Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Ofcom censure in lead/edit warring

This has been taken in and out repeatedly [sic] over the past few days. I would argue it's too much detail for the lead, and is covered within the broader reference to the criticism RT has faced, especially given that it is a UK regulator and this is about the wider network. Ofcom has ruled against something pretty much every news broadcaster has done in the UK at some point (see here and here for example). That's what a regulator does, and I don't see that all those news organisations need a mention of those instances in their leads (they certainly don't have them currently). As for "repeatedly", as if RT is a special case, the cited sources appear to list a total of about three occasions only. N-HH talk/edits 15:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Ofcom line isn't about the problems RT faces in the UK, it's about the problems with RT's English language "news". There follows a number of excellent sources (not currently in the article), that I feel offer an update on the situation. I would specifically draw attention to the following statement (from the Bloomberg article) "Ofcom, the British media regulator, has found RT in breach of impartiality standards 10 times —more than any other broadcaster— since the channel started operating in the country in 2005". I would also point out that in these types of cases Ofcom only respond to complaints from viewers. RT's audience share should mean it has far less opportunity to get in to these problems.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
It has been an interesting read. I have to admit that the headline on the EUvsDisinfo site (and Nigel's tash) brought a smile to my face.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This phrase was in lede for a long time, and no one really disputed it. Why? It tells The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality.... This is simply a summary: Ofcom was mentioned many times in the body of the page. and this phrase nicely summarizes it. I do not see any reason for moving this phrase [9] to section entitled "2017". This is not about something that had happen in year 2017. This is summary of something that had happen in all years ("had repeatedly"). My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the reasons above for leaving it out of the lede. It's in the article 107.77.223.173 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Right now we have this section entitled "2017". It tells: The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality, and of broadcasting "materially misleading" content.[224][218][215] RT is currently banned in Ukraine.[225]. Why this should be in section about year 2017 if it describes criticism by Ofcom during many years and it was banned by Ukraine not in 2017, but a few years earlier? My very best wishes (talk)
I agree it makes no sense to move it to a 2017 section (and that it being in the body is a reason of course for it to be reflected in the lead, not excluded from it). My point was that it is a specific detail, of the sort not found in similar pages, and the lead is meant to summarise. The argument that it has a lot of rulings against it for size of audience is not really probative of anything, especially given the hostility the channel gets. I'm sure it's not regular viewers by choice, who presumably like the channel, who are making complaints. Personally I would rewrite the whole paragraph to say something like "RT has faced criticism from commentators and politicians, and censure from regulatory bodies, in the west for ....", while adding for balance that the station says it is simply putting forward a Russian perspective. And lose the citation overload. The broader problem here is the common one on controversial pages: people just want to use it to score points and lay on criticism (here largely sourced to rival media outlets or politicians, who often have their own agendas) with a trowel, rather than have an article that simply explains factually what something is or has any balance to it. N-HH talk/edits 11:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally I would rewrite the whole paragraph to say something like "RT is a purveyor of disinformation masquerading as an international news channel, part of the Russian government's larger propaganda operation against its enemies". For balance we could add "RT will either deny this or argue that all news is propaganda depending on how stupid they think you are". However as we all know Wikipedia doesn't work like that. If you familiarise yourself with the previous discussions regarding this subject, you will see that virtually every word and citation has been argued over already and is as it is for a reason. As the new sources I've brought show, the argument for it being there is stronger now than ever. The Ukraine ban bit can either be removed as the cite doesn't support the statement, or expanded with new sources as it is likely correct. I can't see it needs to be in the lede.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Ofcom is an important organization and therefore mentioning it in the lede seems to be OK. In any case, we need consensus to move or rewrite this, and I think we do not have one. Not surprising because that was already discussed a number of times on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Changed some unbalanced terms to neutral ones. I would suggest that more effort be made to separate critical sources from "They would, wouldn't they?" sources. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Regarding the lede, the cites shouldn't really be needed (WP:LEADCITE), but were included mainly because any summary of the criticism in the article was removed many times as unsourced POV. Some were selected to demonstrate a long-term issue after accusations of recentism, others because they used specific words or phrases (synthesis). I imagine the odd one or two came from people just wanting to add a new source to the article. Add in the alterations that resulted from at least a dozen edit-wars and this is the result. Experience leads me to believe that attempts to make significant changes will likely spiral into more edit-wars and reams of discussion. Perhaps you could raise specific sources you find problematic? They should be easily replaced as we have so many to choose from.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the lead, I meant the article, which is one-sided in its lack of context for claims by rival organisations who have obvious conflicts of interest. Has the questionable nature of Ofcom been made clear in the article or that BBC regulates itself so is immune to Ofcom censure? At the moment the article reads like a litany of complaints from everyone and every organisation that has an obvious incentive to hide ulterior motives. I altered some words in the lead because of obvious judgemental bias and replaced them with neutral descriptive terms. That these matters have been discussed by others is irrelevant to my edits, which were fair and reasonable. I'm quite happy to discuss each word I edited and you reverted to reach consensus. Have you defined frequently and compared similar organisations to create context? Repeatedly has a judgemental connotation and "several times" means more than once, which is neutral. Regards (PS I'm trapped in Hull, it's like a 1970s Dr Who episode) Keith-264 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Trappedinburnley and Philip Cross: Apols, I hadn't realised who had reverted. I refer my comments about the lead to Philip and invite discussion. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
In virtually all admissible sources, RT has been described as "Kremlin backed", "Kremlin funded", or similar, so "frequently" is a sustainable and accurate term. "Several times" implies only a handful, whereas "repeatedly" is in the version Keith-264 finds objectionable, but this document mentions only a few of the multiple occasions RT has fallen foul of Ofcom. Philip Cross (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Virtually all? Does the description of such terms follow NPOV by referring to the nature of the "admissible sources" such as "the state broadcaster BBC" or the "corporate-owned New York Times"? Frequently has a pejorative connotation, "several times" means more than once, you are glossing it with an inference which is OR and NPOV. Ofcom the "British state-backed censor" has ruled on many occasions about many broadcasters so using "repeatedly" without context is also a disparaging term. Several times implies no such thing, it is a neutral term for "more than one" free of the inference you project. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264 As you seem to have noticed I was just responding to your post here, and again I will just respond here to elements I have an issue with. As far as I am aware the BBC is as liable to Ofcom censure as any other license holder who breached the Broadcast Code. I think you may have confused something about the upcoming move to Ofcom of the responsibilities currently held by the BBC Trust, giving them addition powers over the BBC? [10]. While the article can undoubtedly be greatly improved, you are wasting your time on me if you're trying to make a 'potential ulterior motives=less reliable conclusion' argument. I know what RT is and believe Ofcom have treated them very, very reasonably. I'm also not sure how much more description is needed in this article than "United Kingdom media regulator Ofcom", I'll assume you aren't serious about "British state-backed censor".--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying any sort of argument, I changed a couple of words in the lead on the grounds that they were pejorative and am discussing it with Philip. I made general observations about the article because I am concerned that WP:Synth has not been sufficiently taken into account in the use of sources or their impartiality. You are welcome to your opinion of Ofcom per se and its regulation of RT (as are we all) but that is OR if it affects your editing of the article. I'm not sure what you mean by your Ofcom comments, are you referring to Ofcom this one? Perhaps you could get to know me better before you embark on a conspiracy theory, that said, what does "government-approved regulatory and competition authority" mean in plain English? I agree that "the article can undoubtedly be greatly improved" and suggest that a better balance of sources is a good place to start. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope you'll forgive me for expecting you to do your own research on Ofcom (and might I suggest the BBFC also), but this isn't the forum. If you are unhappy with the balance of sources I'd suggest you find some that demonstrate that an alternate view is more than fringe. I know I can find plenty more supporting the majority viewpoint. Feel free to edit the article I won't be the only one watching, I might even get involved, it would be a bit of a waste not to use the new sources I found.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, I can do my own sarcasm too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
As Trappedinburnley said, this isn't the place for OR. Reliable sources have said it "repeatedly" breached Ofcom rules ([11] [12]), so that's what the article says. Stickee (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I did too but now the word has been justified in this way, it should be rendered as a "quotation". RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I think if we say that Ofcom accused them of bias, we should explain why they said this, because the statement tells readers nothing. According to the Telegraph, "In a programme called CrossTalk last July, RT broadcast a debate about a Nato summit in which all members of the panel were critical of the military alliance." Does anyone know if any channels have been sanctioned when no members of a panel were critical of NATO?" TFD (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
On all Wiki articles about news sources I think that a comparative approach to criticism and approval is best. Since Ofcom is supported by some sources as an impartial regulator and by others as a censorship agency, statistics about its activities would be helpful, descriptive and enlightening. When BBC is criticised for bias "In a programme called CrossTalk last July, RT broadcast a debate about a Nato summit in which all members of the panel were critical of the military alliance" like this it claims that balance can be found in several programmes rather than only in each one. Treating RT as inherently questionable and other participants in the field as inherently reliable obviously raises questions about NPOV, cherry-picking, POV pushing and writing a mediocre article, the most un-Wiki act of all. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Question: is the word "repeatedly" used because there are six sources cited? Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Adjectival phrases such as "repeatedly" should not simply be transposed from cherry-picked media reports and declared to be "sourced" as if they are factual description. Language is, to state the obvious, inherently subjective. Nor should one-off issues be highlighted in the lead, which as noted is meant to summarise not enumerate. Anyway, as the childish and partisan responses from users like Trappedinburnley – mimicking those they are responding to while openly declaring their hostile view of the topic (and completely misunderstanding the point about "personally", which was not "this is what I think of RT myself", which I've never made clear anyway, but "this FWIW is how I would neutrally summarise the position, but it's never going to happen") – show, this will never be dealt with properly, especially as we have the former EEML members all over it as well, and the current insane paranoia and conspiracy theorising about Russia in the US at the moment. There's a way to objectively reflect the criticism that something has received, whether you happen to think it's legitimate or not, without turning a page into a hostile, media-driven polemic from the lead onwards. N-HH talk/edits 10:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
[13] [14] [15] Since Ofcom has a statutory role its pronouncements should not be denied but if it criticises a broadcaster's impartiality, it should not be considered to be above suspicion, especially when there are RS that treat it as an open question. I'm glad that Burnley agrees that the article has a long way to go but I fear that without debate like this, it could be in the wrong direction. What is EEML? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that Ofcom's rulings should be included. My issue is more with the phrasing and level of specifics in the lead, as well as the overall tone of the page, which reads more like a scrappy charge sheet than an encyclopedia entry. The Eastern European Mailing List was a group of editors who co-ordinated activity off-site to marshal anti-Russian edits here. Several editors were censured and/or topic-banned by ArbCom for their behaviour, but several have since returned to active editing, sometimes having changed their usernames but not their perspective. N-HH talk/edits 13:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think we have consensus, which is nice (pace The Fast Show). Is there was a standard way to describe criticism of any news source? If there is, I think that would help with balance, NPOV, prominence in an article etc if it were followed. My view of the article is that half of it is missing, which is a description of the positive judgements of RS and RTs achievements. Keith-264 (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Nope, regarding "is that half of it is missing, which is a description of the positive judgements of RS and RTs achievements." see false balance. Stickee (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
FALSEBALANCE is about fringe, or at least less popular, theories about ultimately discernible facts, eg whether the earth is flat or HIV causes AIDS. Whether RT is appallingly biased and/or a propaganda machine rather than a TV station is not a matter of fact but a matter of point of view or judgement. Also, the page is not called "RT: good or bad?" and like any other encyclopedia entry, it should primarily factually explain what the thing is and its history. That would include reporting on the negative (and positive) commentary, but not just loading the page up with direct claims from either. Any such commentary should also be contextualised and not define the page as if we are trying to prove one side or other of a point. As for what any of us think about RT and some of its programmes, that's even less germane to the page. N-HH talk/edits 11:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of assumptions, what seem to be unfounded insinuations, and some things that could be construed as personal attacks (on an article currently under discretionary sanctions!). I shouldn't need to remind people this talkpage is for. However I will admit to having erred. It seems that currently there are differences in the Ofcom rules that apply to the BBC compared to other broadcasters, especially the relevant section 5 of the code. [16]. @@Keith-264: Thank you for bringing some sources to the table, but they are not going to be sufficient to even suggest a problem with the judgements they have delivered here. Realistically we are not going to be able to use something here that isn't covered in the Ofcom article. I'm sure RT would love us to believe that this is a case of them being treated unfairly by the big bad state for bringing the news that the MSM have been hiding from us. However if you read the Ofcom reports you will see that in every case RT didn't have a leg to stand on. The reason I feel they are useful for this article is they give info on the extremely questionable practices they employ, and of course the often ridiculous attempts to defend themselves. To use the latest case as an example. Peter Lavel's crosstalk show, billed as three specially invited experts debating current world affairs for 30 minutes. The episode in question last July, featured 3 guys with no more knowledge of the situation than a guy you met in the pub, taking turns (with Peter) to implore the viewer to really hate NATO. RT's defence for this shameless propaganda? They couldn't find anybody with alternative views willing to come on the show. It seems they proceeded to film planning to add just enough captions to get them back on the correct side of that pesky impartiality rule. However someone accidentally loaded the wrong text into the caption software before it broadcast. Classic RT! If you wish to improve the article that is great, but if you think you are going to argue away sourced content, you are going to need impeccable sources to back you up.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:Soap Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources WP:rant Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding quotes around repeatedly is basically using them as scare quotes. Stickee (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Fox News Channel has been sanctioned three times in the last 18 months,[17] while the BBC, CNN and MSNBC together racked up 50 offenses.[18] Are any editors working to ensure that this information is put into the leads of articles about those networks? TFD (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Just the sort of context that the article lacks. Thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Good luck trying to use that RT op-ed by the presenter of Going Underground as source anywhere on WP!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
[19] Keith-264 (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah a bit of whataboutism from Snowed-in's buddy? Better, but still not even close. He casts plenty of aspersions, but I can't see much in the way of specifics (at least about RT). Funnily enough the two Ofcom cases he briefly mentions Syrian chemical weapon attack / Ukraine one I've just been reading again, and the 3 guys from the pub debate I already talked about. I suggest you read them, and try to find a fault on Ofcom's part (Sorry I know they are long).[20][21] What you will see is that they are not about what was broadcast, it's what was missing. That may lead to the thought that Greenwald might not actually know very much about the situation. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Headers

