between on user talk pages, the NPOVN, ANI, RSN at a rapid fire rate. If you have the energy, I suspect it would be worth the while trying to resurrect some of the constructive attempts at addressing content problems. There are a number of editors who have been worn down trying to just form a reasonable structure and weed out WP:ILIKEIT and DONTLIKEIT content (count me amongst those). Cheers for taking this on. A fresh pair of eyes will, hopefully, assist in getting the article back on track. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

'Former Russian Officials"

Regarding in the lead, where RT is denounced by "former Russian officials". It is worth noting that according the source provided, these "officials" are in fact one person: Konstantin Preobrazhensky. And perhaps most importantly, he is a defector to the West! His bias is extremely obvious and should be mentioned, if he is to be mentioned at all. And at the very least, one person is not plural. Masebrock (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Many have left Russia, none of them are enemies of their former homeland. "Defector" indicates individuals switching sides between enemies--your very language in framing issues here indicates a potential lack of objectivity. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The word "defector" was lifted directly from the source used in the lead. Please assume good faith here. Let me quote the article: link "Russia Today has been described by Konstantin Preobrazhensky, himself a former Soviet KGB officer who defected to the West" And at the very least, one person is not plural.Masebrock (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Kudos, Masebrock. Your comment could not make me more happy. I made the same observation almost four months ago and modified the statement to bring it in line with the source (see Revision as of 02:08, 5 August 2015). As a result, I was blocked 3 minutes later. That someone else sees that now seems to me to be an indication that there really is something there. I was perhaps not that deluded and disruptive, after all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, I see you object to this edit. Old discussions must be revived on the current talk page, so please discuss your objections here. My primary concern is that a single person does not equal "former Russian officials". 1 ≠ 2. Therefore, the phrase "former Russian officials" is not supported by the source provided. Please voice your objections to this reasoning on the talk page. Masebrock (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
They can be revived if there's something new to be said. Not if it's gonna be the same ol' tired stuff over and over again. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying something new right now: One person is not plural. Are you willing to engage in discussion? Masebrock (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. This guy is an intelligence expert. No need to provide any other qualifiers because we have a page about him and provide the link. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
All right, I removed "intelligence expert" (although he is the one) and changed the phrase to better reflect what source tells. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not represent anything as a fact. It tells: "It [RT TV]] has also been accused of spreading disinformation...". This is just a notable accusation in a large number of sources, not a fact. P.S. "even the existence of "Directorate ‘A’?" As far as I know, Directorate A of the KGB was responsible for this, and that is precisely what RT TV does, according to the publication. To be more precise, that was not a "Directorate", but "Service" (another type of subdivision - see also here) My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Not "according to the publication",rather according to Konstantin Preobrazhensky. Accuracy in Media reports that "he says Russia Today television utilizes methods of propaganda that are managed by Directorate “A” of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service. He explains, “The specialty of Directorate ‘A’ is deceiving world public opinion and manipulating it. It has got a lot of experience over decades of the Cold War.”" It is in the present tense and, as you rightly pointed out, there is no such "Directorate ‘A’", it was a "Service" in the times of the now defunct USSR. How can it manage anything today, as Mr Preobrazhensky alleges? The source itself has an extremely neutral description of RT: "RT is funded by the Moscow regime of Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer". Why not use this impeccable description in the lead? Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
He tells about modern-day Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia) that still has same "Service" [11]. One could check a lot of other sources, but they are not about RT TV. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I am aware of the existence of that Service. What worries me is that an ex-KGB officer that you describe as "the expert" on Russian intelligence can't even get the name right. It is as if an expert on Germany's armed forces referred to them as the "Wehrmacht" instead of the "Bundeswehr". In my opinion, it casts a serious doubt on his allegations, which are otherwise not supported by any other source. After your last edit, the lead now reads: "It has also been accused of spreading disinformation using methods previously developed by the KGB". This is a very strong accusation that, if founded, should be supported by unassailable evidence. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If you are "aware of the existence of that Service", why did you asked above: "Do you have another independent source mentioning even the existence of "Directorate ‘A’"? Perhaps Curveball could help."? This is not the way to conduct discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Simply because I am not aware of the existence of "Directorate ‘A’" and, as concerns "Service A", I can't find any independent source confirming that "The specialty of Directorate ‘A’ is deceiving world public opinion and manipulating it". As you seem to be more knowledgeable than Mr Preobrazhensky, who can't even get the name right, I have no doubt that you will be able to provide a reliable source confirming this. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Here are a few more sources on the KGB issue [12] [13] [14] Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, I can't find any mention of "Directorate ‘A’" in the sources you provide, which are mostly op-ed articles anyway. