Talk:RT (TV network)

Line of criticism in leading section

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

This issue has been discussed several dozen times at this talk page, and so far the majority of the editors disagree with your opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, it hasn't. You probably misread my issue, but the issue discussed before was that of the naming of the sources to point out that they are from particular nations or sources with rusty relations with Russia. However my issue is on this article in relation to the other news network articles, in that there is criticism where there isn't criticism in the others, i.e. outside the Criticism section. This looks like an attempt to ingrain something into a reader's mind before they've even read the article, where as on the article for the BBC for example, there is nothing, until you get to the criticism section, as on most articles. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I am really tired discussing this over and over again. Let us see what other users have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not discussing anything from before, this is a different issue, but fine. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. The question you ask has been raised here on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This talk page has several archives. Of the top of my head I'd refer you to Criticism and controversies section specifically my comment [1]. Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

One can criticize CNN for a number of reasons. However, unlike CNN, his particular news network is notable for promoting disinformation, according to sources. Therefore, yes, this info should go in the introduction. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That depends on which sources you use. If you were looking at exclusively Russian sources, CNN might be notable for for propaganda. Just like how if you looked at exclusively Western sources (UK, US, Germany), RT is notable for propaganda. (Like is done in the current Wikipedia article) Masebrock (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"That depends on which sources you use." - we use reliable sources. If you have such sources that CNN is "propaganda" then we can use it over at the CNN article. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So it seems no one, not even in the links provided (Ymblanter), has given any reason at all let alone good reason why there is criticism present in the lead section, and only criticism (no commendation). All I saw in the links which indicated hope of progress was a commenter who remarked about the Wikipedia rules for lead sections, that they "should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." When I further read the guideline page, I also saw that "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." This would clearly suggest that the difference in emphasis present in this article's lead section is against Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight. The guideline page also says that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.", and in the note "[1]" to this line, it continues "Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." Comparably to the rest of the article, including the criticisms section, the line of criticism in the lead section is exaggerated in its highlighting considering the fact that no mention of criticisms occur until the "Reception" and following "Criticisms" sections, in which the network is again said to be called "propaganda" i.e., there is a majority of text not related to criticisms of RT that is not being highlighted in the lead section, such as its organisation, more on its funding, at least not in 3-line-long blocks of text, however a topic confined to 1 section, the criticisms, IS being highlighted. It's almost as if you're summarising an entire news network by its criticism. In fact, that is what you're doing, as its presence in the lead section suggests. Forget comparing this page to other TV network's Wikipedia articles if you didn't like that reason, according to the guidelines it is severely fraught with undue weight. SpikeballUnion (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"So it seems no one, not even in the links provided (Ymblanter), has given any reason at all let alone good reason why there is criticism present in the lead section" - no, the reasons have already been given. The lede reflects the article body and reliable sources. That's why this is in there. You're just not listening. Volunteer Marek  22:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Nothing is settled, this is an ongoing debate. If there is a "majority view" then it is a slim majority and not a consensus. Plenty of editors have said that this article is biased, only to be brick walled and called every name under the sun. If we could just calm down and start assuming good faith, that would be good. Masebrock (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a "slim" majority. There has been extensive discussion. No, people haven't been "called every name under the sun".

Now, unless there's a new source or new arguments that are brought to the table there really isn't much point in rehashing the same thing over and over and over and over again. Volunteer Marek  00:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If random passerbys keep bringing up the same criticisms, isn't that a sign that there is a problem with the article? Masebrock (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. This is only a sign of trouble if the random passerbys are experts on the subject. Now, speaking about your another comment above, there are "Russian" sources that are even more critical of RT TV than "Western" sources. For example, this article is a good source. The catch? This news site is included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials and blocked in Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There exists a long tradition of Western expertize in Russian matters - G.B. Shaw, H.G. Wells, Romain Rolland, E. H. Carr. Real life destroys dreams, compare Philby "disappointed in many ways".