There are two 3rd level headers called Programming (sic), which is un-wiki [22]. Section 7 is far too big for an article this size and lacks a comparative dimension.Keith-264 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've felt the layout of the article is wrong for some time, the critical stuff should be closer the top. However that would be quite a big task. It seems it got into it's current "un-wiki" state with this edit by @Philip Cross: while he was adding some pretty insignificant content to the wrong place, apparently because RT told him it was important. I think we can safely return to the previous layout, however unideal.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Is that more like equivalent articles such as the British and American state broadcasters?Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
For that matter, the article has sections entitled "Guests" and "Choice of guests". The "pretty insignificant content" I added around January 19–20 related the apparent likelihood the channel would not be able to carry the Trump inauguration. Not quite as significant in retrospect as it seemed at the time, if one ignores the irony around Flynn and Sessions' difficulties, but not trivial. I did not add any RT sources, only reports from RS. The problem with the two "Programming" sections mentioned by Trappedinburnley, by merging them, and my prose/list split follows usual practice.
As it is, in the Responses section, we have thematic sections followed by a chronology. It doubtless is not perfect at present, but some incidents do not fall easily under themes as currently outlined, the resignation of staff like Linda Wahl and Sara Firth for example. Philip Cross (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Somebody previously pointed out WP:Criticism, which recommends that criticism is integrated into other sections rather than having a dedicated section of its own. I've argued previously that most of the content would fit into a Controversy section split into Georgia, Syria, Ukraine (as each has seen staff resign) and maybe Libya. Other content would fit into an expanded Programming section that delves a little more deeply into content issues. And of course merging the two Guests sections. However some stuff, such as criticism of the launch should be near the start of the History section, which I think some will disagree with a little bit. Lately I've been pondering a dedicated Ofcom section to allow for a little more explanation, but that could also be achieved by expanding the Ofcom article. @Philip Cross: If you insist on keeping those bits, I think they should be moved to the Network section.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead says: about Russia

My sources say RT used to inform about Russia. Now the RT mainly criticizes Western world.Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

http://muftah.org/instead-closing-rts-bank-accounts-expose-disinformation-strategy/#.WLkvDThsQil Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
http://infowar.cepa.org/briefs/Romania22-28August2016 Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/authoritarianism-goes-global Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
https://www.diplomaatia.ee/en/article/the-challenge-of-russias-anti-western-information-warfare/ Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe you are correct but I'm struggling to find anything about it in the links you provided. There is a mention on p3 here which links to this which contains this quote from Simonyan: "When we were a quiet, little-noticed channel telling stories from Russia, our audience was negligible. When we started being really provocative … our audience started to grow". Ideally we need a more in-depth source.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
My sources are about anti-Western policy of the RT and I want to replace about Russia with anti-Western or similar.
You are right that the evolution should be described.Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The source currently cited in the lead for "about Russia", the network's "about us" page, doesn't even say that, nor is it accurate, since AFAIK RT in the UK at least barely does any reporting about domestic Russian issues in its main news sections. Maybe an older version did, when that might have been more accurate. I'd be happy to have an up-to-date quote or paraphrase from that page, so long as it's clearly attributed as what RT says it does. A lead is not going to describe any station, without qualification, as "anti-anything". There's already enough there about how terrible the station is without adding cheap polemical slogans. N-HH talk/edits 09:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Quite agree, the article would be much better if there were more citations to books rather than partisan newspaper and periodical articles. Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia Beyond the Headlines

It seems Russia Beyond the Headlines has ceased producing the paper editions in newspapers (such as The Telegraph) but as of the start of the year the websites have transferred to the control of RT (TV-Novosti). The only source I could find besides the RBTH site is this which I don't think is of sufficient quality. Maybe a better source will be found/written soon? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete text

The paragraph Programming informs about the years 2008-2012, two 2014 texts are also quoted.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole page is obsolete, only few sources are newer than 2014.Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Well as far as I know articles don't update themselves yet. If you can find good sources, I'd welcome some additions.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This page is being continuously edited without adding recent sources, it's strange.
I have proposed 4 references (above).Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK over the last three years new editors have mainly come here to argue about the lead, rather than contribute to the body of the article. It puzzles me because in my experience it is better to start your involvement with research and uncontroversial edits, rather than go straight to removing stuff you disagree with. Regarding your proposed references I can see a few issues: the first is an opinion piece on a fairly insignificant issue that was moved (perhaps incorrectly) to the RT UK article; #2 is too focused, it deals with just a single RT article (does RT have a Romanian language channel now?); #3 is a book that I'm not about to pay to read; while the final one looks at the wider Russian propaganda operation (something I do think needs to be expanded upon here), I only see a passing mention of RT. Let me re-phrase my previous comment: If you can find better sources, I'd welcome some additions to the body of the article, but lets give the lead a rest for a while.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
If you believe I'm new here, check View history. I have written almost the same a year ago and obtained only one IP answer. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Shuster's text [23] is quoted only as a source about finances. What about reading the whole text?Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Now that is a good source! I had a quick skim over it but couldn't find any detail on the change in focus. Maybe I missed it or perhaps you are talking about a different issue? Reading it did remind me about Simonyan's secure phone line to the Kremlin which I don't think has been covered yet. And FWIW my post was not intended to be critical of your actions specifically.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed edit