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@Trappedinburnley. Oh, yes. According to first source [15], During the conflict over Ukraine, disseminating “a Russian point of view” has increasingly meant helping Russian military and intelligence operations. For example, after Moscow-supported rebels in East Ukraine shot down a Malaysian Airlines jet in July, RT spat out a multitude of conspiracy theories ... in order to direct attention away from the real perpetrators. ...Some of these tricks smack of an updated model of Active Measures, the Soviet era KGB-run disinformation and psychological warfare department designed to confuse and disorganize the West. Active Measures employed an estimated 15,000 agents at the height of the Cold War, part of whose brief was to place forgeries in international media.. This is another RS telling exactly the same what Preobrazhensky said about RT TV. I am sure there are many more RS telling the same. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you not reconcile yourself with the fact that the Soviet Union has been dead for almost 25 years now? You might as well keep ranting against Ivan the Terrible. What's the point? Anyway, your comment is filled with unsubstantiated accusations which have no place in an encyclopaedia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If indeed there are "many sources that support the statement" that RT is "using methods previously developed by the KGB", by all means, cite them. Otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated claim and, as such, should be removed, and should not have been inserted in the article in the first place. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
All right. An additional RS (quoted above) was included. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately the new source is no better than the previous one. For example, it has been criticised by the watchdog group Media Matters for America for its bias. As for Peter Pomerantsev, he is hardly more neutral than Konstantin Preobrazhensky. The latter is an ex KGB officer who wrote a book titled "KGB/FSB's New Trojan Horse: Americans of Russian Descent", while the former thinks that Russia is a "post-modern dictatorship", and deems that "we’re all Putin’s ‘useful idiots’" I think it would be preferable to have more neutral sources, or drop the allegation altogether. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
So, you think that SVR does not recruit anyone in US (that is what the book by Preobrazhensky was about, and it was written well before these events) and that modern Russia is not a dictatorship. This is fine, but irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
As you correctly point out, what I think, or what you think for that matter, is irrelevant. What is relevant however is that Pomerantsev claims that Russia is a "post-modern dictatorship". This is enough to disqualify him as a neutral source, and the same goes for Preobrazhensky. If I were to read that CNN "has also been accused of spreading disinformation, using methods developed by the CIA", citing as a source a man who has written in the press "Is freedom under attack in the United States? Is there a threat of dictatorship in the United States? I believe the answer to both of these questions is 'Yes!", I would feel just as uneasy. Not because I am a US stooge, but rather because it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. You might say, who cares? Well, I do. Because I am convinced that the dissemination of knowledge is of cardinal importance, and Wikipedia is an essential tool for achieving that goal. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"This is enough to disqualify him as a neutral source" - this is just plain incorrect. I have no idea where you pulled this out of. Volunteer Marek  16:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Very simple. Anyone is entitled to say that the way the European Union operates is not very democratic. However, if someone were to say that the EU is a "post-modern dictatorship", such an overblown statement would totally disqualify him, in my eyes at least. A respectable encyclopedia cannot present conspiracy theory as fact. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, by your logic, anything good about RT or Russia would be equally biased and inadmissible as article content. Your defense of proper expression is a thinly veiled attempt at suppression of criticism. Russia did invade and annex territory of a sovereign neighbor, so there is some leeway to consider a negative opinion of Russia as factually objective. Agreement or disagreement with the policies and actions of a political state is not a litmus test for bias for said expression. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be said that a negative opinion of Russia is not a neutral POV. If you are editing as if a negative opinion of Russia is NPOV, then that is going to cause some problems. Masebrock (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ummm, no. Please read WP:NPOV. A negative of opinion of something does not make a source non-neutral. That would be ridiculous. Volunteer Marek  16:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Not so. WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If a person/country/RT TV/whatever was described "negatively" in a vast majority of RS, it must be described "negatively" per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
A negative view of Russia is not NPOV, because not all significant reliable sources describe Russia negatively. Saying that all reliable sources describe Russia negatively is a extraordinarily bold claim, needing extraordinary evidence. That is the sort of claim that needs to be determined with the larger consensus of Wikipedia. You can't just go editing as if a negative views of Russia was neutral and saying that everyone already agrees with you. Masebrock (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I said if - just to explain the policy. Actually, telling that someone holds a negative/positive view with regard to country X is absurd until one defines what the negative/positive view was. The idea of NPOV is to fairly summarize what RS tell on the subject, whatever they might tell and whatever you think might be "positive" or "negative". My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's get back to the question at hand, which is whether the views held about RT by US and UK media outlets are widespread enough to not require identification of the source of the statements in the text. The way