• RT doesn't belong to the same group as "BBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, NBC, CBS or ITV", the closest comparison was RFE/RL during the cold war.Xx236 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be "true" (in WP sense) if you could collect an equal number of RS telling that REF/RL was promoting disinformation during the cold war. No, it was doing just the opposite (fighting the disinformation by the Soviet propaganda) - according to RS I know. Yes, all the sources I read about it were admittedly Russian.My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I try to explain the differences to RT fans. I mean the financing by governments rather than the content, which I appreciated at that time.Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just to note that you moved the paragraph out of the lede and started edit-warring explicitly against consensus that it should be there. After the block expires, the paragraph will be moved to the lede, and if you restarty edit-warring (aided by a one-week-old account) you will likely be taken to a corresponding administrative noticeboard so that your ability to edit Wikipedia will be restricted.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest to unprotect this page right now because there is a long-standing consensus to keep this paragraph in intro. User Soltsa90 made four reverts during 30 minutes and suppose to be blocked for edit-warring against consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus. You must not be following or something; why do you think there would be such long debates about this if there were consensus? SpikeballUnion (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason there are such long debates IMO is (much like RT) some people seem to believe that if they just keep repeating the same BS over and over and refuse to WP:listen, that somehow, eventually people will agree with them. That might work some place but all that counts here are policy and sources. Trappedinburnley (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter Obviously, "(aided by a one-week-old account)" must refer to me. My edit was not made in order to "aid" anyone, but rather to add what, in my opinion, was missing, important and sourced information about RT на русском. I am afraid I must add that I deeply dislike your overbearing tone, it is both improper and insulting. Göndul (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that you dislike my tone, but when a one-week-old account comes to a highly disputed article and immediately engages into an edit war reverting to the version of someone who was edit-warring before that account, this is 100% sockpuppetry.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I reverted to that version because it contained my edit which had been removed along with the other editor's edit. I also agree with him that the accusations of propaganda, regardless of whether they are fouded or not, should be in the criticism section. It is simply common sense. Anyway, I don't intend to keep on editing this talk page. I have no taste for the bellicose rhetoric which seems to be the rule here. Good luck. Göndul (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't just "add RT на русском", you also made POV changes to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources you used tell us nothing about it other than it exists, yet somehow we got a full sentence about its purpose, Soltsa90 even decided it has been in existence since 2005. I did checkout the YouTube channel yesterday and found the live feed to have 37 viewers, which suggests to me that it is insignificant. Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Daily Beast Article

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

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

Also, the Daily Beast does not present these accusations as facts, but says they come from leaked documents from another Russian media company. If they had also leaked documents making similar accusations about Western media, I doubt the same editors would support their inclusion. TFD (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I know too much about RT, but I'm struggling to see Solntsa90's issue here. This seems to me to be a pretty non-controversial article. I've read it twice today and can't find anything even slightly un-believable. Certainly not much evidence of vitriol, POV, bias, or slander? The content s/he tried to remove (more than 80% of RT's YouTube viewership was for videos of accidents, crime, disasters, and natural phenomena and in the most popular video of Putin he's singing Blueberry Hill) is easily verifiable. I would support some adjustment to make the source of the info clearer, but I also think that we should include the bit about RT buying-in content for its Youtube channel. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@Trappedinburnley:, there is a difference between statements made in a reliable source and statements reported in a reliable source. For example if an article in the Daily Beast says that birther activist Orly Taitz says Obama was not born in the US,[2] competent editors do not automatically say, it was reported in the Daily Beast, and change the DOB in the Obama article. The fact that the media report what someone said does not mean they are asserting what someone said. For example, I could tell someone what you said, that would not necessarily mean I agree with what you said. In this case the source is someone who worked for a rival Russian state-owned media corporation. The source, who worked for what you call a "propaganda network," does not become an unimpeachable source, just because they say what we believe to be true. TFD (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I've assumed you have returned to the original subject of this conversation and split the rest into a new conversation (As I'm at least partially responsible for the fork). I hope you don't object. In response to your post, I agree that one would have to show that Taitz's opinion was significant somehow. In this case we have a leaked report by RIA Novosti for the Russian government and the specific info used was verified by the Beast. I think the source is valid and thus far has been used very sparingly, and as I already said I would support some adjustment to make the source of the info clearer. Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The information was not verified by the Daily Beast, otherwise they would have said so. While it is not (to quote you from the following thread) not an "obviously fabricated," it is not confirmed either. That is why the article uses in text attribution and that is the only way it should be presented in this article. OTOH, had the reporter confirmed the information, such as by consulting Nielsen ratings, by checking user views on Youtube, or by consulting an academic study, they would not have had to use intext attribution. TFD (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"The Daily Beast’s review of the RT YouTube page shows the most-watched videos have not changed since the RIA Novosti spreadsheet was created in 2013", huh? Trappedinburnley (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Disputed edits by Solnsta90