A 16-page report based on reports in newspapers and periodicals released by the US state and business financed RAND Corporation in 2016 This is a perfectly valid form of words, legitimised by the same form used all over the article for RT, see the lead, "RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government."Keith-264 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone objects to the equal treatment of Rand and RT please indicate. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Your proposed language is (1) just wrong and (2) is not a necessary short-form descriptor of RAND, nor is it a common or typical short-form descriptor of RAND used in the reliable sources. As to (1), the RAND report was not just "based on reports in newspapers" but in fact also relied upon peer-reviewed journal studies in psychology, as can be seen in the footnotes of the report itself. As to (2), your language is far too long and fails to actually identify the RAND Corp. as a think tank/research organization, which is what it is. The right way to say this is something simple and consistent: "A 2016 report by the RAND Corporation, a U.S.-based think tank..." Neutralitytalk 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I looked at the footnotes; perhaps you could count how many weren't corporate media sources. I can't get the report up again but I'll bet a pint of Guinness that fewer than 50% are to anything remotely peer reviewed.
    • Got the pdf, 14 of 37 citations are from corporate rags. Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "A 2016 report by the RAND Corporation, a U.S.-based think tank..." financed by the US state and US corporations....Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Your modification to my edit does seem to be poisoning the well, and you seem to indicating that you did it knowingly to prove a point. Perhaps you'd like to suggest an alternative? Otherwise this would seem to be a waste of time.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I made a comparison and lurkers jumped out; obviously I was aware that it could happen but that wasn't the point. Anyone who is unbiased will accept that the edit is in the same vein as descriptions of RT all over the article. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. To help you, I suggest that all adjectival and adverbial terms be removed from mentions of RT except for a section on bias, where the sources alleging partiality are equally related to sources of bias like being beholden to a government or a corporate media owner. Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "the US state and business financed" is not an encyclopedic descriptor in this context and that it does not belong in the sentence. --Tataral (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
What form of words would you find encyclopaedic? '''RAND Corporation''' ("Research and development")<ref name=RANDhistory>{{cite web|title=History and Mission|url=https://www.rand.org/about/history.html|website=RAND Corp|accessdate=16 January 2015}}</ref> is an American [[nonprofit]] global policy [[think tank]]<ref name="Medvetz" /> originally formed by [[Douglas Aircraft Company]] to offer research and analysis to the [[United States Armed Forces]]. It is financed by the [[Federal government of the United States|U.S. government]] and private [[Financial endowment|endowment]],<ref name=RANDAnnualReport/> corporations<ref name=RANDfunding>{{cite web|title=How We're Funded|url=https://www.rand.org/about/clients_grantors.html#industry|website=RAND Corp|accessdate=16 January 2015}}</ref> including the [[health care industry]], [[university|universities]]<ref name=RANDfunding/> and private individuals.<ref name=RANDfunding/> the RAND Corporation? Keith-264 (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
And claiming that it's an "academic study" that has definitively "identified" RT as propaganda and misinformation is no problem? Come on. There's no need to lard the reference to RAND with excessive details on the fact that this seems to be a short briefing paper by an utterly partisan US think-thank, but the wording as introduced, as if it's a lengthy, objective analysis by some disinterested international academics, is just as bad. The suggestion above that it should be described as a "report" by a "US think-tank" is closer to it. And of course beyond that, yet again we have people who are quite open on the talk page about their animus towards the topic bloating the page by doing nothing else than just flinging more and more of the negative commentary they can dig up into the main page, rather than updating it with actual details of what the thing in question actually is or does. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you put that rather well, mud slinging is not an academic activity (or Wiki).Keith-264 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"Anyone who is unbiased will accept..." Uh. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I rest my case.Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. Then I take it you will quit edit warring over this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Btw, re this personal attack, my edits were not "malevolent" (Sheesh! Drama much?) Nor were they "insinuations". I didn't insinuate anything - I said it straight up - you're trying to poison the well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
As noted in my edit summary, there is no way the description of RAND as a "US think tank", and this publicaiton as a "report" is well poisoning. Indeed, as also noted, another user suggested it first. VM, you could have made further tweaks if you disliked the use eg of "alleged" rather than blindly restoring the original, contested wording, which included a blatant grammar error too, which I had also corrected in my edits. This is becoming more tedious and transparent with every edit here. N-HH talk/edits 08:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Describing it as a "think tank" is fine. It's also fine to call it a report. Sticking in "alleged" when the source doesn't say that is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Jesus Christ. Of course the source in question doesn't say that, because it's the source making the allegation. As I said, I was happy to lose that specific word, but it needed some form of wording that makes it clear it is that body's assessment. Readers can decide as to the value of that assessment, but WP should not state it as unimpeachable fact. And as noted, you initially reverted the whole rephrasing and grammar correction. If you're now happy that it is a "report" by a "think tank", all well and good. I'm also fine with saying RAND "called" it a part of a propaganda effort, as the wording now says. N-HH talk/edits 21:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
So we're all good. Great! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
So it seems, but it shouldn't be this difficult. N-HH talk/edits 21:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

More on the impartial BBC and Ofcom

[24] "For the first time, the state broadcaster was flushed out of its hiding hole. First, it tried more misdirection, telling him that Ofcom had reviewed the programme and sided with the BBC. But the Ofcom decision was about an RT investigation into the footage – note that Ofcom has hardly been impartial in its treatment of RT – and not a ruling on the accuracy of the BBC footage’s, which Ofcom admitted it was not in a position to assess." Notice the term "state broadcaster"? regardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, Keith-264. The citation is to the blog of Jonathan Cook which is obviously not a reliable source. Nor is he a mainstream pundit. For those unfamiliar with this individual, try Cook's "The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian" from September 2011.[1]
  1. ^ Cook, Jonathan (28 September 2011). "The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian". Counterpunch.
Philip Cross (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
A palpable hit I fancy; I know where it came from, look at the url. It isn't a try, it is a mirror example of the trite references that pass for reliable sources when they're trashing RT. I invite everyone to refer to The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian, a description which is apposite. Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
What are you going on about? Are you saying that your crappy low quality source is comparable to the sources being used in the article currently? If so, then the answer to that is: That. is. simply. not. true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:civil, WP:RS, WP:self-serving inferences.Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Keith-264 you are making it very difficult to Assume good faith. I find it hard to believe that someone with 71646 edits over 11 years is this shitty at finding sources. I also can't see how the point you seem to be trying to make is going to affect the way in which the article develops. If you have issues with the BBC or Ofcom they both have articles you can edit.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:civil, WP:RS, WP:self-serving inferences WP:manners; of the first 100 [200, typo] citations, I counted 100 that come from sources equal to or worse than the one I offered. I suggest that you stop name calling, setting yourself up as the credibility police and making veiled threats; it isn't nice. Keith-264 (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:SPS --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the spirit, try this [25]Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good for you Keith-264 you (almost) found a reliable source [26] would you like to add this Johnson's opinions on the ineffectiveness of RTs propaganda to the article? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that's a shame, you almost responded to a good example. Keith-264 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure much of this is going to help with page content, but the opprobium being heaped on Cook tells us quite a lot. His opinions on the BBC and RT are as "reliable" as plenty that have been stuffed quite happily into the article. Just because the mob here do not agree with them does not make then "unreliable", either in a real-world or a WP sense. N-HH talk/edits 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Without going on about it too much, my scan of the citations revealed some sources that you wouldn't trust to sit on a toilet the right way round. Perhaps we could persuade an outsider well-versed in Wiki to review the article and the quality of the sources? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