I see it, until we see the views from sources that are widespread (i.e. not just former cold war enemies), these statements represent only a selected viewpoint, and should be identified as such. It is not that the BBC, NYT, ect. are unreliable, it is that they represent a specific viewpoint that other places in the world do not share. Masebrock (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes Vecrumba, "anything good about RT or Russia would be equally biased and inadmissible". It is not the business of an encyclopedia to pass judgement. Another very serious problem is that of sources. The fact that an opinion is widely held (which is not the case for Russia being a dictatorship) does not allow one to include it as fact. Sometimes it does not even allow one to mention it at all, or then, only with great prudence and careful attribution. For example, if the article Geology stated about the age of the earth that "a majority of Americans believes that the earth is 6000 years old" would you agree, even though this is true? In my view, that may be good enough for Conservapedia, not for Wikipedia. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This article contains dozens of independent sources that meet WP:RS, all essentially saying that RT makes up the news. Given RT's tiny viewer numbers[citation needed], this would IMO certainly imply a widely-held view. You two have brought zero sources to these discussions that would support a counter argument of any kind. Thus far this has been almost entirely a waste of time. Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Masebrock, unless you bring some sources to the table to back up your assertions, there really is no point in discussing this. This is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussing politics. Volunteer Marek  16:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have not been discussing politics anywhere in this talk page. I have not made any assertions that need sources! Are you even reading my posts? I'm am saying that the assertions on the RT page are not justified by the sources provided, because these sources are not widespread. Masebrock (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • If people want to make any changes that do not cause objections by majority of contributors here, that's fine. However, if you want to write something that goes against consensus currently existing on the page (as appears in this case), please start new section, write exactly the entire text you want to include with supporting refs, and wait for a few days to allow others to comment. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, your last piece of advice would be better if it were addressed at all editors uniformly. I can't help feeling uneasy when I read some of the comments above. They sound to me like an attempt to WP:POV railroad Masebrock. But then, my poor judgement is legendary. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Trappedinburnley, you must be aware that it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Can you find sources to support the claim that CNN does not "make up the news"? In the same way, Saddam Hussein found it very hard to prove he did not have WMD. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, you aver above that Wikipedia should "summarize what RS tell on the subject, whatever they might tell". This is a fundamental point of disagreement between us. An encyclopaedia is not a press summary. Diderot and d'Alembert would be horrified to read your implicit definition of what our task should be. Encyclopedists should not be scribes. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright lets make this simple. There is no conceivable argument that could be made to convince me that this article shouldn't have a statement in the lead section that mentions the accusations against RT. This is because I can turn on my TV at any time and quickly be reminded how correct the accusations are. The sources used in this article cover most major English speaking news organizations on earth, and if it ever looks like they are not sufficient to establish a widespread view, I will just go and find more. However if somebody one day produces enough RS to show there is an widespread alternative viewpoint I will listen to suggestions for including it. Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Trappedinburnley, you could have opposed the same argument to Galileo Galilei 350 years ago. It is obvious to anyone who has ever seen the light of day that the sun orbits the earth, and not the other way around. And if the earth moved, should we not feel the movement? Who was right Simplicio or Galileo? It depends on the point of view. If you are a denizen of the earth, going about his day to day business, the simplest and safest assumption is that the sun orbits the earth. Now, if you want to explain the motion of Foucault's Pendulum within the framework of the Ptolemaic system, you will encounter some difficulties and you will soon find that Heliocentrism is much better. Some contrarians might then say that even that is false. The fact of the matter is that truth is elusive. It is a direction, rather than a place. You might say that this is an overbloated rant, considering the subject at hand, and I would agree with you. What I am trying to point out awkwardly is that, while I agree that RT is biased, I don't think that its bias is of another order of magnitude than the one we find in the western media. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh please, RT is not Galileo. It's just a clumsy though well funded propaganda channel, not some martyr for truth. How about we drop the false analogies?  Volunteer Marek  23:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
No need to ascribe to me false analogies that I never made. I was just cautioning that truth is very elusive. What Galileo sounded like nonsense to every reasonable person of his time, and for very good reasons. I just wanted to caution editors to think twice before saying that nothing can make them change their mind, not draw a comparison between RT and Galileo. I may be crazy, but not to such an extent. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I find your statement to be quite reasonable Trappedinburnley, and I completely agree with you that enough significant RS have called RT propaganda that it warrants mention in the lead. I do suspect there is a sizable alternative viewpoint, but I am not well equipped to navigate non-English media outlets to be able to find it. Masebrock (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