Solntsa90 I think you need to stop editing the article and talk about it some more. You seem to not understand several policies and your edits are not acceptable to me and no-doubt others. Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an entirely vitriolic personal attack I will not respond to, except to say that I'm sure my edits are acceptable to myself and no-doubt others. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that that source - which is generally reliable - is a "hit piece" is your own personal opinion. The question is whether or not the source satisfies criteria for WP:RS and yes, it does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek's revert of your edits, I was in the process of doing the same thing. I've now finished re-adding the bits I thought useful.Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well I vehemently disagree, and call for a second opinion. volunteer Marek, to his credit with many good edits, is mighty involved with articles related to Russia and Ukraine, so I'd like an an editor (such as myself) of whom that isn't one of their primary topics of interest.Solntsa90 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You have added un-sourced and poorly sourced highly POV content to the article. You have added new info to the lead that isn't covered in the article, and not IMO significant enough to mention. Other edits seemed to be attempts to downplay criticism or just superfluous. There might have been the odd useful edit in there but they got lost in the crap. I hope someone comes along to offer a second opinion but if it is an experienced editor I doubt it will be an opinion you like. Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I did keep on bit you added [3], oh and of course now you've removed the criticism summary from the lede giving a carbon-copy justification that has been shown to be incorrect at least half-a-dozen times already! Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no justification for a criticism section in the lede, especially if a similar organisation like the BBC, DW, or Voice of America lacks a similar criticism section in its introduction, Why should RT have a criticism section, why should all the sub-sections be renamed with bias, and why should RT be an different from a similar organisation in the treatment of its material?

As for your tone, it is very rude and personal, and makes me wonder whether or not you have a neutral, level-enough head to actually be editing the article here on RT, since you seem to be taking a very strong personal interest in the outcome of how this article reads, to the point of being insulting and rude on a personal level. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no "criticism section in the lede". There is a summary of article content. And as pointed out a million times already, RT is NOT comparable to BBC, DW or VoA.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Because you say so? Because direct competitors and rivals to RT say so? BBC World News, DW, and VoA are all state-funded broadcasters meant to project their spin on the world, the only difference being RT admits it in its charter, whereas the others do not (though the VoA in congressional legislation was always considered propaganda).

So again; Why are they different? Is that a matter of opinion? Because I certainly think it is. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Because, for starters, RT does not satisfy the criteria as laid out in WP:RS, while the others do. You should read that. It's not about the "ethnicity" of a source, it's not about whether a source receives state funding or not - it's about whether the source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (or to flip it, whether or not it's an obnoxious propaganda outlet whose primary purpose is misinformation). BBC, DW etc have this reputation. RT does not. Not even close.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's a summary of all the negative opinions and reflections on RT, not a summary of the article. Big Difference, it's almost as if you're out to paint RT as something other than a legitimate news organisation (which is most certainly is). Solntsa90 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

These questions have been discussed many times on this article talk page - please check its archives (above). Yes, it is a legitimate news organization because it operates under Russian law, just as TASS and Pravda were legitimate organizations. The summary does not tell that RT is an illegal organization, it tells "RT has been called a propaganda outlet for the Russian government[11][12][13] and its foreign policy[11][12][14][15] by news reporters,[16] including former RT reporters.[17][18][19] It has also been accused of spreading disinformation". That has been supported by multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference is simple. Competent news organizations understand that publishing obviously fabricated material and pretending the opinions of idiots are significant will only make them look very bad. In the case of state-funded broadcasters this also damages the image of the country that funds them. RT revels in this kind is behavior, so much so that people are asking if it is actually intended to fuel Putin's internal "look how much the west hates Russia" propaganda. All news organizations face criticism from people who don't like what they report, but it usually balances out with views from both sides of an augment that the coverage unfairly favors the other. As this article clearly shows RT is frequently and widely criticized for essentially one thing - fabricating the news to suit the Russian government. As have been expressed by many editors, many times it is correct to summarize the criticism in the lead in this case. If you have a problem with the content of other articles, you are discussing it at the wrong talkpage. I fully support returning that section to its previous location as soon a possible. And Solntsa90 it doesn't matter how many people turn up here saying the don't agree, all that counts is what it says in reliable sources. Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of reliable sources I imagine Columbia Journalism School's RT watch project will come in handy.Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What about this Daily Beast article? Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A tumblr page that was last updated 8 months ago? really? Completely unverifiable, not to mention, tumblr is not considered a suitable source here at Wikipedia. Also, admin locked article for a reason: he wants us to set new precedent, not to argue back and forth about what is otherwise out-of-date material (I mean, the reference of OFCOM is at least 2 years old). Solntsa90 (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think Tumblr and Daily Beast are more suitable than academic studies and legitimate resources on the topic, I don't know what to say other than that this may take a while. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What are these "academic studies" and "legitimate resources" you refer to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism's study of RT's output isn't academic enough for you,[4][5] I'd like to hear what is? Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this research paper on RT's YouTube operation by Elizabeth Nelson, Robert Orttung, and Anthony Livshen? Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, according to the first source "By pretending to be real news, RT is much better than your grandfather’s Soviet propaganda". True. Actually, the expenses by Russian TV are now significantly higher than they used to be. This is because some "events" are staged, very much like movie fiction. Making movies costs a lot more money than reporting. That is what some Russian pundits tell.My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: a US foreign policy think tank (probably the most legitimate source you have, but still lacking), a tumblr page, and the daily beast are your sources, correct? No actual studies? No actual metrics taken? Just opinion and vitriol, describing RT as "not your father's propaganda"?