N-HH and Keith - because you guys are trying so hard to be snarky and condescending, it's actually hard to understand what it is you're talking about. There is a source. Cook. It's a blog. Not reliable. So what? What else is there to say? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop name-calling, it makes you look like someone losing his own argument. Try to be constructive instead, "The results were compiled in a Tumblr blog.[152]" is this any better?Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Keith-264 I think we have already established that quality of sources is not your strong suit. While you are correct that the reference for that statement is (shockingly) a blog, it is also a completely neutral and uncontroversial statement. I added it purely to make it easy for interested readers to find the results of the previously mentioned Columbia School of Journalism study. Do you really think the source you provided is similar?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I perfer not to notice guttersnipe abuse but I am ready to give you a taste of your own medicine if you want me to. You object to one blog source and endorse another, this is partiality on stilts. Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not. This is Columbia Journalism Review. The difference is pretty obvious, no? In this case a blog was just a means of presentation of research. In the other case it's just some dude blowing wind. Feel free to stop it with the false equivalence any time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
It is. QEDKeith-264 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not actually how "QED" works, since you haven't demonstrated anything. You make an assertion, you prove it. See also Russell's Teapot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dr Fleischmann et al. It looks like I'm not the only one to be losing faith in the integrity of the article. I suggest that Burnley etc reflect a little more about WP:own. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You should really stop discussing editors and focus on content, especially since your objections to the content, to the extent you articulate them, are not really well explained and written in some kind of "can you guess what I'm thinking?" WP:POINTy manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree 100% with VM on this one. Keith, you'd be more persuasive if you cut the snark down and focused exclusively on making informative content-based arguments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
While I agree wholeheartedly that constructive engagement is preferable to playing the man, I have learned that with some editors, a measure of retaliation is necessary to prevent them assuming that they can strew promiscuously insults and reverts. If Marek really doesn't understand my comments, all he has to do is ask; if you look back you can see that I have carefully limited my retaliation and labelled it as such. I look forward to observing you compose your editorial differences with Marek and Burnley in the hope that I might learn something. Good luck. Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In response to a comment above, there is no snark or condescension, just a legitimate frustration with people who seem to think that this page is called "All the bad things western commentators and governments say about RT [and this is all the content that needs to be added]". As I have always said, RT is commonly criticised in the west, and this needs to be reflected. The question is how that reality is presented here, short of just listing and quoting all that criticism directly from source. As for blogs, as I implied, I agree that Cook's comments need not be here. But equally, nor need lots of other quotes from other opinion pieces, which currently *are* here. For example, Cohen's and Kamm's pithy, negative op-ed observations are utterly pointless – the fact that their random comments happen to have been published in a newspaper rather than on a blog does not make them more "reliable" or factual. They remain *opinion* and subjective commentary, of dubious relevance to an encyclopedia entry. I could build Adolf Hitler's page around lots of commentary from modern newspapers about how evil he is. It would be just as irrelevant. N-HH talk/edits 21:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree.Keith-264 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a fine content position to take, but to say those who have such frustration haven't expressed any snark or condescension here? Are you kidding me? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you aren't worth the bother; please define snark.Keith-264 (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was directly named as someone who was "trying so hard to be snarky and condescending" that I wasn't even making a clear point, simply because I have been robust in criticising the politically motivated attitudes of others on the page, while exlaining exactly what the problem is. So, no, I am not kidding when I kick back against that accusation by denying it. N-HH talk/edits 10:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
As well as WP:OWN I think that the article is also marred by WP:SYNTH; as for "snarky", no-one has defined it yet but it seems like WP:Weasel to me. To get back to the point, is there a mechanism by which sources deemed RS can be Wiki-reviewed? Although I think that it might be better to scrap the article and start again, ridding the text of the more egregious and tendentious passages might help. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If editors feel certain facets of the subject are not sufficiently covered, such as the legitimate politicians who sometimes appear because their views are compatible with RT's agenda (useful idiots). Then you should find some sources and edit the article, otherwise you are howling at the moon. The reason there are so many quotes in this article is because otherwise some editors will argue about every word in the sentence, often waving the SYNTH policy. And as for snarky, some synonyms are: acerbic, sarcastic, sharp, sardonic, satirical and scathing, if this helps? And I'm certainly not aware of a mechanism by which sources deemed unsatisfactory by the Keith-264 RS policy can be removed. Now I could quite happily take a break from this article, but I won't while I can see someone trying to get the lid off the tin of whitewash.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The Mote and the Beam WP:SOAP The Daily Mail lost it's RS status didn't it? Keith-264 (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop for a moment and breathe

No offense, but I suggest that Keith and Burnley both take wikibreaks. It is clear you are both way too heated up to edit this article civilly and productively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific if you feel my conduct has been sub-standard somewhere (perhaps on my talkpage), but I assure everybody that I'm perfectly relaxed --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
No I'm not. I'm not taking admin action. I suggest in the spirit of collaboration and friendliness that you take a fresh look at your contributions to this talk page after a good night's sleep. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I hope that you are willing to consider the possibility that you might need to take your own advice. A good example is more persuasive than generic management games. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I removed a paragraph with no relevance to RT and a reprehensible comment from Burnley. Pls explain here why it should be reinstated.Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I offer dialogue and get threats on my talk page. Very poor, very poor indeed. Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Please explain why no relevance to RT. RT is one of the tools.
It's possible that the paragraph should be moved to a more general page and linked here.Xx236 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Read it, that's all I did. If you think that RT is "one of the tools", aren't you indulging in OR? Since this is a media page, perhaps someone knows if there a process to get corporate media RS reviewed for reliability, bearing in mind the Daily Mail being recently rejected? At least 50 percent of the citations in the article are to sources that are shoddy, to say the least. Is it a coincidence that they are all critical of RT? Keith-264 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
While EU vs Disinformation stuff is about the wider Russian campaign of agitation rather than being entirely focused on RT, it is clearly about RT. After you removed it the first time I expanded it a little to make it more clearly about RT and that seems to be even more unsatisfactory to you? And now you are back to casting aspersions about the general quality of the sources. Is not a coincidence that they are all critical of RT, disinformation is seen as bad by reputable journalists and reputable wikipedians.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
alleged Russian campaign of agitation.... if you please. Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Of alleged Russia on alleged Earth.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Allegedly OR, Synth, etc blah, based on tendentious sources with flagrant conflicts of interest (allegedly).Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

On Propaganda

As if every criticism lodged against RT can't also be said for American news organizations? Or for that matter, any country's MSM? Barkway (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no, it can't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Quite. Keith-264 (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You can say that, but not verifiably. I've never seen criticisms like this one levied against American news organizations, at least not by any reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a RS? What happened to the concept of conflict of interest? Keith-264 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
See, this is your problem - all heat and no light. I honestly don't know what you're referring to. Before getting all bent up that I'm somehow offending the concept of COI, you probably ought to explain what the COI is. Educate me, without the exasperation. I perhaps naively thought that Ioffe was an established and highly reputable journalist and CJR was one of the most respected publications in the U.S. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it's your problem, you make a facile appeal to authority and complain when I ask an obvious sceptical question. What happened to the concept of conflict of interest? Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Not constructive. I asked you why you think the source has a COI. Are you going to answer? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Not constructive. I asked you "What happened to the concept of conflict of interest?". As an experiment, list the Russian sources that you accept unquestioningly. Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't accept any sources unquestioningly but there are certainly Russian sources which can be considered reliable (e.g. Moscow Times). The fact that these are not as numerous as sources from other countries is simply a function of Russia's political system. We don't really have any reliable sources from North Korea but that's not exactly our fault. This is similar just on a muted scale.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Moscow Times? I'm finding these comments so embarrassing that I'm going to confine my replies to the ones that add to the quality of the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you need me to post the guide to creating your first article on your talkpage Keith-264? As you have already been told, nobody cares about your version of the RS policy, just the actual RS policy. The argument that US-based and/or journalistic sources have a COI when talking about RT, is the kind of BS Russian propagandists would use. Please stop wasting everybody's time and go do something useful.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Information icon Wikipedia:No personal attacks pls.Keith-264 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
[27] This? Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Does everyone agree that we can move forward by making sure that commentary, analysis and opinion pieces used as sources in the article are labelled properly as reliable sources for attribution but not as statements of fact?Keith-264 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Keith, since you haven't produced any evidence that Ioffe had a COI upon request, I'm going to have to assume that you have none. If you want to talk about the reliability of the Ioffe piece more broadly, that's another matter, and you're welcome to take it up at RSN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Since you haven't answered my question "What happened to the concept of conflict of interest?" I'm going to assume that you don't accept an elementary form of scepticism. That might explain your willingness to cite sources naively but it doesn't explain why you don't do this for pro-RT sources. WP:Synth returns to the discussion.Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The concept of COI is alive and well, and is part of our verifiability policy. I have removed sources based on it in the past. I just don't accept that there's a COI on an editor's say-so. Ok, your turn. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Straw man, apropos, do you accept the corollary that you don't have to deny that there's a COI on an editor's say-so? Want the last word? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Keith-264, no, I want you to answer my question. You said you think the source has a COI, but so far you haven't explained why. Please do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Does everyone agree that we can move forward by making sure that commentary, analysis and opinion pieces used as sources in the article are labelled properly as reliable sources for attribution but not as statements of fact?Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • PS Straw man, I asked "What happened to the concept of conflict of interest?".Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
What are you specifically referring to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Specifically, Barkway made a perfectly reasonable comment and various people responded. It's in this section; I suggested "Does everyone agree that we can move forward by making sure that commentary, analysis and opinion pieces used as sources in the article are labelled properly as reliable sources for attribution but not as statements of fact?" using Burnley's link to WP:RS as a source.Keith-264 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No, not everyone agrees. I for one cannot agree to such a blanket statement. It has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The page is full of uninformative and snide commentary, for example the quotes from op-eds by Nick Cohen and Oliver Kamm, which tell us what they happen to think, but not much factual about RT. The Ioffe piece in the CJR is also cited very selectively, to highlight the negative elements from it. It's actually quite a measured piece (and I don't quite see a COI as such, although there is a broader issue here, as ever, with relying too much on western sources), with plenty of detail and analysis, eg about the motivation behind the creation RT, but none of that appears here. Interestingly of course, and further to the point of the OP here (and refuting the initial response, as does the fact that CJR carries plenty of content critical of, for example, Fox News), in describing RT's origins, especially in the context of the war with Georgia, it notes that western media has its own biases and blind spots. N-HH talk/edits 17:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
If you split these various good faith concerns into separate discussions then I'm happy to help look into each of them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff in the Responses (previously Reception) section has been put there specifically to reinforce having the critical passage in the lead. Every time someone argues that criticism in the lead is not justified, a little more reinforcement tends to get added. If you wish to add content, feel free. As long as it is fairly reflecting reliable sources, I would likely tolerate it even if I don't like what it says, just don't expect me to write it for you.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No, not everyone agrees. I for one cannot agree to such a blanket statement. It has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. You don't have a choice, it's RS, as Burneley so civilly wikilinked here [28] Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice the word "rarely." If I don't have a choice then why did you ask? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want to raise the question of good faith in others, you have to face it as well. Don't you agree? Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I doubt anyone disagrees with the text of the policy, I expect they're just wary of the Keith-264 interpretation. To me the latest tangent seems to be you looking for carte blanche to go on a well poisoning spree. I don't think this article has a serious issue with a lack of attribution, however if you raise specific issues, I'm sure we can do something about them.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Like this? [29]