'Former Russian Officials" 2

Isn't RT pretty much the same as Voice of America? --62.154.197.99 (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Masebrock, do you support keeping "It has also been accused of spreading disinformation using methods previously developed by the KGB" in the lead? In my opinion, such biased and unfounded accusations are harmful to Wikipedia, not to RT. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be rephrased, however using propaganda as a part of active measures is nothing special, but something always practicied in the Soviet Union and Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, I think the criticisms are common enough to be appropriate for the lead, but I support clarifying that there is a widely held alternative viewpoint. Something along the lines of the Voice of America page "Some scholars and commentators consider the Voice of America to be a form of propaganda, although this label is disputed by others". The only problem is I don't know how to find the appropriate "others" sources. Like you said earlier, it's easy to find someone saying a source is unreliable, its hard to find someone making the case that a source is reliable. Especially when those sources are deep in Russian and Spanish language news outlets. Masebrock (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Masebrock, while I agreed above that the news coverage on RT is slanted, I am yet to see outright fabrications in it (unlike in NYT, where the possession of WMD by Iraq was (in)famously presented as fact). The problem lies rather with the general tone of the channel and the relative weight it gives to different issues (for example, now that a Russian jet has been downed by Turkey, they are constantly talking about the absence of press freedom in that country (which is a fact), whereas I can't remember they were very vocal on this subject before. In this regard, rather than with Voice of America, which is a relic of the cold war, RT could me more accurately compared with CNN or France 24. In any case, unless there is rock solid evidence, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the claim that it "uses methods previously developed by the KGB" in the lead. Not because it makes RT look bad but because it makes Wikipedia look bad. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is all your unsourced personal opinion. In brief, the modern Russian state-controlled TV in general (not only RT TV) differs from Western news outlets in the following aspects: (a) this is not journalism, but propaganda, (b) just like Soviet propaganda, it creates the entire Universe of falsehoods which is different from actual reality; (c) it promotes hatred towards other nations and indoctrinates people with wrong moral values (whatever the Ruler does is "good"), in addition to providing disinformation, and so on. This is nothing new, but a huge subject that was described in numerous books and writings by experts, including Russian political scientists. That kind of "news" to present black as white was mocked by artists, even in Russia. Once again, if you want to change something in particular, please post new suggested version of the text below and wait for comments by others. P.S. Why do you continue arguing about "KGB methods" if I removed this phrase already? My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not the place for personal quarrel. We should all strive to improve the article, which is in a woeful state. In this regard, I congratulate you for finally realising how inappropriate the "KGB methods" allegation was. However, since you assert in an appropriately moderate tone that RT "creates the entire Universe of falsehoods which is different from actual reality", allow me to remind you that it is not Putin who said "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out", it is Karl Rove. As things stand, the article is in need of a complete overhaul. It is a wholesale attack on a news channel, the like of which I have not seen in any other version of Wikipedia, at least in the languages I understand. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I removed "KGB methods" only because this needs rephrasing and better sourcing. In fact, there is a very large number of sources telling that RT TV is actively engaged in "active measures" or "information warfare". The latter is an official part of the hybrid warfare according Russian official military doctrine. Here is a random recent publication that described RT TV as a part of information warfare, which is obviously very different from journalism and should be included in the introduction, I think. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This is your personal opinion, not supported by other editors of this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, you know, this is the behavior you have been blocked for in the past, and you will be indeffed again in the near future. This is not a way to collaboratively write down an encyclopedia. You have built a straw man and now building up walls of text to fight with it. The piece you do not like - about disinformation - is sourced beyond any reasonable limit (because people before you, mostly paid editors, required references to every word, and we provided references to every word). At this point, consensus is that it should be in the lede. If there is smth more in the article you do not like, please make sure it has not been discussed at least three times on this page, then open a new discussion and try to reach consensus. So far, all your attempts to reach consensus failed miserably. Ans I assume you know what happens to editors who systematically edit against consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ymblanter, I take it that the consensus you are talking about is expressed in the views put forward by My very best Wishes and Volunteer Marek, but Masebrock and me are of another opinion. How then can you claim that there is consensus? Of course, if Masebrock and I are scared into silence, there will be consensus for a time. However, there will always be editors who will be shocked by allegations such as "(RT)uses methods previously developed by the KGB", and they don't need to be paid for that. Finally, I am perfectly aware that you have the power to indeff me but, absent any violation of WP policies, this might look arbitrary. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
THis talk page contains seven pages of archives. The question on whether disinformation should be in the lede, was discussed many times, with always the same results. Dozens of editors in good standing participated, and the consensus is very clear. That most of them are lazy to write the same thing for the tenth time does not indicate the change of consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Although I will not be able to find any "reliable sources" that state that this wiki page is "a wholesale attack on a news channel", it is pretty evident that it is. And no, Marek, I am not a sock puppet of the user above. --62.154.197.99 (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh... thanks for making that clear, I guess?  Volunteer Marek  19:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@Γνῶθι σεαυτόν: Regarding RT's running the gamut of misinformation all the way through to blatant lies, please read go to the WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN and type in "RT" or "Russia Today". There are ample instances of real doozies noted in previous discussions. Read and be edified. Editors here are getting exhausted by having to rehash the substance of discussions that have been brought up here over, and over, and over, and over... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Can you please provide a link? I went to the areas you mentioned but I did not find anything about RT... Thanks! --62.154.197.99 (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@IP 62.154.197.99: The RSN on Russia Today and RT. The NPOVN for Russia Today and RT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I did not find any clear statement that RT is officially considered a propaganda outlet by en.wikipedia.org. Only a whole bunch of accusations from both sides and this: "No consensus that RT is or is not reliable for general purposes. If someone has a specific claim RT is trying to make about a specific article, they are welcome to request a discussion again, but otherwise this was a giant waste of time. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)". Can you please copy and paste (plus link) the line where it states that RT is officially considered a propaganda outlet by en.wikipedia.org? Thanks,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.197.99 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