Also, the Ponars Eurasia source never calls RT propaganda--it just says it pushes a 'pro-Kremlin Ideology', no different than VoA pushes an American ideology and BBC pushes "British Values".

Seeing as RT admits as much on it's "about us" page, that doesn't warrant an inclusion as a propaganda case. The sources that stand aren't strong enough to condemn RT as propaganda. My condolences if that was what you wished for. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally Marek, I noticed you never answered what made RT different from the BBC World Service, DW, or VOA, all external broadcasters with the intent on shaping public opinion. You haven't told me how RT is any different from these organisations, except that they're Russian and in a lot of people's minds, that just conjures up biased stereotypes of authoritarianism. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did answer that, although now that someone split the discussion and moved things around I don't know where it went.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Here it's right above. You just didn't bother reading it because you appear to have a problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that, while My very best wishes is editing this article here to remove mentions of the CIA from the lede of an article on Voice of America, he is vigorously and simultaneously attempting to introduce the same bias he's attempting to get rid of in a pro-American station's article into the RT News page. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my edit on another page. Someone reverted it already. You are using false equivalence argument. For example, Soviet democracy was not democracy, and newspaper Pravda (literally "the truth") was not the truth. Neither that was a reliable news source. By the same token, RT TV is something entirely different from RFE/RL or any other reliable news source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"What are these "academic studies" and "legitimate resources" you refer to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)"

You're the one who wants to call RT propaganda, you find them. They should be out there, if your position is indeed the correct one. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who implied that there were some "academic studies" and "legitimate sources" which contradicted the current text in the article. I asked you to please actually provide these. Apparently there are no such "academic studies" and "legitimate sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Solntsa90 has commented on my talk page, I think I ought to summarise my position here: I believe that legitimate criticism of the RT network should stay in the article, although I would say that the amount of text given to criticism in the lead of this article before it was moved further down was undue. However, I would not be against a sentence or two noting alleged propaganda issues, as well its airing of conspiracy theories (i.e. general controversies).

We should be wary when using sources which would otherwise be considered reliable, as there may be conflicts of interest in their coverage: geopolitics, business competition, xenophobia, etc etc. However, it's clear to me and the majority of editors here find that most reliable sources claim RT is not equivalent to DW, VOA, the BBC or other similar state broadcasters (all of which have their criticisms too). Unfortunately, the personal opinion that any of us have as editors isn't really relevant, and Wikipedia's policies state that the article should reflect what is published in the majority of English-language reliable sources, which lends itself to inherent bias; it is not our place as editors to "right great wrongs". There also seems to be significant POV-pushing by editors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by the talk page. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 18:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Having passed by this page on occasion previously and never really commented as far as I can remember, I would just second some of that. Yes RT has been controversial in some respects, and there's evidence of that – eg Ofcom issues here in the UK, regular criticism in other media outlets, reporter resignations etc – but reading the page itself and the discussion above, there's far too much reliance on what appear to be interested editors citing interested and marginal sources in a bid to "prove" how terrible RT is. Half the current Criticism section is just vague negative comment sourced to op-eds and hostile politicians. You can do that for any media outlet, especially a state-sponsored one, and ten times over for one from a country with which Anglophone countries currently have a fractious relationship. Trawling the web for negative comment, stacking a page with it and then defending its inclusion on the basis of "it's in an RS" is common practice on controversial pages, but rather transparently sidesteps questions of overall balance and the contexts in which sources are being used. Such content certainly should not automatically be flagged up in the lead. Established media outlet X may be a "reliable" source in WP terms for reporting of events; commentary from it about a rival media outlet is not necessarily. There must be better, more objective sources, preferably academic or quasi-academic ones, that offer an overall appraisal or analysis of the station and the issues around it on a more objective and disinterested basis. N-HH talk/edits 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the huge size of the "criticism" section on this page, briefly summarizing its content in introduction is hardly "undue". Most of the quoted comments are made by political scientists or other experts, not by rival news outlets. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. There are 18 - eighteen - sources provided for the claims in that paragraph. These "marginal sources" include Columbia Journalism Review (you wanted academic, you got it1), Der Spiegel, CBS News, The Guardian, the BBC, CNN, Business Insider, Time, Accuracy in Media, and others. So, excuse me if I put it in plain language: Are you fucking kidding me? Marginal sources???? "Controversial in some respects"??? "Trawling the web for negative comment"??? This info comes from a wide variety of reliable sources. It is trivial to find criticism of RT. No, the situation is NOTHING LIKE with other state-sponsored (sic) outlets. The sources in the article *already are* the objective sources, so your demands are disingenuous at best.