Over the years I learnt a few tactics to employ when dealing with editors with views that strongly oppose my own. Not least grinding them down in the hope they will go away, something I first encountered at a couple of years ago on the Edward Snowden article Face-grin.svg. And FWIW I am relaxed about your edits at RT, but I had to revert that one because I've just argued for it in one of the many currently active discussions.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 7:23 pm, 10 March 2017, last Friday (7 days ago) (UTC+0)

  • It looks like you've forfeited WP:AGF by bragging about your lack of GF.Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I can only assume you have read something into that statement that I did not intend, as I can't see that has anything to do with this discussion or you?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you can do better than that. Keith-264 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Anything I can think to say is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or this talkpage. If you wish to discuss it I would suggest somebody's own talkpage.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Is this you grinding or trying for the last word? You may have it. Keith-264 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This is stupid. Unless Keith-264 can actually be specific about what it is they think is not attributed or whatever there's no point to this discussion. Seriously, what the hedge does something a user once wrote on their user page have to do with this article? Keith, either put up or stop wasting people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, Burnley has condemned himself by bragging about bad faith and you are making it worse; 10 March 2017 is not "once wrote", it was on Fleischman's talk page (linked for your convenience) and it was related to the discussions here about removing bias from the article. Is your comment intended to appear disingenuous or is it the stupidity you mentioned? I am preparing to enforce the RS rules and you may respond as you see fit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with VM that Keith is being disruptive in this discussion and more broadly disruptive progress on the article, and I'm about ready to take the matter to ANI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
As I've previously informed Keith (on his talkpage), that this article is under discretionary sanctions, a visit to ANI is not likely to end well. Keith you seem to be a productive contributor to many articles, might I suggest again that you give this one a miss. If you insist on continuing your involvement here, you're going to need to be on your best behaviour.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
As I commented earlier I'm finding these comments so embarrassing that I'm going to confine my replies to the ones that add to the quality of the article. Regards I suggest you do the same. If anyone wants ANI, OK, I will look forward to their ruling on

Over the years I learnt a few tactics to employ when dealing with editors with views that strongly oppose my own. Not least grinding them down in the hope they will go away, something I first encountered at a couple of years ago on the Edward Snowden article Face-grin.svg. And FWIW I am relaxed about your edits at RT, but I had to revert that one because I've just argued for it in one of the many currently active discussions.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 7:23 pm, 10 March 2017, last Friday (7 days ago) (UTC+0)

RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Marek NPOV.Keith-264 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Uh, what? I tried hatting this whole inane discussion. What's "POV" about that? You're not making any sense. But fine, have it your way - not hatted. Just going to ignore you until you figure out how to actually discuss things with people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Try using a neutral title.Keith-264 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"By Western media outlets"

@ Burnley: "concencus (sic) is required to change that part of the lead" why? Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"By Western media outlets" is an unsourced observation, and thus counts as OR. It also makes an assumption about what non-English citations from non-aligned countries might have to say about RT, which may not disagree with western sources. Either use "media outlets" to clarify meaning, or do not bother. Philip Cross (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Philip's comments, and would add that in this case (as RT staff's commonly used defence is that the criticism is just Western rivals afraid of competition) it would count as poisoning the well. Also I don't think a huge amount of the criticism used in this article is coming from people employed by Western media. Reported in Western media isn't the same thing. As I already recently said, my view is the lead doesn't need to be changed unless the content of the rest of the article changes.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Sophistry, the article is based on them.Keith-264 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Some people would be satisfied with the article containing nothing but "non-western media outlet" RT praising itself. Philip Cross (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Own it.Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:YESPOV, reliable sources should generally not be attributed in-text as doing so treats reliable facts as opinions. This is Wikipedia policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
But we're not talking about unalloyed facts. Whether RT (or any other media outlet) engages in propaganda, bias and misinformation, or the extent to which it does so, *is* a matter of opinion and/or judgment, and of course attribution is not only justified but usually required. Just because opinions are published in what is generally an RS, that doesn't magically turn them into facts; nor are those published in what people will unilaterally rush to declare "non-RS" suddenly and automatically lies or incorrect. As for what "some people would be satisfied with", this line is becoming a little boring. As repeatedly pointed out, the idea is not to push for a mirror image of a page stuffed with criticism, ie one stuffed with praise, but one that relies less on commentary and more on actual facts. N-HH talk/edits 07:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything non-factual about the assessment that something is propaganda. It's not a value judgment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Like the Western corporate media?Keith-264 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
"By Western media outlets" was not an unsourced observation. It directly described every source that was attributed to the sentence it edited. For this reason, it only served to clarify and add understanding to a statement which was itself original research. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Quite agree, it's its accuracy that is causing the trouble. Keith-264 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Er no. As SpikeballUnion observes: "It directly described every source that was attributed to the sentence it edited". In other words, it an observation which is not from a source, or rather "understanding to a statement which was itself original research". Yet you expect this comment to remain? Philip Cross (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Er, yes, it's a description of the sources, the same as noting that they are all German or British language as per the citation templates. Notice that he pointed out that the text was OR....Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If you'd read what I said at the end, I said the original statement is original research also. It states, based on the many citations next to it, that RT has been "frequently" described as a propaganda outlet. This is a conclusion based on the multitude of references in the text. It is not stated per se in any of the sources, therefore it is original research according to your definition. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Because "frequently" is a heavily used word on Wikipedia, I avoid using it. It is not necessary as proof. But "propaganda" is a direct quote from multiple sources and perfectly acceptable, despite it being a term Keith-264 (above) thinks better describes the western media. Philip Cross (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page bullying whenever changes have been made to lead section criticism

Users Philip Cross and Trappedinburnley, along with Volunteer Marek and Ymblanter, are some of the few anti-Russian/anti-RT commenters on the whole talk page. Users in support of changing the lead have come and gone numerous times, but these four (roughly), along with the user "My very best wishes", according to the archives, have stayed, and have placed their names on almost every alternate reply in talk sections and talk section archives by anybody with a negative opinion on the lead section's criticism, giving the impression that they represent the majority of users with an opinion on the lead section's criticism. This kind of talk section domination, along with bullying anyone who dares change the lead into submission by their constant replies, sometimes even using ad hominems, isn't acceptable. The edit warring in the lead and repeated discussions about it are not going to end with this practice ongoing. There must be another solution to this series of repeated debates. The fact that there is not consensus on this issue, and (it seems that I have to emphasise this..) there is obviously and undoubtedly not consensus on this issue at all, means that the fact that the level of criticism in the lead has been present all this time is not reflective of the opinions of the community of editors, and this is largely down to this small group of talk page guardians.

This is some evidence of talk section bullying. Notice the names of those who disagree with changing the lead (red), which are rather consistent, and note what they say compared with what the supporters provide: http://prntscr.com/euptyl http://prntscr.com/eupwyr http://prntscr.com/eupz5y http://prntscr.com/euq2qc http://prntscr.com/euq4s2 http://prntscr.com/euq6hf http://prntscr.com/euq86q http://prntscr.com/euqb5s http://prntscr.com/euqdm2 (highlighted content in blue) http://prntscr.com/euqfuu http://prntscr.com/euqiud (highlighted content in blue) http://prntscr.com/euqktc (highlighted content in blue). SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is anti-RT anti-Russian? Russia is a big nation, it includes many cultures/traditions/politicians. Rejection of primitive propaganda misunderstood by Western people, who don't know Russian culture, isn't ant-Russian. Please SpikeballUnion be more precize. Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Quite revealing aren't they? See this for comparison [30] regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
At the present time, I have edited this talk page 22 times over the last five years, less than several defenders of RT. The talk page has 9 archive pages and 2584 revisions in total. The four editors you mention, including myself, have only a minority of talk page edits between us. It is unfortunate, but editors here tend to respond in kind, whatever their stance might be. You can, of course, report any editor to administrators if you wish. Philip Cross (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
editors here tend to respond in kind I do but I don't threaten people with underhand behaviour. I suggest that you add a qualitative analysis to your quantitative one. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter how many don't like it, or indeed how much they don't like it. Opinions that contravene Wikipedia policy are (almost always) wrong. Some users refuse to accept that they are wrong, and just keep banging on and on about it. For the poor souls that keep trying to educate the ignorant, this can (not surprisingly) become frustrating. If you wish to have more people tell you the same thing, as Philip said, take it to the admins.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
That's you that is.Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Yaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Case in point. SpikeballUnion (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Although I tend to ascribe such boorish behaviour to foolishness rather than bad faith, Burnley's disclosure makes eloquent reading of the opposite but I fear that they aren't going to loosen their grip on the article until forced to by admin intervention.Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I just suggested that you take it to the admins? And Spikeball when someone takes the time to explain that you are wrong, that's not bullying you. They are trying to help you look less foolish in the future. You spent all that time trying to make others look like the bad guys, and zero time on possible solutions to the problem? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Every time I've proposed reasons why the criticism in the lead should be changed, as have many other users, and every time you lot have responded with nonsense about "oh there's consensus" or "this has been talked about", and now "oh you're foolish", not to mention the dozens of examples of nonconstructive responses I've linked to in the original post above. I'm not going to respond to this unacceptable material irrelevant to improving the criticism in the lead; this post was meant to highlight that changes need to be made, not to receive more of the same from you. SpikeballUnion (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2017

Yannisorolov (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Would like to edit comment Regarding Russian Television. RT


"Although RT has been branded as a propaganda Russian News Channel, much of it's news content has been dead eye accurate. Especially with events occurring in the United States. Breaking News Stories, within United States are often broadcast first on RT and then covered by Fox News. These delays in news broadcasts by Fox News, have often been heavily censored and biased by the news outlet. This occurred during the protests in Washington, during president Trumps inauguration, that were not covered by the US based major news On of RT's reporters was charged with a felony for covering the event. His charges were later dismissed. Unlike other broadcaster's Fox News, the protests of Furgeson, Misouri received very good coverage by RT, while being nearly blacked out by fox news and branded as violent protestors, when exactly the opposite was true.