IP 62.154.197.99: Firstly, please WP:LISTEN to what I asked of you, which was to read through the discussions carefully and check through the linked articles in the discussions demonstrating that RT appeals to the tackiest of WP:FRINGE theories, etc. What I did not ask you to was cherry pick a closing editor's summary for one such discussion alone involving two battleground editors who ceased editing just before they were permanently blocked from editing. Note, also, that Tkop is not an admin, and his closure could easily have been challenged... except that everyone was tired of it. Furthermore, regarding that RSN, please read the Tkop's remarks as to his own take on the 'dispute' underneath the discussion:
"The original poster requested a general statement about this source, I issued a general opinion that sources that propagate conspiracy theories are NOT a reliable source. My rationale is supported by the idea that "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". No one here would claim RT presents a "majority" view in their reporting. Neither would anyone suggest they present a "significant minority" view. Conspiracy theories and theorists are considered FRINGE viewpoints on Wikipedia, and should be given ZERO consideration, unless we are reporting on the fringeness.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)"
Ultimately, however, consensus regarding what reliable sources have to say about RT are discussed on this article talk page per WP:TITLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Iryna, my girl, please show a little bit of understanding: you gave me links to a ton, yes a ton, of material!!!! All I asked for was a direct quote, that is it. I am not your enemy here, I am just trying to make Wikipedia better!!! Could you please just give me one link, just one, that connects to a quote where en.wikipedia.org officially declares RT to be an unreliable source? Is it sooooo hard??? Cheers, --Sixtytwoonefiftyfouroneninesevenninenine (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... where's that SPI page... User:Volunteer Marek 02:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

