Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 1

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

"Second try" version looks good to me.

RN1970 (talk

) 17:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Take out the Russia's BBC part it's unjustifiable as lead information because it fulfills none of the purposes of lead information

pathetic attempt at a tu quoque fallacy.Festermunk (talk

) 23:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11], [12] and [13] - So what is the problem with these three changes to the article? Festermunk (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

No doubt you didn't have any objections to my criticism as they're far and beyond your ken, though, regardless, I'll take your approval. Not that I'm willing to reciprocate though when the protection comes down, I'm going to give Greenwald's section the treatment it deserves and shave it down to the size of a raisin bun (and do it on legitimate grounds of

WP:LONGQUOTE). I mean really, how confident can you be in RT when you have to blow up one man's article to the size of an airport spanning three blocks of quotes? Festermunk (talk

) 03:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want to make it a piece of Western MSM propaganda, why go round about it? just write "RT is an EVIL EVIL EVIL UNTRUSTWORTHY News network broadcasting from Putin Wine cellar ". all other info is not needed according to

WP:LOBBY WP:FESTERMUNK ::::109.64.32.41 (talk

) 13:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You're sounding more and more hysterical by the post. "it is because his words are very profound and to the point." In addition to that remark being a violation of

WP:YESPOV, you still have to prove how that would justify the Greenwald article warranting three blocks of quote. I suggest you read up Wikipedia guidelines before you make yourself sound any more ridiculous. Festermunk (talk

) 15:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Availability" section: This section hasn't caused much controversy among editors. If I'm right in that assertion, I would suggest following

RN1970 (talk

) 05:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're taking words out of my mouth; I tend to support most of your reasoning and proposals. As for other supporting material mentioned by CarolMooreDC - sure, if it does exist, it belongs to the article (taking into account

WP:WEIGHT Ipsign (talk

) 09:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

) 09:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

More

soapboxing. Come back when you're ready to drop the paranoid left-wing chip on your shoulder.Festermunk (talk

) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH or to promote point of view which we are passionate about, but merely to reflect (in a balanced way) points of view which already exist out there (this BTW equally applies to User:Festermunk); we are not the ones who decide what is 'right' or 'wrong', we're just summarizing what is out there (which is the whole point of any encyclopedia - to summarize existing knowledge, not to create new one). Ipsign (talk

) 10:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ipsign, I don't disagree with what you said expect : "we're just summarizing what is out there" + "(in a balanced way)" - never happens in Wikipedia due to that horrendous and outrageous policy and the ridiculous circular logic of

WP:RS .(I won't add anything more here on the subject)109.65.18.160 (talk

) 10:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Yeah

Youtube doesn't qualify as a reliable source so unless you have some other source for Lyster's whining I suggest you don't put that in the article. Festermunk (talk

) 17:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It qualifies beautifully under

WP:NOYT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Marcin Maczka RT reporters examine world issues such as the financial instability and fiscal crises, financial and banking scandals, corporate impact on the global economy, and demonstrations of “outraged” protesters. Commentaries focus on human rights, curtailing armaments, environmental protection, social inequities, and natural disasters. News from Russia is of secondary importance and such reports emphasize Russian modernisation and economic achievements, as well as Russian culture and natural landscapes.^[1] In 2008 Stephen Heyman wrote in the New York Times that in RT’s Russia, “corruption is not quite a scourge but a symptom of a developing economy. And concerns about street thugs, poverty and Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership trump fears over Vladimir V. Putin’s grip on power.”^[2] Marcin Maczka writes RT has "attracted experienced journalists" and that "the reports are competent and dynamic."^[1]

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

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

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

The current lead is :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:LEDE the RT WP lede violates I suggest you rethink your argument. Festermunk (talk

) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would help if "you" actually registered as a user since if it is just one "you" who comes up as all these separate IPs and this has been defined asIP hopping". It easily can lead to WP:meatpuppet and WP:sockpuppet accusations which can lead to each of your IPs as you use them being banned permanently. Might even cause problems for the company hosting your IPs -

Bezeq International - if it is a small one or you are only one editing from it, depending on the Admin in charge, especially if they should get the idea it's any kind of conflict of interest for whatever reason. CarolMooreDC

20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

The problem with RIA Novosti is that as an RT founder, they essentially qualify as

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

) 09:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Ipsign: An NPOV certainly appreciated!

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

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

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

AnonIPS 109.65.31.96 and 79.177.30.60: If you are same person it would help if you identified self as such. From now on I guess we'll have to check geolocates of all AnonIPs and if they all are from

Bezeq International assume they are same individual and count the edits towards 3rr. More civil behavior also helpful so we can come up with a good article. CarolMooreDC

23:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your recent edits; IMHO, the article became significantly better (much less bulky and easier to grasp) by casual reader;

WP:3RR. Ipsign (talk

) 05:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've made several edits today, sometimes being on bolder side; feel free to revert - as long as you're starting discussion here. (the main idea was to remove unacceptable self-serving references, and some

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for AMEInfo and second nomination - it says nothing about Obama's trip, so even if we accept press release as a source for Obama's trip nomination (which is already questionable), using AMEInfo to combine the two will be invalid

WP:SYN. Overall, the article already has lots of reliable information, so I don't really see why we should add something of questionable reliability which doesn't change things much (and can cause somebody to question the whole article). As Jimbo Wales have said: "it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources." Ipsign (talk

) 05:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As for Ioffe's article: it is very clearly anti-RT, so any quotes/interpretations which create the impression that she supported RT, go against

WP:QUOTE (see above). As for not quite correct wording - you do have a point, I've changed it a bit, now it IMHO is very close to the original. Also I should note that "final report conclusion" and "Georgia really did start it" (which is debatable, but here is not the right place to debate it) is completely irrelevant when we're discussing Ioffe's article (unless she mentions it). Ipsign (talk

) 05:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

LOL. You are so transparent Ipsign.