Voice of America (VOA) was not only late in reporting online on the killing of Michael Brown, and days late in sending their reporter to Ferguson, Missouri, the U.S. taxpayer-funded media outlet was also obliterated by Russia’s RT (formerly Russia Today) in social media outreach and audience engagement on this news story, and practically all news stories in recent years.

RT posted its first Ferguson news report on August 10 at 10:08AM (time zone has not be ascertained). According to our search, Voice of America posted its first Ferguson news reports on August 11, in English at 2:05PM EDT and in Russian at 11:16PM EDT.

Source Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://bbgwatch.com/bbgwatch/voice-of-america-obliterated-by-russias-rt-on-ferguson-coverage-social-media-outreach/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/20/trump-supporters-protesters-rally-before-sunrise-on-inauguration-day.htmlCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

 Not done Please review our policies on verifiability and neutrality and obtain consensus before requesting an edit such as this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"Although RT has been branded as a propaganda Russian News Channel, much of it's news content has been dead eye accurate." User is trying to do WP:OR without knowing the subject. All typical disinformation sources are 95% accurate to plant the "desa" (remaining 5%). As Comrade J said, The texts [he planted] were mostly accurate but always contained a "kernel of disinformation". That is what RT TV and other similar sources do. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Your description of a propaganda model is accurate but you fail to establish its validity to RT and demonstrate the same failing as "User" as regards OR. Had you added BBC, CNN etc to your description it would have at least been impartial. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not my description. Sorry if it was not clear. I referred (quotation) to book Comrade J. My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought this "That is what RT TV and other similar sources do." was knocking RT, regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017

Remove citation 1 as it's a Wikipedia citation and articles should not cite Wikipedia 24.97.253.174 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You are correct that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In this case, however, the reference is not to Wikipedia content, but to a PDF file which has a local copy stored on Wikipedia. I don't understand Russian, so can't say for certain whether the source is ok, but it is not a case of citing Wikipedia. Please have a look at the PDF, if you can understand Russian. The details on the file page associated with the PDF tell you the real source. Murph9000 (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

New Israel-Palestine passage

Restored a unilateral revert and then formatted it since it puts accusation and counter-accusation about RT into a factual context. Pls don't revert without gaining consensus here. Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

PS linking without giving the gist is not sufficient because of the nature of the article section. Keith-264 (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the passage could be moved to a more appropriate article and then linked. As it stands, we have a 5.5 Kb passage which deviates from the main subject. Regardless of the veracity, it reads as if the editor who originally added it is trying to prove an off-topic argument which is at a tangent to an article about RT. As you well know, that leads to a number of policy issues. Philip Cross (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, it gives the facts about the zionist occupation, against which competing views of RTs performance as an impartial reporter and the claims and counter-claims of rival news organisations can be seen. A link by itself is insufficient, because a paragraph or two describing the material on another page is essential to justify the link. This allows readers to decide for themselves, which is the essence of NPOV, unlike the heading Israel–Palestine conflict, which is an ideologically-loaded, ahistorical and untrue description of the illegal occupation of Palestine (as determined by international law and UN resolutions pertaining to it). I put the entry into brackets to signal its contextual purpose and would welcome additional material to complete what was little more than a header before the recent expansion. I have in mind a list of examples of complaints that RT is anti-Israel, along with the facts as determined by RS and international law. Keith-264 (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264: I fail to see how this content taken from the Gaza Strip article is relevant here. It isn't appropriate to retain irrelevant content on the grounds that someone has plans to make it relevant in the future. If you have RS to expand that section then add to it, but until that time Philip's removal of this content is the completely correct action and now I'm going to do the same. Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course you don't and of course you would.Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove. I do not understand the benefit of the added text. It doesn't mention RT even once. It appears to be designed simply a summary of the current status of Israeli-Palestinian relations, with no explanation of its relevance to RT or claims that RT is anti-Israel. It may also be non-neutral coatrack content and in violation of WP:ARBPIA. I will notify folks at WT:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand? Well, fancy that.Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I added the content to show how claims that RT is "anti-Israel" are based on false assertions that the state of Palestine is "disputed" rather than occupied by the State of Israel in contravention of international law, as per RS and international consensus, ie. UN and World Court. 8675309 (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
This makes no sense. None of the content you added was about RT, and nowhere does our article say that RT has made assertions that the state of Palestine is "disputed." And even if it did, this level of detail would be grossly undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Macron

http://www.politico.eu/article/macron-and-putin-agree-on-restart-of-ukraine-talks/ Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017

KMB X42C (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Requests to grant you and only you permission to edit the article cannot be granted. Requests to remove the protection on this article should be directed to the administrator who protected it (preferred) or at WP:RFUP. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Moscow Times

I have removed most of the content added by Cloud200 based on this new Moscow Times source:

The source appears to be fine, but the content that was added did not conform to the source in a number of ways. Also, the content needs to be better integrated into the article. This is not appropriate as a 2017 "response" to RT. It is not a "response" and most of the content is not specific to 2017. The content should be factored appropriately into sections like "Organization," "Propaganda claims and related issues," and "Choice of guests." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

Nemosh (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

| cable serv 18 = ClearTV (Nepal) | cable chan 18 = Channel 662

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of The Interpreter

Are the following sources reliable? I haven't managed to find evidence that The Interpreter has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It's an online publication of the Institute of Modern Russia, a think-tank that was founded in 2010.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It is usually better to look at what third party publications write about investigative journalism stories rather than the original. This story was in fact picked up by the International Business Times which is certainly reliable.[31] I note that this was reported three years ago, so we want to know where RT was aware of his far right connections and they did about it, that is, did he remain working for them? TFD (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
TFD, I don't understand, what are you saying about the reliability of the Interpreter sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not it is reliable but the IBT and other sources are, so I would use them instead. TFD (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok but the Ryan Dawson story was only covered by the Interpreter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I must have missed this conversation initially but I have some thoughts. While The Interpreter was started by the Institute of Modern Russia, it is now brought to us by the Atlantic Council and has a partnership with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.[32] My feeling is that while newish it is relatively reliable, however if you prefer an additional source how about Southern Poverty Law Center - Dubious broadcast experts seen on many networks? I also found a couple of books ('Authoritarianism Goes Global: The Challenge to Democracy' & 'Putin's Propaganda Machine: Soft Power and Russian Foreign Policy') that also picked up on it. Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I could be mistaken, but as I understand it the SPLC is reliable for its hate group designations, but not for other factual information. In this case the SPLC simply cited the Interpreter source. I'd be more comfortable using the book sources you found, as they appear to be reputably published. Thanks for those. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I re-added the Dawson content, citing the second book source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

National Defense Authorization Act 2018

Interesting. But this is all very crystal ballish, and a reliable source would be needed to boot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Registration as foreign agent

Today Allen Nozick helpfully added some content on the news that the DOJ is requiring RT to register as a foreign agent. I made a fairly routine adjustment, paraphrasing an unnecessary quotation (see WP:QUOTEFARM) and adding a bit about the significance of the development, reflecting the cited source. Allen then reverted with the edit summary: "I can't see the point." This was not constructive. Not understanding the "point" of an edit is not a valid basis for reverting it. The talk page is for this very purpose, explaining why we prefer one version over another. If you don't understand something, then ask. Allen, please explain why you think the version you reverted to is better. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I certainly do see the point. Even if there is an issue with the change in the prose, which at this point I can't see, the addition of links and moving the cite to the correct location are undeniable improvements. Unless something changes soon, I would certainly support a revert of the revert.Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Allen Nozick is just WP:NOTTHERE. I earlier came across their POV edits and, if I remember correctly, edit-warring as well. Since they only have 40 edits, they must be indefblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes now I look at his profile I'm reminded of some of the others who edited here before being banned as Socks. I'm reverting now. Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
If you have a convincing case the best practice is to open an SPI. I am not in a position to block them now since they would claim I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks but it is little more than a sense of familiarity at the moment, which I doubt would be enough. The revert will have to be enough for now.Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Suggesting that someone should be indeffed for reverting once a modification of one of his edits seems to be somewhat over the top, doesn’t it? Especially since the information provided in that edit was factual and well sourced and hasn’t been challenged by anyone. Quite on the contrary, it was even found to be helpful.Dr. Fleischman, my revert may have been a bit rash, but I was pressed by time and I didn’t see the point of your modification since, apart from the quote, the two versions are almost identical. Upon reading again your edit, I agree with you that it is an improvement (albeit small) because of the streamlining. However, I prefer “requested” to “demanded”. I am also going to add a link and a new source. I hope that we can then both agree.--Allen Nozick (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, and I agree that the talk on this page of socking and blocking is unwarranted and not constructive. Moving on, the best use of this page isn't so much to disclose our preferences, but to justify them. You haven't explained why you prefer "requested" over "demanded." The source you added uses neither word, but all sources make clear that registration is mandatory, not optional, so I have adjusted the wording accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Admittedly, I don't know the exact wording of the DOJ. However, I am sure they would not have used the term "demand" because it would have been undiplomatic. The mandatory character of the request was obvious enough. Now, I totally agree with your new formulation.--Allen Nozick (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Substantially funded