'Former Russian Officials" 3

Not about content. SageRad (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is not ok to poison the well on an editor by saying they've been blocked in past for your skewed version of why, nor to say they're about to be indeffed. That's all inadmissible profiling and aspersion. Bad dialogue above. POV railroading happening here. My observations. SageRad (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable opinion. I am sure you came here because you are genuinely interested in the content of the article. Please share your thoughts on its content with us.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I commented on railroading behavior I see here, yours in large part. Your sarcasm and hostility here is further revealing of the nature of this dialogue. SageRad (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Not really. You just forgot that you are at the talk page, and just playing a wiki advocate of a disruptive user. Please stop. This is misplaced anyway. If you have problems with my behavior, you should discuss them elsewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
if you had followed your own advice above, then you would not have been commenting on another user's behavior, or casting aspersions against them, or attempting to profile them or Poison the Well against them, and this dialog would have been unnecessary. SageRad (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again for your opinion. My opinion is obviously that this dialogue was unnecessary from the very beginning. I am not sure I have any desire to continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
@SageRad: Please drop the stick. This is not the ANI. Please read the archives: they will attest to just how much long standing, good editors have had to endure content development being disrupted by the talk page being upstaged as a drama board. Serious discussions as to how to make some form of progress have been constantly usurped and, frankly, most editors have just lost heart and are waiting for these dramas to finish playing. Personally, I'm sick of the article's being held to ransom. Until any form of reasonable structure is put in place, squabbling over details are an energy sinkhole. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
So I raise issues with behavior here and you tell me to shut up by citing an essay. ... SageRad (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I refer you to WP:TPNO: do not misrepresent other people; do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. Most salient is the fact that you are using an article's talk page as a battleground in order to advocate on behalf of another editor. Your intentionally provocative attitude here testifies to uncivil behaviour. Would you like me to rattle off some more policy violations, or is your intent to continue with using this article talk page to make a point? Again, please stop testing other editor's patience. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't phrase it well above, but i still hold that it's ok to make an observation about behavior on a talk page, especially when it's an observation about another editor's observation about behavior. I'm not using this as a soapbox, or violating WP:TPNO, or introducing a battleground mentality which was not here before, nor being uncivil, nor misrepresenting another editor's words, nor being WP:POINTy, nor any other thing you mention above. I do not think i'm violating policies here. I also don't think that every single attention to another editor's behavior should require running to ANI, as that would be inefficient and burden admins too much. It should be enough usually to name a behavior and then ask people to knock it off, and edit cooperatively. Sometimes that is not enough, and then it could go to ANI. I'm not being provocative here, unless you consider it provocative to ask other editors to have good behaviors. I'm just asking for everyone to get along, and consider every editor's points with respect. SageRad (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
No, talk pages are not a substitute for ANI. They are explicitly for the purposes of discussions of the article's content, therefore it is inappropriate for you to usurp the purpose of the page. As for misrepresenting other editors, you just summed up my original missive as "telling me to shut up by citing an essay" [sic]. That is neither what I said, nor is it representative of the advice I was conveying to you in good faith. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
That's why the banner above tells: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RT (TV network) article". My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, and this is all not about content. The best way to keep the talk page on the content, is to stay on the content. I only posted my first comment above in response to another editor casting aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor. I would recommend that be struck from the above talk page, and i am hatting this section to keep the talk page about content. SageRad (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

YouTube audience

added info about YouTube audience, then was edit war. Why is that? Why no discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Sodoma (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Daily Beast Article

I'm removing the source that is a hit-piece on RT by The Daily Beast, because frankly, it has nothing to present to the article but a biased, negative perspective from a political editorial meant to slander a rival media station.

That, and the Daily Beast generally isn't considered a reliable source. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Daily Beast does not present these accusations as facts, but says they come from leaked documents from another Russian media company. If they had also leaked documents making similar accusations about Western media, I doubt the same editors would support their inclusion. TFD (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I know too much about RT, but I'm struggling to see Solntsa90's issue here. This seems to me to be a pretty non-controversial article. I've read it twice today and can't find anything even slightly un-believable. Certainly not much evidence of vitriol, POV, bias, or slander? The content s/he tried to remove (more than 80% of RT's YouTube viewership was for videos of accidents, crime, disasters, and natural phenomena and in the most popular video of Putin he's singing Blueberry Hill) is easily verifiable. I would support some adjustment to make the source of the info clearer, but I also think that we should include the bit about RT buying-in content for its Youtube channel. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's so easily verifiable, can we use a source other than what was intended as a hit-piece on RT? seems a bit troublesome to have an article that calls RT a "propaganda outlet" and says that RT "lies".