Additionally, this issue has been discussed to death, here and at WP:RSN, with the version by Galassi [6] being the consensus one. If you (or Solntsa, or whatever drive-by-throw-away-newly-created account shows up here to edit war) want to change that then it's up to you to get new consensus and to show that it has changed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Finding RS with negative content about RT doesn't require trawling. @Solntsa90 and anyone else: that the criticism should be mentioned in the lead really isn't up for debate, there is far too much RS out there clearly demonstrating the widely view, and every conceivable argument against has been tried and failed. The text we have makes it very clear who is making the accusations and unless someone suggests a better version it will be returning when the article is unlocked.Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes and if you return it when there is still unverified, non-neutral information in the article, I'll revert it and get it locked again as fast as I did the first time. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Between Trappedinburnley and User talk:Volunteer Marek ("other drive-by accounts"? my account is a year old) being extremely rude and insulting throughout with name-calling and insinuations, I think that they're no longer editing in a manner of WP:GF and I give up trying to respond in kind; Rather, they seem to have an agenda (especially Marek, who if you look at his contributions, edits a lot of articles on Russia to reflect a certain POV) to the point where they're getting angry and belligerent.

The reason why the article was locked in the first place is because we were told to discuss the changes to the page, not to constantly reference old precedent in an effort to push our POV.

Finally, contrary to TrappedInBurnley saying that "there is no debate" about the inclusion of such content on the article's lede--that's why the page was locked, so we can freshly debate this. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and speaking about your "18 sources", most of them are bunk. A tumblr page purported to be by undergrad students not updated in 8 months, Accuracy in Media (who's own wiki page says they have a "Conservative" editorial stance), etc. are not unbiased sources. They're meant to push a certain policy, idea, etc. and aren't independent studies about the nature of RT.

BBC? I don't remember BBC ever declaring RT Propaganda, just reporting that Ofcom warned them of violating neutrality--vastly different.

I'm sure all the rest of your sources fail under similar scrutiny. It's impossible to find a source from an academic, neutral, non-biased study or institution, because RT isn't a propaganda channel anymore than BBC World or Voice of America are. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

AGF isn't a suicide pact. This article has had a constant stream of throw-away-single-purpose accounts coming here to mess with it. You may not be one (and I never said you were) but the article did get locked because of actions by such an account (which is actually why it should've been semi-protected not full protected). And when you dismiss obviously reliable sources (even if you don't like Columbia Journalism Review and AiM, there's still The Guardian, Time, BBC, etc. etc. etc.) you are pretty much using up the reserves of good faith that editors can muster. So NO. "rest of your sources" do not "Fail". You just made that up. To push POV, to derail the discussion on talk page, to be generally disruptive. Your own opinions about BBC World are noted, but are irrelevant. If you think that BBC is "as much propaganda as RT" then in addition to a serious reality check, you need to bring that up at WP:RSN. Except that has already been done and it was laughed out of the noticeboard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And this isn't a tumblr page, so will you please stop making stuff up? Neither is this, or this or this or the dozen other sources that were in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

And of course it's ridiculously trivial to find additional sources which say the same thing. Just a two minute search [7], [8], [9], [10] etc etc. You literally cannot go on the internet and look for info on RT without stumbling on sources which call it propaganda. You may not like what reliable sources say about RT, but you cannot ignore it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Amid all the ad-homs about "throwaway accounts", comments such as "are you fucking kidding?" and your citing yet more op-eds and media commentary, you seem to have missed the basic point I made about objectivity, context and balance when it comes to sourcing, while simply asserting the objectivity of your preferred sources and viewpoint. And I didn't say mainstream media sources per se are marginal – especially for news reporting – but was suggesting that the named writers involved often were, as well as not being disinterested. I was indeed suggesting though that a student-project tumblr page, as cited with great fanfare in the discussion above, is absolutely a marginal and non-objective source. Never mind, no one comes to pages like this for measured, rational or open-minded discussion. N-HH talk/edits 11:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Really all you're doing is making excuses and some back-pedaling. You called obviously reliable sources such as New York Times, the Guardian, etc. "marginal". When it was pointed out to you what these sources actually were (I'm guessing you didn't actually bother looking at them in the first place) you began to now claiming that you didn't mean that those institutions were marginal only that... the people who wrte for these newspapers are "marginal". Ohhhhh-kkkkkkay. And what does "disinterested" have to do with anything? And what proof or argument do you have that any of these writers are not "disinterested"? Are qualifications about "disinterested" in WP:RS policy? No? Then why bring it up except as a rhetorical excuse?