Can we please stop knee-jerk edit warring over the "substantially funded" language? Contrary to Wolfenstein3D's comment, the cited source does not say "substantially funded." And there are plenty more reliable sources we can add for the contention that RT is "funded" by the Russian government (no qualifier). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The source says ""the Russian Federation finances ANO TV-Novosti to a substantial extent."" --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The source also says "Registrant is not sufficiently aware of who supervises, owns, directs, controls or subsidizes ANO TV-Novosti to answer the foregoing questions." It is not a good source to explain the relationship between RT and the Russian Government. The fact remains that neither this source, nor any part of the article offers mention of any other income. Unless content and sources are added to the Budget section, "funded by" obviously seems the most appropriate summary.TiB chat 12:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Also "substantially funded" is a subset of "funded". Now, if our article said "entirely funded" then Emir would have a point. But it doesn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
No Emir, the source said RT said that. It was an unduly self-serving statement by the subject of the article, and it's at odds with the reliable sources, which do not include a qualifier like that. Such as the one that's currently cited. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The NPR source is reliable and cites more accurate details along with being several years more recent then the WaPo source previously used. The NPR source is based off recent filings of RT as a foreign agent while the WaPo source is the author's opinion based of statements by Russian officials over five years ago. The implication of simply leaving "funded" without mentioning "substantially" would misleading to the average reader as to thinking RT is wholly or fully funded by the Russian government. The United States would not have accepted the filing as a foreign agent with the wording ""the Russian Federation finances ANO TV-Novosti to a substantial extent."" if the only source of funding was the Russian Government. --Wolfenstein3D 3:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The current language ("funded by the Russian government") is the simplest and best. The NPR article does not support any more specific number because -- as the source says -- RT America's partner company refuses to give the actual percentage. Neutralitytalk 03:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a percentage though and it's not 100%. Leaving in "substantially" clarifies that RT is not a fully funded Russian government entity. Leaving out the wording used in the source is misleading and attempting to omit a small but important portion that would mislead readers. --Wolfenstein3D 3:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Wolfenstein3D: You need to self-revert your latest edit - you don't have consensus to make the change, and in fact the majority of users reject your change. Please self-revert. Neutralitytalk 03:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality: There is no consensus to revert back to using a five year old source from before RT was required to file as a foreign agent either. It is not a fact that the majority of users reject using the newer NPR source with it's exact wording, that is simply your opinion. Disregarding a more up to date source based off your opinion is not a valid point of discussion. --Wolfenstein3D 3:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
No, multiple editors have reverted your edit, and the burden is on you to establish consensus to make the change. And the vast majority of sources simply say that RT is funded by the Russian government, without making any attempt to quantify this. And, indeed, other sources show that "substantially" could be effectively 100%: see, e.g.: "TV-Novosti’s official filings with the Ministry ... [show] it is almost entirely funded by the state budget, with the exact figure ranging annually between 99.5% and 99.9%." Neutralitytalk 03:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong UK Freeview number

The article is wrong. It is 234. 51.9.86.142 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Will fix. Hentheden (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Programs and on-air staff

I propose that we limited the programs and on-air staff to those that meet our notability criteria. I don't like how our article currently says that the list of programs "includes" the following list. Per WP:LSC, the list should either be exhaustive, or it should expressly be a list of only the notable items. Surely RT runs more than 15 shows? If we expand to the exhaustive non-notable list then it will be too long given that the article is already pretty big. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There used to be a similar list of people who had been interviewed on RT. I felt that and this are both part someone's counterproductive attempt to make RT look important. While the shows that have articles are going to need to be mentioned I'd prefer it in a similar style to the earlier part of that section, ideally with relevant criticism worked into it. I'm unsure of what my ideal justification for inclusion is, but think it should be more than "this is something that aired on RT".TiB chat 19:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
How about "this is something notable that aired on RT?" That would be fully supported by the first bullet of WP:CSC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

26 shows are currently listed on the RT app. The list of shows on the BBC Four Wikipedia page say includes 46 shows under the heading “original programmes” and more under other headings. So I don’t think the current listing is excessive. Regarding criticism, what about following the BBC template and putting this in a separate section called “Controversy and criticism”? Burrobert 16:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Previous comment was mine (forgot the tildes) Burrobert 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

I would strenuously object to creating a criticism ghetto for this article. We already have a "Propaganda claims and related issues" relegated under "Responses," which is bad enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
BBC Four isn't an appropriate comparator. That article is short and specifically about that channel, with most of the content about BBC residing at the main BBC article. This article about RT is much longer and is like BBC, BBC News, and BBC Four rolled into one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I mentioned BBC Four as both pages have a list of shows. I still don’t think the current list requires trimming and wouldn’t have a problem if it expanded to the full list of 26 advertised shows. I agree that the RT article is different in nature to the other articles you mentioned but I don’t think that requires a smaller list of shows. If the article is considered too long to accomodate the list of shows what about creating a separate article listing the shows and pointing to the list from within the main article. Regarding the criticism “ghetto” that is used in the BBC article, I don’t share your intense feelings but also don’t have any intense feelings the other way. I was just making a suggestion based on a reading of other pages in case this hadn’t already been considered. Burrobert 01:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Burrobert 01:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Equal treatment toward all news outlets

Can an admin explain why RT is called "propaganda" while privately owned mass media with admitted biases are not referred to as such in their intro, i.e. Fox News? Propaganda defined: "biased info that promotes a political view." In its Wikipedia page, Fox News is referred to as "biased reporting" that promotes the "Republican view" (linking to a Controversies section). Why is the same not done here? (Or more accurately, Fox News's page should change to the word 'propaganda' if going by definition). If we're going by the sources cited, the same applies. The RT intro says the network is "frequently referred to as propaganda" (clearly a loaded term, alluding to Cold War-era communist rhetoric) to give a narrative quoting other sources while feigning neutrality. However, those same three sources - Columbia Journalism Review[1], CBS[2], and Der Spiegel[3] - have also referred to Fox News as propaganda, yet it isn't used to define the network in the intro as it is here. Wikipedia is not being neutral or consistent, especially since CNN and MSNBC have no bias warning at all (despite being confirmed by reliable sources as neoliberal just as much as Fox is neocon). I'm not arguing that RT isn't biased, I'm saying all are - but state-run non-American outlets are called out with harsh terms, while multinational corporate outlets are whitewashed on their pages or use softer terminology. Wikipedia's job is neutrality, not evaluating the quality of the news sources (as per Wikipedia policy). Why paint RT as a Putin mouthpiece despite it being a platform for independent journalists like Chris Hedges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.206.251 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2017

References

  1. ^ https://www.cjr.org/special_report/creating-a-fox-news-for-the-left.php. Retrieved 14 July 2017. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-great-divide-the-media-war-over-trump/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/donald-trump-und-fox-friends-schoene-schraege-welt-a-1138373.html&prev=search. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Because we reflect the reliable sources, and reliable sources call RT propaganda whereas they don't call Fox News propaganda. I went through the 3 sources you list; the first 2 don't call Fox News propaganda, and the 3rd is an unreliable opinion piece. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
But what is 'reliable'? RT is far more reliable than the corporate media.
Wikipedia is being very selective in its inclusion of information on this particular topic. The pages of major Western mainstream media generally have no such information included (warning of bias) while it has been established that these media have been promoting a very specific agenda and also been exposed reporting unverified and dubious information. It's plain that Wikipedia is not applying the same standards in regards to different mainstream media.

In regards to claims of propaganda in the page overview, it seems that the claims are based exclusively on reports in other mainstream media (CBS, Spiegel, BBC) all of which are known to be hostile to RT and Russian media in general, and therefore biased themselves. I'm sure that RT articles and opinions describing CBS as a 'propaganda' would not have been allowed in CBS article on Wikipedia --Reollun (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Not this crap again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we need one of those "widely discussed questions" banners at the top of this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It's because a cabal of editors dictate the content of the article and ostracise any editor who dissents. Good luck.Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You really need to stop it with the WP:NPA. You've gotten sanctioned for your actions on this page before, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no NPA here, unless you've got a guilty conscience. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You really should stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
RelentKeith-264 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Reollun, please review our guideline on reliable sources, and particularly the part where it says that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I rather pointed out that the article relies excessively on the argument from one only side. I don't necessarily call into question the sources cited (like CBS or CNN), but rather that the claims about RT being propaganda rely exclusively on the reports from these media. It should be pointed out this is not science where there is a wide consensus about a certain topic/work/person. So, the essence of it is wrong and misleading to post the info of RT being 'propaganda' as a sort of consensus, because there's no such thing. Posting in the 'controversies' section and stating that other media (with names) claim it to be propaganda is much more appropriate. --Reollun (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that there is consensus among reliable sources that RT is a propaganda outlet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The "RS" cited in the article perhaps but that's not necessarily the same as in the real world. Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources saying RT isn't a propaganda outlet, by all means share them. I haven't researched this particular issue recently, but based on my usual reading of the news I believe more and more outlets are coming out and saying that RT is propaganda. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
There are more and more sources making the same point about the Western corporate media too; mysteriously you and your colleagues have overlooked them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. Go to those outlets' pages and have a ball. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Set me the example.Keith-264 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Keith-264, it is a myth any reliable source exists for your assumption. We are down to obscure bloggers who might agree with you. Philip Cross (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:CIVILKeith-264 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would very much like to see some 'evidence' of when RT was used for propaganda. By propoganda I'm talking about misinformation. As far as I know (and have observed) RT tries to remain very neutral. I'd like some solid facts and if no facts present themselves at least a counter argument. Orcanium (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The obvious conflicts of interest of rival firms, the practice of funding bogus, ideologically-biased "think tanks" and spurious research by corporate-media organisations are not recognised by Wiki, which incorporates no critique of the propaganda role of news/media as anatomised by Hermann and Chomksy et al. in the Propaganda model. If anyone replies to your request, they will tender a list a mile long of "authorities" which are deemed reliable sources and which purport to show that RT is bad and the BBC etc are good. It's more likely that you will be carped at for discussing bias rather than the article. Good luck! Keith-264 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

When will the anti-RT editors get that there is no consensus on this issue? SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