In fact, now that I think about it, I'm almost positive we'll need a different source, seeing as both the source itself is questionable, as is the tone of the article and the intention of the article, not to mention that RT is a direct rival media outlet. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley:, there is a difference between statements made in a reliable source and statements reported in a reliable source. For example if an article in the Daily Beast says that birther activist Orly Taitz says Obama was not born in the US,[16] competent editors do not automatically say, it was reported in the Daily Beast, and change the DOB in the Obama article. The fact that the media report what someone said does not mean they are asserting what someone said. For example, I could tell someone what you said, that would not necessarily mean I agree with what you said. In this case the source is someone who worked for a rival Russian state-owned media corporation. The source, who worked for what you call a "propaganda network," does not become an unimpeachable source, just because they say what we believe to be true. TFD (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, I've assumed you have returned to the original subject of this conversation and split the rest into a new conversation (As I'm at least partially responsible for the fork). I hope you don't object. In response to your post, I agree that one would have to show that Taitz's opinion was significant somehow. In this case we have a leaked report by RIA Novosti for the Russian government and the specific info used was verified by the Beast. I think the source is valid and thus far has been used very sparingly, and as I already said I would support some adjustment to make the source of the info clearer. Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The information was not verified by the Daily Beast, otherwise they would have said so. While it is not (to quote you from the following thread) not an "obviously fabricated," it is not confirmed either. That is why the article uses in text attribution and that is the only way it should be presented in this article. OTOH, had the reporter confirmed the information, such as by consulting Nielsen ratings, by checking user views on Youtube, or by consulting an academic study, they would not have had to use intext attribution. TFD (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
"The Daily Beast’s review of the RT YouTube page shows the most-watched videos have not changed since the RIA Novosti spreadsheet was created in 2013", huh? Trappedinburnley (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Line of criticism in leading section

Neither BBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, NBC, CBS nor ITV have criticism in their leading section. I was trying to promote neutrality, only to have it reverted (Ymblanter) immediately with no reason. Even if all sources are verified and fine, it should not be placed in the leading section but under criticism, as it makes it biased compared to those many other news network pages who have no criticism in their lead sections. Criticism is for the Criticism section. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed several dozen times at this talk page, and so far the majority of the editors disagree with your opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no, it hasn't. You probably misread my issue, but the issue discussed before was that of the naming of the sources to point out that they are from particular nations or sources with rusty relations with Russia. However my issue is on this article in relation to the other news network articles, in that there is criticism where there isn't criticism in the others, i.e. outside the Criticism section. This looks like an attempt to ingrain something into a reader's mind before they've even read the article, where as on the article for the BBC for example, there is nothing, until you get to the criticism section, as on most articles. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I am really tired discussing this over and over again. Let us see what other users have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
You're not discussing anything from before, this is a different issue, but fine. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
No, you are mistaken. The question you ask has been raised here on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This talk page has several archives. Of the top of my head I'd refer you to Criticism and controversies section specifically my comment [17]. Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
One can criticize CNN for a number of reasons. However, unlike CNN, his particular news network is notable for promoting disinformation, according to sources. Therefore, yes, this info should go in the introduction. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
That depends on which sources you use. If you were looking at exclusively Russian sources, CNN might be notable for for propaganda. Just like how if you looked at exclusively Western sources (UK, US, Germany), RT is notable for propaganda. (Like is done in the current Wikipedia article) Masebrock (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"That depends on which sources you use." - we use reliable sources. If you have such sources that CNN is "propaganda" then we can use it over at the CNN article. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
So it seems no one, not even in the links provided (Ymblanter), has given any reason at all let alone good reason why there is criticism present in the lead section, and only criticism (no commendation). All I saw in the links which indicated hope of progress was a commenter who remarked about the Wikipedia rules for lead sections, that they "should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." When I further read the guideline page, I also saw that "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." This would clearly suggest that the difference in emphasis present in this article's lead section is against Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight. The guideline page also says that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.", and in the note "[1]" to this line, it continues "Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." Comparably to the rest of the article, including the criticisms section, the line of criticism in the lead section is exaggerated in its highlighting considering the fact that no mention of criticisms occur until the "Reception" and following "Criticisms" sections, in which the network is again said to be called "propaganda" i.e., there is a majority of text not related to criticisms of RT that is not being highlighted in the lead section, such as its organisation, more on its funding, at least not in 3-line-long blocks of text, however a topic confined to 1 section, the criticisms, IS being highlighted. It's almost as if you're summarising an entire news network by its criticism. In fact, that is what you're doing, as its presence in the lead section suggests. Forget comparing this page to other TV network's Wikipedia articles if you didn't like that reason, according to the guidelines it is severely fraught with undue weight. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"So it seems no one, not even in the links provided (Ymblanter), has given any reason at all let alone good reason why there is criticism present in the lead section" - no, the reasons have already been given. The lede reflects the article body and reliable sources. That's why this is in there. You're just not listening. Volunteer Marek  22:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Read through the archives. There's plenty of discussion there. Volunteer Marek  22:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And the simple reason as to why the articles on "BBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, NBC, CBS nor ITV" are different is that these organizations are different. Skip the false equivocation. Volunteer Marek  22:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is settled, this is an ongoing debate. If there is a "majority view" then it is a slim majority and not a consensus. Plenty of editors have said that this article is biased, only to be brick walled and called every name under the sun. If we could just calm down and start assuming good faith, that would be good. Masebrock (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not a "slim" majority. There has been extensive discussion. No, people haven't been "called every name under the sun".
Now, unless there's a new source or new arguments that are brought to the table there really isn't much point in rehashing the same thing over and over and over and over again. Volunteer Marek  00:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
If random passerbys keep bringing up the same criticisms, isn't that a sign that there is a problem with the article? Masebrock (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not. This is only a sign of trouble if the random passerbys are experts on the subject. Now, speaking about your another comment above, there are "Russian" sources that are even more critical of RT TV than "Western" sources. For example, this article is a good source. The catch? This news site is included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials and blocked in Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There exists a long tradition of Western expertize in Russian matters - G.B. Shaw, H.G. Wells, Romain Rolland, E. H. Carr. Real life destroys dreams, compare Philby "disappointed in many ways".
  • RT doesn't belong to the same group as "BBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, NBC, CBS or ITV", the closest comparison was RFE/RL during the cold war.Xx236 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
That would be "true" (in WP sense) if you could collect an equal number of RS telling that REF/RL was promoting disinformation during the cold war. No, it was doing just the opposite (fighting the disinformation by the Soviet propaganda) - according to RS I know. Yes, all the sources I read about it were admittedly Russian.My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I try to explain the differences to RT fans. I mean the financing by governments rather than the content, which I appreciated at that time.Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to weigh in here and add that I agree with the OP's premise: the lede is horribly biased, and despite heavy criticism of the BBC (especially by Scottish Nationalists in light of its coverage of the independence referendum), no such equivalency exists on their page.