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

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

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

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

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

• all citations are from BBC website.

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

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

• all citations are from BBC website.

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

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

• Citation is from France24 website

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

• no citation

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the comment, your opinion is duly noted. On the other hand, I would appreciate if you could: (a) refrain from using personal attacks (pls consult

WP:PA for details), and (b) if you could stop polluting discussion with kilometres of stuff which can be easily summarized in one phrase: "other stuff exists"; this POV of yours has been articulated here for a number of times, and rebutted the same number of times; moreover, it seems that nobody except for you supports your POV, indicating that we're close to "rough consensus" on this issue. Ipsign (talk

) 06:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I hope that you do not mean that any references to those other stations should cause us to rewrite RT page, do you? Using references, for example, to BBC, to justify something on RT page (with a consistency argument) would mean that we're assuming that BBC is substantially the same as RT; but this assumption itself is a matter of debate (there is a whole spectrum of stations from

WP:SYN), so this assumption cannot be relied on, and therefore, for an RT page we're limited to references to RT. Are we in agreement on this point? Ipsign (talk

) 05:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Again, you're removing information that is wholly in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines (esp.

WP:UNDUE. Unless you come up with legitimate reasons as to why you are justified in removing those paragraphs, I strongly suggest you stop doing what you are doing. Festermunk (talk

) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted Festermunk; and I am going to do the same with any sequence of edits which significantly push

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, but it is at least a reasonable facsimile, so unless significant changes are discussed first, I am going to try keeping status quo. Ipsign (talk

) 05:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's deal with specifics. What is it exactly about the changes I made that constitute

WP:UNDUE? Festermunk (talk

) 19:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Festermunk: While you were blocked and/or not contributing there were discussions of almost every change to the article, including much of your work. Please feel free to comment on each of those discussions above and then we'll see what was missed. But I think you need to read

Weight section

which includes sentence:

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

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

"But I think you need to read

Will you please stop with this victimhood shit

it's not like you are any better (actually you are worse because your deletions of entire sourced paragraphs violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines) with your RT advocacy. It's not my problem that there exists a multitude of criticism of RT and a dearth of praise for RT, and that an article that reflects this imbalance of commentary is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines.

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

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

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

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

[As per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RT_(TV_network)&diff=517265235&oldid=517259338] Wikipedia is

not a link farm

so why it is included in this article again is beyond me.

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

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

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

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

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

Festermunk's response to Carolmooredc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • Where's the section of Simonyan?

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

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

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

Carolmooredc response

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

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

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

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

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

Festermunk response

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

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

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

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

3: You talk like you think you have a point with your argument. Aside from the fact that you have to prove how it was a historical event for the program (the fact that, if it was, it was widely reported doesn't mean it was historical for the program as it could classify as

WP:BRD

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

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

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

5&6: You need to learn how Wikipedia guidelines work. It's only WP:OR if I write in the article implying a connection between Simonyan and oligarchy, not in the talk page. Also, reducing the Simonyan controversy to a one-sentencer violates

WP:UNDUE

as it does not fairly represent the amount and type of material that have been critical of her. There's nothing in Wikipedia that states, "it isn't our job to list EVERY POV partisan criticism of any specific individual" and even if there was, the edits of Simonyan wouldn't classify as POV partisan criticism.

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

Carolmooredc response

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

RE: Assange in history Festermunk wrote: 3: You talk like you think you have a point with your argument. Aside from the fact that you have to prove how it was a historical event for the program (the fact that, if it was, it was widely reported doesn't mean it was historical for the program as it could classify as

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

FM:I just told you, but apparently you can't read, so I'll read it again: I'm removing it as per

a reliable source show that shows the Assange program is historical

, the fact that it is historical doesn't mean that the program should be part put as part of RT's history; wouldn't it be more appropriate to put it in the program's section since the Assange show functions as a program of RT?

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

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

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

Festermunk wrote: 5 &6. (Quoting Carol)... However, your WP:OR of "oligarchic" connection is a bit much [added later to clarify: if you want that POV in the article]. ... Also, reducing the Simonyan controversy to a one-sentencer violates

WP:UNDUE

as it does not fairly represent the amount and type of material that have been critical of her.

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

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

staff controversies===

* Margarita Simonyan - RT's current editor-in-chief who has been described by various sources as a Kremlin loyalist^[3][4] who is close to the Putin regime.^[5][6][7][8] According to Professor Andrei Richter, Simonyan was appointed to that position because she was well-connected with the editor; she acknowledged that she once received flowers on her birthday from Mr. Putin.^[2] Similarly, an article in The Moscow Times reports that Simonyan was chosen by the Kremlin to be the channel's editor in chief, though the article also stated that such appointments weren't unsurprising in Russia.^[9] Moreover, in an interview with the Washington Times, Simonyan acknowledged that she was too young (25) to be given the reins of Russia Today, although she ascribed the premature appointment to that the fact of oversupply of opportunities for young journalists after the collapse of the Soviet Union.^[10]

:Shortly after his appointment as the

United States Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul challenged Margarita Simonyan^[11] over the Twitter in regards to allegations from RT^[12] that he sent Alexei Navalny to study at Yale, tweeting, ""@M_Simonyan when we met at White House you asked me tell you when RT ran something untrue. On RT today, @McFaul sent @Navalny to Yale. Lie."^[11][12]] Festermunk (talk

) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Dispute resolution noticeboard case filed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just discovered [clarified later "essay"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I certainly get the impression that what you want is a restructuring that will allow you to push your negative POV and delete neutral and positive information. At

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

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

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

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

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

CarolMooreDC 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

CarolMooreDC 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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