On what specific issue? On whether we should describe RT as propaganda? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue that I made this post on. The inadequacy of the final paragraph of the lead section. SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I don't follow. Was this you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

After looking at RT more critically the last few days, I've realized that they are just as biased as the other news outlets. But I've yet to see any form of propaganda. Only a light slandering against Hillary Clinton. Which isn't so unexpected. (Look at how the other news stations reacted to Trump's "Fake News" slogan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcanium (talk • contribs) 10:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe the common assessment of RT as "propaganda" specifically relates to its reportedly intimate connection with the Russian government. State-funded media is more likely to be labeled "propaganda", as opposed to privately-funded media being labeled as "biased". Timtastic (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Not just state-funded. State owned and controlled. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yet the BBC's Wikipedia page, opens with no such allusion. Beingsshepherd (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The BBC is editorially independent of the British government. RT is editorially controlled by the Russian government. So that's a false analogy. Neutralitytalk 03:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The only basis for RT being called "propaganda" by the West is because the West does not like the Russian government. The West has no problem with propaganda being spewed by itself or its allies. That is the fact of the matter. It is a politically charged appellation. Secondly, it doesn't matter that the BBC is "independent" of the British government. There are numerous news agencies independent of the government located in states the West considers its enemy, and there are numerous government-run or government-funded news agencies in Western states. Their propaganda and bias is just as rancid and overt. The main clarification that needs to be made in this article, especially its lead, is that it is almost entirely Western sources and Western-allied agencies that consider RT propaganda, just as it is vice versa for Russian agencies. The Russian agencies would not call themselves biased but would call Western news agencies biased in just the same way. There is no reason for this article to be making a double standard for a Russian news agency simply because it is from Russia. Its criticisms must be further qualified. SUM1 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Well you seem to have a good grasp of what the Russian government wants the people of the west to think. But less so about RTs content or the level of journalistic integrity generally attributed to the Russian media. Unless you have reliable sources for this, your opinions, like mine are really a waste of time.TiB chat 23:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like SUM1 has a problem with our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I take neutrality far more seriously than anyone who's maintaining the lead criticism as it is now, or anyone else with a Western bias. SUM1 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't get to pick and choose which policies we follow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is a total waste of everybody's time and should be archived so we can move on. It has rumbled on for nearly a year despite not containing a single bit of useful criticism or indeed anything that would help improve this article. Neither have any of the neutrality-loving whiners ever contributed meaningfully to the article, most of them don't even seem to have read it. And now I look more closely, if SpikeBall/SUM1 was the OP, this along with previous (now archived) posts along the same lines amounts to disruptive IDHT on a discretionary sanctions article.TiB chat 18:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree this thread should be put to bed, but the timing isn't good. Archiving so shortly after a good faith comment (no matter how battlegroundy) exposes us to charges of censorship. I say archive if there's no activity in the thread for 48 hours. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
There was no need for neither that "SUM1" joke, DrFleischman, nor the name-calling of "whiners" and other unsubstantiated claims, Trappedinburnley. You talk about constructive edits (and civility for that matter) – uphold the rules you preach, please. These discussions have gone on for this long (since at least 2015) because there is no consensus on the issue. Yes, that's right TiB, I didn't start (nor contribute to) most of the 12+ discussions on this topic because there are others who believe in it. And yes, I've read not only this article but thousands more and have contributed meaningfully to them. SUM1 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
How many more times are we going to have to explain that your or anybody else's opinions on fairness are less important here than Wikipedia policies before it will sink in?TiB chat 22:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy supports the edits I and others have made, such as clarifying that it's almost entirely Western news outlets that have described RT as propaganda (which it is; this is verifiable as it's literally all the sources tagged in the sentence), and changing "found" to "determined", to convey a less falsely universally authoritative tone, while it is your and others' reversals and maintenance of this article in this locked down state, as well as your and others' behaviour here, which is against Wikipedia policy. SUM1 (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Again you are so very wrong. As has also already explained to you, polling sources and adding your own commentary is prohibited by SYNTH. Ofcom is the authority on the broadcasting code. I've looked for the SUM1 doesn't like it policy but I just can't find it.TiB chat 23:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, be civil, or I'll take this further. I know about WP:SYNTH, but the current status of the lead criticism and sources is wildly in violation of WP:UNDUE. SUM1 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Does your wrongness have any limit? According to the reliable sources RT is a propaganda / disinformation outlet masquerading as news channel. The theory that this is a conspiracy of western media and governments doesn't even have enough backing to qualify as WP:FRINGE. As this has already been explained to you it is more IDHT. IMHO you are already overdue a block, do you want to keep digging?TiB chat 00:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing block-worthy in simple discussion over an issue which you know does not have consensus. As I said, be civil. The only person digging anything is yourself. SUM1 (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, DrFleischman, don't disguise your edits as "grammar" when they're actually POV wording. SUM1 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

EUvsDisinfo

Is this source at euvsdisinfo.us reliable? I think not. I haven't found any evidence of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Meanwhile the Dutch Parliament is trying to shut down the site, which is run by EU government officials (who of course aren't independent). [33] Of course I applaud the EU's effort to combat disinformation but this is in no way, shape, or form a reliable media outlet. It's a political outlet. Cloud200, please remember that you have the burden of establishing the source's reliability, and I ask that you respect the BRD process and avoid edit warring. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia sense I have to agree that it is not reliable and should not normally used as a reference. I say normally because I have linked to the site myself later in the article when mentioning the launch of the site, but in combination with other sources, essentially just to make it easy to find. I would point out that in this EUvsDisinfo article (and many others) there are many links to reliable sources that could be used if needed. However there is another issue, are random examples of fake news on RT required to improve the article? When I was new to it I thought so, but it is better to stick to sources that look more widely at RT's content. We only need specifics if a story caused a significant reaction such as legal action, resignation or maybe even a reputable award. TiB chat 18:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I think any false story or conspiracy theory coming from a news outlet is worthy of mention. Provided it's covered by at least one reliable independent source, of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would agree but this article is already quite long and RT's disinformation is voluminous. If someone wants to start Fake news on RT, that is fine by me, but I'd recommend efforts here go toward defining RT as clearly, unequivocally and concisely as achievable.TiB chat 19:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Also the RAND stuff is largely duplicating content already in the article, should they be merged into the Airing conspiracy theories section?TiB chat 18:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think reliability is the issue, rather it is neutrality. No doubt the list of errors in RT reporting is largely accurate. That doesn't necessarily mean that their conclusions are accurate. TFD (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Bullying

Conduct dispute and personal attacks. Please stay civil and focus on actionable improvements to RT (TV network). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the basic problem with this page is that, although the Talk page is supposed to be about democratic discussion, every time I post a thought on this page my message is deleted within 24 hours. This raises serious concerns that some users may be attempting to censor this Talk page. Most of the Talk pages I comment on are very long with voluminous, healthy democratic discussion. Only on this Talk page, some unknown 'expert' Wiki user cuts me off. Hmmm. Something strange under the sun. Why is it that these 'experts' of Wikipedia have so much time on their hands that then can master this arcane website and dictate to other users who just make content comments, which I believe was the purpose of Wikipedia. So delete my post. You will answer to God. Well, back to work, -- "Time and motion wait for no man..." Gunnermanz (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to take a deep breath and read the good faith advice that has been offered to you. For starters, conduct disputes like this one with Philip Cross belong on user talk pages, not on article talk pages. That's why both Philip Cross and I posted on your user talk; Philip to explain why your comments here kept getting deleted, and me to ask you if you had any questions. Second, you need to read WP:NOTFORUM. This page is specifically for how to improve RT (TV network) and is not the place for complaining that Wikipedia is a joke or about how you don't like certain site-wide policies for this or that reason. Complaints about site-wide policies are most appropriate at WP:VPP. If you have questions about policies, I suggest the Teahouse. Now if you don't mind, please do not respond here; please respond at User talk:Gunnermanz if you still don't understand why your comments keep getting deleted here. Further complaining here about site-wide policies or editor conduct will likely end up getting removed or hatted. The bottom line is that no one is trying to censor or suppress your viewpoints; you just need to express them in more appropriate venues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

More Bullying

Your tone, sir, is patronizing, smug and arrogant, and I daresay that I may be older and more experienced and knowledgeable than you. You forget that my original objection was to this biased article on RT.

I have to get up every morning to work, and my work you can read in the financial pages of international newspapers online or in print. I do not agree with all of the articles I work on, but c'est le vie. But I digress.

I do not have time to study the intricacies of Wikipedia like you 'professional Wikipedians' seem to be able to. (How do you pay your rent?) For fifteen years, I've only read this or that article on Wikipedia and made comments.

I've never - EVER - deleted anyone's comments on the Talk pages, and if I've made an edit, or wanted to do so, I've discussed it on the Talk page first. That is what the Talk Page is about, sir.

I reject all your pretentious, sanctimonious and arcane declarations and have no interest in the bowels of Wikipedia.

I am an old man. I do not have much time left and am only interested in discussing the content of the article, which I assume you know, is what the Talk page is for.

Stop threatening me and address the objections I and other users have to this extremely biased article.

RT is being held to a standard that the Western corporate media is not. The Washington regime and the 'yellow' Western media enjoy very little trust among the American people. You, sir, seem intent on joining the treasonous Washington regime, ruled by a tiny 0.01% of the ultra-rich, to foment yet another war by rabble-rousing hated toward a renewed Christian country that should be our friend.

Look at other Wikipedia Talk Pages. Theirs is a healthy argument going on in many languages. You have no right to suppress free thought. Like the old folk song, the grass of truth grows under the lies of cement and breaks it in time. Gunnermanz (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RT_(TV_network)/Archive_9&oldid=1127387973"