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, the tumblr page is NOT the source being used to source the information in the article. I actually don't know where that came from, I think somebody mentioned it on the talk page or something and now ya'll are busy pretending that the article is sourced to tumblr stuff. It's not. Please cut it out. Those kind of tricks are fairly transparent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

All I hear is no source is good enough to say something you disagree with. Solnsta90 wanted more academic sources, so I brought them. The tumblr page: A long term study created by graduates as part of course at the probably the top journalism school on Earth? Obviously "marginal and non-objective". An in-depth analysis of RTs YouTube activity by Prof Robert Orttung and assistants at George Washington University? Published through a "US foreign policy think tank", so no. Obviously we can't use ex-staff because they're involved. No experts working in the media because they're rivals. No-one working for a (non-Russian) government for the same reason. Nothing from anywhere with links to someone Russia has declared a criminal, or a country they've fallen-out with. I don't think we've done it yet but I presume if I tried to cite a book not freely available on the web, that would be a problem too? RT op-eds on the other hand? Well I'm sure they're fine?

The sources we have are the sources we have! If you don't like one then you're going to have to bring others to contradict it. If people wish to add content I don't agree with, based on sources of similar quality to what we're already using in the article and not twist it into something it is not, I will tolerate it. If something significant enough turns up to justify altering the lead I'll accept it. All I expect is competent Wikipedia editing. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing (to say the least) that the same Volunteer Marek who, in the Human rights in Poland article's talk page describes the Norwegian human rights organisation Human Rights House as "WP:SPS and not representative", does not take exception to any of the sources cited here. Göndul (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, gee, what is the difference? That source is a self published source. These sources are not self published sources. There you have only one cherry picked source. Here we have, now, more than twenty sources, which represent a very wide variety of institutions. It's not that hard is it?

Now, you want to tell us which account is your master account sock puppet? You had like ten edits when you showed up here, you're obviously not new to Wikipedia (pinging users, formatting refs, you know how to use automated editing tools, and you know Wikipedia lingo and nomenklature), and you immediately jump into an argument on this particular page. In other words, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to take anything you say seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Tumblr Page was SUPPOSEDLY (as there is no verification) created by undergrads at Columbia School of Journalism. Why is it so hard to find an abstract from a SCIENTIFIC study calling RT propaganda? Solntsa90 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making shit up about the tumblr source. There's more than fifteen sources provided in the article. I don't even know if that tumblr page is even used in the article or was it just briefly mentioned here on talk. Additional multitude of academic and other sources have been provided here. Drop it. You're being deceitful. You're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games which is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I have numerous reliable sources. I see that lacking any valid argument, you resort to wild accusations and ad hominem attacks. I will tell you the same as I told Ymblanter above: I don't know Sointsa90 at all, but my edit happened to be removed along with his. Again, I find it ironic that no source is good enough for you in Human rights in Poland but here, so long as they support your POV, you find them all impeccable. Göndul (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's see these "numerous reliable sources". So far I have seen zero reliable sources and last time I checked zero is less than "numerous". And it's not true that "no source is good enough" on ... a completely different article, it's just that ONE source there is not good enough. And as far as what you call "ad hominen", well if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it's a WP:DUCK. I find it notable that you haven't even bothered to deny that you're not a sock puppet (I guess it's sort of obvious anyway).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are numerous an concordant highly reliable sources, but let's discuss that in the proper talk page. As for your accusation, it is a very wellknown tactics in politics: you launch a wild accusation at a politician (let' say you accuse him having an account in Switzerland) then, every time he wants to intervene in the debate, you ask him to deny the accusation. Result: he cannot speak about anything else. As for my learning too quickly to use Wikipedia, it might have taken you years but I don't see any difficulty. We do not all have the same learning curve. Göndul (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is RT unlike Voice of America, BBC World Service, France24, DW, etc. and why should it have such heavy criticism in the lede?

Why? I've asked at least a dozen times why, and haven't got an answer, so why not a separate sub-section? BBC World Service is probably the least propagandic of them all, but Voice of America was such propaganda, that they weren't even allowed to broadcast it to American citizens until recently.

So why the exception for RT, unless a group of editors made a personal decision that they didn't like RT and therefore must make these edits? Solntsa90 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've already answered that (and no you didn't ask that "at least a dozen times"), then answered it again, then pointed you to the place where it has been answered. If you can't be bothered to read the talk page or if you're playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, that's not my problem.