The lede needs a rewrite, and shouldn't include any criticism, a la other news organisations like the BBC, CNN.

As for Marek's comment that "RT is different", well, I'm not exactly sure how, and would love for him to explain, because that seems like an opinion/original research to me. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that you moved the paragraph out of the lede and started edit-warring explicitly against consensus that it should be there. After the block expires, the paragraph will be moved to the lede, and if you restarty edit-warring (aided by a one-week-old account) you will likely be taken to a corresponding administrative noticeboard so that your ability to edit Wikipedia will be restricted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I would suggest to unprotect this page right now because there is a long-standing consensus to keep this paragraph in intro. User Soltsa90 made four reverts during 30 minutes and suppose to be blocked for edit-warring against consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no consensus. You must not be following or something; why do you think there would be such long debates about this if there were consensus? SpikeballUnion (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The reason there are such long debates IMO is (much like RT) some people seem to believe that if they just keep repeating the same BS over and over and refuse to WP:listen, that somehow, eventually people will agree with them. That might work some place but all that counts here are policy and sources. Trappedinburnley (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ymblanter Obviously, "(aided by a one-week-old account)" must refer to me. My edit was not made in order to "aid" anyone, but rather to add what, in my opinion, was missing, important and sourced information about RT на русском. I am afraid I must add that I deeply dislike your overbearing tone, it is both improper and insulting. Göndul (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry that you dislike my tone, but when a one-week-old account comes to a highly disputed article and immediately engages into an edit war reverting to the version of someone who was edit-warring before that account, this is 100% sockpuppetry.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ymblanter, I reverted to that version because it contained my edit which had been removed along with the other editor's edit. I also agree with him that the accusations of propaganda, regardless of whether they are fouded or not, should be in the criticism section. It is simply common sense. Anyway, I don't intend to keep on editing this talk page. I have no taste for the bellicose rhetoric which seems to be the rule here. Good luck. Göndul (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You didn't just "add RT на русском", you also made POV changes to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The sources you used tell us nothing about it other than it exists, yet somehow we got a full sentence about its purpose, Soltsa90 even decided it has been in existence since 2005. I did checkout the YouTube channel yesterday and found the live feed to have 37 viewers, which suggests to me that it is insignificant. Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RT_(TV_network)/Archive_7&oldid=1137109935"