This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RT (TV network) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 28 days

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Russia: Politics and law / Mass media B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force. Journalism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Media B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Television: Stations B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as High-importance). International relations B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about RT (TV network). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about RT (TV network) at the Reference desk.

Template:Vital article

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.law360.com/corporate-crime-uk/articles/1434546/rt-loses-fight-over-fine-for-skripal-syria-coverage

I think that the propaganda attribute should be removed, this is not useful, misleading and moreover: every newspaper/tv channel has its editorial line, so this tag should be on every newspaper/tv channel page on Wikipedia then.. Everything (nations, newspapers etc..) has its ideology and its objectives, with which we can agree or disagree. Even if a source give fake news, we (with we I mean Wikipedia) can't tel that's fake news; we must say "this person said this" (with source link) "and this other person said it is fake news because.." (with source link). SO putting the propaganda tag is equivalent to taking a position, in my opinion. For controversial manners there's a special section (in this case called "Propaganda claims and related issues"). Let's stay neutral. Remember that a 6 could be a 9 if you look at it upside down. User:FinixFighter 3 March 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reliable sources calling RT a propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Please, can you share these reliable sources? User:FinixFighter 11:52 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of them are cited in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list, taken from Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § RfC: Propaganda:

— Newslinger talk 03:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger and @Ymblanter these "reliable sources" are themselves unreliable and unsourced (editorial commentary and blog posts, not in any way demonstrating via a neutral fact-based or sourced viewpoint how the Russian government controls the editorial content of RT - which would be the requirement to meet the definition of "propaganda"). "State media" is one thing (as it is tax-funded) but "propaganda" is another thing entirely and the tag introduces bias into this article and should be removed. Asaturn (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. The policies say otherwise.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are foreign networks like RT listed as "state controlled" (implying a bias) while American networks which receive government funding are not?

For example, Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes tax dollars to networks like PBS and NPR, yet they aren't listed as "state controlled."

This seems like an odd way to explain the funding of RT, which comes from taxpayers via their version of congress in an almost identical fashion.

Asaturn (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Asaturn: 1) Because "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". See WP:RS.
2) This article is about RT (TV network), not PBS, NPR or something else. So we expect to discuss RT (TV network) only. --Renat 04:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the question was why is this public network "scary Russia-controlled propaganda!!!" but PBS, which is both public-funded and corporate-spoonsored, "kind, gentle public broadcasting?" Which "reliable, published sources" explain the distinction here? the phrasing introduces bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias Asaturn (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if you want a source, the article for "Public Broadcasting" defines the term as funded at least partially by the state, but not editorially controlled by the state. PBS, as an example, is funded in part by CPB but also by private corporations, which exert editorial control. The article for RT (this article) clearly cites funding as coming in part from "the Russian government" (the Duma - Russia's version of the US House of Reps - allocates tax dollars for RT). Nowhere has anyone linked to a reliable source (non-commentary/opinion) proving that the Russian government itself decides RT's content. An article in the Chicago Tribune explains that RT's Editor in Chief, Margarita Simonyan, has never even spoken to Putin (https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-russia-television-foreign-agent-order-20180122-story.html). This entire article, including the infobox, have been spammed by bad-faith actors with a gish-gallop of "citations" that amount to personal opinions and no actual relevancy to explain the tags of "state-controlled media" or "propaganda." Asaturn (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State-controlled mass media is not allowed here. It is the Russian equivalent of the BBC world service or Radio Free Europe or .... Either none or all are propaganda if you want the article to appear neutral. 31.125.39.26 (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say, but I guess you should have a look at the rather thorough discussion #Lead: "state-controlled" above. If you can provide any new reliable sources that contribute relevant information, please go ahead. Otherwise, I'm afraid a vague and unsourced comment like yours will mostly be ignored. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am saying the British Government disagrees with the classification of RT as "propaganda". Just thought someone would like to know. I can't cite the law (I have a job to do) but perhaps someone would like to look into it. The evidence I have is that a while ago a Chinese "public broadcasting" company had its licence revoked because it was state-controlled. Thus, one can infer that RT is not "state controlled" by the definition the British government uses as it operates here. This is not opinion. But as many seem to be trying to tell someone, it looks as if the process for filtering for opinion on wikipedia is broken. 31.125.39.26 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the bots did not work and your IP address and the time of your post was added by this editor. Please use four tildes (~) to sign your posts in future. On the points you raise, Wikipedia operates by citing reliable sources. Without them what you suggest will only be described by editors as original research which is liable for deletion. Please read these and other policy documents, as has already been suggested on your talk page, for your edits to be viewed as constructive. Philip Cross (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the British Government is not a reliable source?

2A00:23C5:5997:E01:6B6F:A832:E254:E1B5 (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No he is saying that you are not reliable. If you want anyone to do anything about this you need to provide a suitable source that agrees with your assertions at the very least. FWIW When RT ran into almost the exact same problem a few years ago it quickly launched RT UK, in an effort to keep content Ofcom would have a problem with off its UK broadcast. This seems to have been sufficient to satisfy the regulator that the UK entity that holds the license is in control of the content of its broadcasts. In this case the Chinese government seems to have been quite happy for CGTN (TV channel) to loose its UK license, judging by the timing of the "retaliatory" ban the BBC got in China. I dispute your explanation of why CGTN had its license revoked, or that anything about RT can be inferred, so unless you bring a source there is no need to continue this.TiB chat 17:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what. I say he is unreliable. "30 others say X" does not provide truth, particularly if the 30 all have to get their TV licences in the anglosphere. I am not going to do anything about it - other things to do; just pointing out the CGTN issue. Thanks for clarifying it - Ofcom apparently doesn't mind RT being an instrument of Russian propaganda. Interesting. I shall talk to my representative in parliament and complain. Not. The worry is that Wikipedia's showing its underwear here. Very embarrassing IMHO, but as you say there is no need to continue this.

2A00:23C5:5997:E01:6B6F:A832:E254:E1B5 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

…Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world"…[1]

In the lead above I've clarified (yellow) that Margarita Simonyan's opinion is expressed in the context of the war so it doesn't appear that it was taken out of the context. To be fair it would be best to make an additional topic on the RT's role in the Russo-Georgian War coverage. My best.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander Davronov since her interview is a primary source you might want to see WP:PRIMARY.

1. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

And that is exactly what you did. Editors really should stop doing that. Renat 10:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RenatUK: And that is exactly what you did I suggest you to take down this guesswork before you end up on WP:ANI board. The source you referred also refers to the medium article that say just what I've highlighed: [[2]]. The said words were said in 2012 in the context of the 2008 war. Read source before you inser them. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RenatUK: 09:46, December 25, 2021 - «‎top: per source»

I'm going to partially revert this edit (to return Kommersant source, highlighted words, and add fresh source). You don't omit the words that your own source says. The article shouldn't present words that are taken out of the context and jaggled.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander Davronov you are not going to revert anything. Because your introduced your own original research (your interpetation of a primary source). WP:ONUS is on you. And I used the information from secondary sources. And just to be clear: you are not the only person here who can read and understand the Russian language. I read her interview. Renat 10:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]