And this has nothing to do with "personal decision" or "personal dislike". It's simply reflecting what reliable sources say about RT. Again, if you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT what reliable sources say, that's not our problem. We've gone over this over and over and over again, here and at various noticeboards and the version which you started messing with (with help from single-purpose-newly-created-throw-away accounts) was the consensus version. If you want to implement changes then you need to persuade others and change that consensus. To do that you need better arguments than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already answered also [11]. As I've said previously to others, arguing that other articles don't do something so this one shouldn't is flawed. I'd refer you to Criticism and controversies section specifically my comment [12].Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Solntsa90. "Why not a separate section"? But we already have such section! Should this section be briefly summarized in intro? Yes, it should because this section is very big and significant. That has been explained to you already a number of times. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A Criticism section which many people might think rather overblown, as it happens, and based mostly on comment pieces in other media decrying the station as propaganda rather than objective, disinterested analysis. You think you couldn't fill the BBC page with such content, sourced to "reliable sources" such as the Spectator, Telegraph etc? You wouldn't get away with that exactly of course, even though, as it happens, the BBC has a whole page dedicated to criticism of it, which is just as dumb and cack-handed as the approach being taken here, speciously being presented as "based on reliable sources". N-HH talk/edits 11:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please check the policy. All these sources are absolutely reliable, meaning there are no doubts that publication by person X in Telegraph was indeed a publication by this person. Should something published by person X be included and given certain weight? Yes, if this person is a well known expert on the subject. And it does not matter that much where she or he had published. Once again, authors are people, not the outlets or journals. My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree and co-sign what N-HH says. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a SCIENTIFIC study done by a truly independent media group (like Ofcom, for example) that has studied whether or not RT is propaganda? I think at the moment, that is the only such source that would be valid for such an extravagant, bolsterious, far-out WP:WORLDVIEW violation of a claim. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You have previously edited the article to say "The United Kingdom's government media regulator Ofcom" [13] implying they are not independent. As it says Ofcom are a regulator i.e. they police the UK's (fairly light) broadcast regulations. They do not decide if a broadcaster is propaganda. I think we both know that no matter what anyone brings it won't be satisfactory to you. But guess what? That doesn't matter, we got by before you got involved and I'm sure we'll be just fine after.Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Demanding "SCIENTIFIC study" (sic) is ridiculous - it's not what policy requires and it's not even clear what that would be in this context. All we need is reliable sources which we have a plethora of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And really, it's not that hard to find academic studies which say the same thing as The Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, and all the other sources we already have. For example: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you just throw sources at people hoping nobody will read them? I literally read the entirety of your last source, "THE LEGITIMIZATION OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE THROUGH CONSTRUCTED EXTERNAL THREATS: RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA DURING THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS "and it doesn't mention the channel RT even a single time. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. "Thus, during the television program “Genocide in Eastern Ukraine”, screened on the 13th of July 2014, Russia’s propaganda network RT accused Ukraine of carrying out beheadings, rape, ethnic cleansing, systematic genocide, of using weapons of mass destruction, and of engineering international conspiracies – to name just a few atrocities". So much for that. It seems not that I "throw sources at people hoping nobody will read them" but rather you have a problem with actually reading the sources provided. What you're doing here is PROVING to everyone that you do indeed have a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Neither does your source [18]. "Mass-Mediated Ukrainian Conflict". It doesn't mention RT or Russian external broadcasters to the rest of the world at all. Have you even read your own sources? Solntsa90 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Pages 55 and 56. Read the goddamn source before you start throwing out false accusations. I'm getting sick and tired of this. It's obvious that no matter what and how many sources you're presented with, you will persist in your disruption.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Source [16] is an opinion analysis and cites no studies about whether or not RT is a propaganda at all. source [17] is a military policy analysis. As for a book titled 'Putin's Propaganda Machine', I'm not certain you are aware of what constitutes a trustworthy source. Have you familiarised yourself WP:CITE (and I truly ask you that, not trying to be insulting)? Solntsa90 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

All these sources are reliable, your opinions not withstanding. The book is from an independent think tank. The other sources are academic. Look, I am not playing this idiotic game where I waste my time finding reliable sources over and over again just so you can dismiss them out of hand or pretend dishonestly that they don't exist. A shitload of reliable sources - including academic ones - have been provided. Yes yes yes, we know, it's all an evil western conspiracy. Too bad. You either actually read the sources provided and refer to them per policy and provide some serious sources yourself or this conversation is settled. You don't get to waste other people's time just because you WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As for me changing it to state that Ofcom is a media regulator--what of it? That's what they do, they regulate the media in the United Kingdom.. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

While it is technically possible that I could have made myself clearer, as you wrote it I'd have thought you could figure it out, but no. The key change you made was to add the word "government" to the existing sentence. In case you don't remember it was part of your 'the government are trying to shut us down' series of edits that started the edit-war. But at the same time I think this conversation has run its course, you've brought next-to-nothing useful just ridiculous claims and opinions. Unless you can bring some new source to discuss I think I'm done talking to you. Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A single reference to RT as a propaganda network in an off-the-cuff remark doesn't equal a valid introspection by a legitimate, 3rd party body exploring whether or not RT is an independent network, or a propaganda thinktank.

You have a great propensity for attempting to pass off opinion articles as unbiased, I'll give you that. And the Ukraine source you posted STILL doesn't mention RT.

Where are the studies? Where are the university studies? Where is the scientific analysis? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So let's see - first you claim the source doesn't mention RT at all. You get called on that and I quote exactly where it is mentioned. So you back track and now you're trying to pretend that "oh, it's just an off the cuff remark". Nonsense, the whole damn source is about Kremlin propaganda in Russian state run media so, no, it's not a "off-the-cuff remark". Do you really think other people are big enough morons to fall for these kinds of tactics?

Like I said. It's clear that no matter what source is shown to you, you will come up with SOME bullshit excuse for why it shouldn't be used. And like I said, I'm sick of it. I've presented more than twenty sources. You have done nothing except make stuff up. This isn't how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The source ""THE LEGITIMIZATION OF AUTHORITARIAN RULE THROUGH CONSTRUCTED EXTERNAL THREATS: RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA DURING THE UKRAINIAN CRISIS " makes no mention of RT, at least in the abstract; and the article is otherwise behind a paywall, so I don't know what you're trying to do.

Where are the studies, the unbiased university studies that show RT is propaganda? It's not like there aren't places that just study media all day, creating scientific data out of what they gather from the ether of the media.

Why do you keep coming up with opinion articles? Why can't you find something that has more substance than a passing blurb referring to something ONCE in an entire article as a 'propaganda station', then you give an opinion analysis as scientific data! That is quite slanderous, and subject even to libel.

Finally, I think you're way too emotionally invested in this article; Given your history of editing Russia-related articles, I think that is troublesome that you're so invested in editing this particular article. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I find Volunteer Marek's edits to be unemotional and soberly realistic. Attempts to whitewash RT won't wash here.--Galassi (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

These are "university studies". You're just calling them "opinion" based on your own personal WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And yes, they do talk about RT (as pointed out explicitly above) or Russia Today which you'd see if you actually bothered to read the articles (not just the abstract).

And btw, my edits, commments and editing history are fine, unless you're accusing me of something. "Given your history of editing Russia-related articles" definitely sounds like you are, so at least have the guts to be explicit about it, rather than engaging in this weak ass insinuation.

Oh, and you're now making legal threats. I think it's pretty much time you got a block here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• We discussed this before, but I think it's still missing on the page: according to many sources (like here or here), RT TV was actively "helping Russian military and intelligence operations" meaning its involvement in active measures and hybrid warfare. This is one of the differences from Western news outlets which are usually criticized only for having some political biases, such as "liberal" or "conservative". My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

RFERL is the American East-Europe equivalent to RT, and I've been cited for using Politico as a source before.

Once again, where are the scientific metrics and academic studies? Solntsa90 (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep citing [WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT], Marek, but in reality, you haven't given a single source that is a university study or scientific source, despite saying so above--Upon closer scrutiny, all of your "studies" turn out to be opinion analysis and author polemic from places like Politico and The Daily Beast. And of course, I expected Galassi and My Very Best Wishes to agree with you: Their edits are the ones I reverted in the first place. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about this page? Which my edits did you revert, exactly? My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Finally, what is a "weak-ass insinuation" to you? I fail to see any "weak-ass insinuations" coming from me on my part. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

" I think you're way too emotionally invested in this article; Given your history of editing Russia-related articles" <- that right there. I am neither emotionally invested nor is there anything wrong with my editing history, which is far far far more extensive and longer than yours. I've been here for ten years and have tens of thousands of edits. I've written Featured articles, Good articles and DYKs. What makes your insults "weak ass" is that you're not even willing to come out and make the accusations explicitly but rather resort to vague, unspecificed, weaselly suggestions that I'm doing something wrong. Which in addition to being a personal attack is a pretty cowardly way to personally attack someone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't say anything about the topic, since I am not familiar with it. I just want to say I am shocked by the hostile rhetoric (I think it's pretty much time you got a block here) and the clear attempts to WP: RAILROAD an editor who makes very reasonable requests for university studies or scientific sources. Examen Intelligentia (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Reasonable request should align with the policies. The request you mention contradicts the policies and the guidelines, in particular, WP:RS, and is thus unreasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but their "reasonable requests" have been accommodated. There is *already* more than a dozen reliable sources in the article. I've provided close to a dozen more here on talk page, including academic studies. But that editor keeps moving the goal posts or coming up with ridiculous reasons to dismiss sources. That is the quintessence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Oh, and this discussion has been had multiple times previously and we're not exactly covering new ground here. All that is happening is that that editor is wasting our time. And I don't know about you, but personally I don't like having my time wasted by someone who's not acting in good faith anyway. It's disruptive and it is sanctionable (and making legal threats in particular is subject to a block).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)