2607:fea8:b060:248:c00e:cf98:237c:84a4 (talk) →Request for Comment: Reply Tag: Reply |
The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
*I do not think it necessarily goes against [[WP:NPOV]] regardless of whether it has attribution or not, but as per the above comments I think it should be removed. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
*I do not think it necessarily goes against [[WP:NPOV]] regardless of whether it has attribution or not, but as per the above comments I think it should be removed. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Remove''', because Russian state controlled already implies propagandist. It is egging on the obvious.--[[User:Seggallion|Seggallion]] ([[User talk:Seggallion|talk]]) 08:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Remove''', because Russian state controlled already implies propagandist. It is egging on the obvious.--[[User:Seggallion|Seggallion]] ([[User talk:Seggallion|talk]]) 08:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Remove''' The claim against RT was that it served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S., such as former talk show hosts on mainstream U.S. media. So for example covering racism in America serves a propaganda purpose because it makes the U.S. look bad. But that does not mean the presenters' intentions are to do that or that their claims are false or exaggerated. [[Larry King]] for example was perhaps the most respected anchor in America and joined RT because it allowed him editorial independence. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:49, 8 April 2022
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article
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)
- There are multiple reliable sources calling RT a propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: Please, can you share these reliable sources? User:FinixFighter 11:52 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is a list, taken from Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § RfC: Propaganda:
— Newslinger talk 03:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @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)
- Thank you for your opinion. The policies say otherwise.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- No, these are indeed reliable sources. The list consists of content from high-quality academic sources, sources that meet the WP:NEWSORG guideline, and sources that are indexed in the list of perennial sources as generally reliable, which is determined by community consensus. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
It is so hard to find a neutral POV and wade through all the BS on Wikipedia. BBC or The Washington Post seem to slant the news in favour of their respective countries yet aren't classified as propaganda. Then you have an editor with a large Ukrainian flag on their talk page which highlights their own bias in trying to paint RT as propaganda. As an average reader of Wikipedia it would be good if someone could come along and mediate all of this bias so we can have a balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.189.217 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article itself shouldn't categorize this network as propaganda or not, but instead, should only report what others categorize it as. A lot of reliable sources also state that Fox News is Trump propaganda, yet you do not see it categorized as propaganda in its article. Eden5 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- See the 30 sources from 2019 and earlier, listed above, and the high-quality academic sources in Special:Permalink/1077975588#cite_note-propaganda-2. If you have the reliable sourcing to establish that Fox News is a propaganda outlet, feel free to present that information on Talk:Fox News. Either way, what the Fox News article contains is not relevant to this article. — Newslinger talk 06:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article itself shouldn't categorize this network as propaganda or not, but instead, should only report what others categorize it as. A lot of reliable sources also state that Fox News is Trump propaganda, yet you do not see it categorized as propaganda in its article. Eden5 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet. There is no such consensus for the BBC or The Washington Post. Also, editors of all political orientations are allowed to edit Wikipedia, as long as they follow the policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you've established that "The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet." Did you use an objective method to review all the academic literature, such as a key word search in major periodical indexes? Or did you just do a Google or other search and cherry-pick the academic articles that supported your position? Are there any academic articles that conclude, as many of us do, that the term "propaganda" is too subjective for such a judgment? --Nbauman (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- At his point it is irrelevant. There is a community consensus that RT is a propaganda outlet. May be all of us are stupid idiots, RT is a highly reliable academic source, and we all fail to recognize this fact. But to challenge this consensus, you would have to open a new RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you've established that "The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet." Did you use an objective method to review all the academic literature, such as a key word search in major periodical indexes? Or did you just do a Google or other search and cherry-pick the academic articles that supported your position? Are there any academic articles that conclude, as many of us do, that the term "propaganda" is too subjective for such a judgment? --Nbauman (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't use rhetorical or hyperbolic language. It makes it rational discussion difficult. (1) I don't see any RfC with the conclusion that there is a consensus that RT is propaganda. All I could find was a contentious discussion with editors arguing on both sides and no resolution. Could you please link to the exact statement in the RfC that there is a consensus? (2) You are claiming that there is a consensus in high-quality academic sources that RT is propaganda. What is your evidence for that claim? --Nbauman (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories
You state that it propagates conspiracy theories, and rightly so, but the example you have given is not an example of a conspiracy theory. You state the fact that vaccination and wearing masks do prevent COVID-19, but you don't give an actual concrete example of a conspiracy theory it is propagating. TheeFactChecker (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. In Special:Diff/1076759748, I moved the recently added sentences to a new "COVID-19 misinformation" subsection under the "Content" section, and I rewrote the sentences to describe RT's broadcasting of "COVID-19 misinformation" instead of "conspiracy theories". — Newslinger talk 19:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've re-added the "conspiracy theories" descriptor in Special:Diff/1076763960, since the cited Stanford Internet Observatory article does give clear examples of RT broadcasting COVID-19 conspiracy theories, including "Coronavirus crisis will be used as a way for the malicious narcissists in Washington, Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms to come together to assure that all their losses are socialized and their profits privatized - Michael McCaffrey". — Newslinger talk 20:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
rewrite
Post invasion of Ukraine RT may seem history but in case it is not, or as an object lesson in propaganda I hope to clean it up re the copy-edit tag
Specifically sorting out text so that evaluations of RT go in to the right sections (Programming, guests, content) that are currently scattered around. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Does the first sentence in the lede, "a Russian state-controlled propagandist international television network" go against WP:NPOV? Should the article take sides and categorize it as "propaganda" or only report what news outlets categorize it as? Eden5 (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed propagandist from the first sentence in Special:Diff/1077979219, returning to the longstanding article version. That word was added very recently (Special:Diff/1077838994), and I had missed it in your edit (Special:Diff/1077975365).However, the propaganda descriptor is exceptionally well-sourced and the article should be amended to explicitly describe RT as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice. Since the 2019 RfC at Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § RfC: Propaganda, many additional academic sources have been added that explicitly describe RT as a source of propaganda. There are currently 6 peer-reviewed academic sources cited for the propaganda descriptor (citations). Different facets of RT's propaganda have also been examined in detail, with 8 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of disinformation (citations), and 4 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of conspiracy theories (citations) – some of which are also in the preceding groups. Adding reliable non-opinion news sources raises the number of citations to over 30, with an incomplete list from 2019 at #About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article.According to WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources uniformly agree that RT is a propaganda outlet, and this article should reflect that in Wikipedia's voice. — Newslinger talk 06:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think "propaganda" is too subjective and too dependent on the editor's political views.
- Many WP:RSs call Fox News "propaganda". Fox News controversies Should we "explicitly describe Fox News as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice"?
- If for example the President of the U.S. referred to RT as "propaganda," we would have lots of Wikipedia-defined WP:RSs referring to RT as propaganda. You could replace "RT" with anything. --Nbauman (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fox News has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- And yet people drag it in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fox News has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sourcing requirements for "have published propaganda" and starting off the article with "RT ... is a propagandist television network" should absolutely be different, should they not? I see your comment above made no distinction. For instance, it would be silly to argue that Voice of America has never published propaganda, but slapping the "propagandist" label on the first sentence of the lead of their article would be ridiculous. (Though, yes, there is a difference in degree here so RT's article should discuss their propaganda more prominently than VoA's) Endwise (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Voice of America has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat 00:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're saying. Examples and analogies can go along way in discussions like these and can be quite explicative. If you've argued (not saying Newslinger necessarily did) that sourcing which allows us to write that an organisation has published propaganda is sourcing which allows us to describe them as a "propagandist" organisation in the lead, then I could either attack that idea directly, or offer up a counter example which (if you agree with it) would mean the argument doesn't hold.
- For an abstract example (see!), if we were discussing apples, and you said apples are yellow because we know that fruits are yellow, I could either try and argue directly that apples are actually green/red, or I could instead offer up a counter example which attacks your reasoning -- e.g., "but fruits aren't always yellow, for example, cherries are red!" If you were to then respond with "cherries have nothing to do with this discussion, we are discussing apples", I would assume you are either being dishonest or don't understand what we're talking about. Endwise (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, I can write, I don't know: "Wikipedia is biased" on Google, and these "credible sources" will say that Wikipedia, is in fact biased. But we aren't going to get up and arms about it because they say that! This is something else, this is because people have western bias and think that RT is against their political view, its propaganda and they are wrong. Also, the Russian Wikipedia doesn't say that its propaganda. it just says that: "A number of politicians, media and media specialists characterize RT as a propaganda channel..." I think the reason for this is because the people writing this, are most likely Russian, and aren't western sympathizers so they aren't directly saying its propaganda. This is further proof that it only says that RT is propaganda on the site because of biasism. 2607:FEA8:B060:248:C00E:CF98:237C:84A4 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not necessarily ridiculous. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Voice of America has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat 00:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I support removing the word "propagandist" from the first sentence. Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why. We wouldn't put "liar", "stupid," or "ugly" into the first sentence of an article, and for exactly the same reasons we shouldn't put "propagandist" there. I don't oppose calling it "propaganda" in Wikipedia's voice; [[:Category:Russian propaganda organizations]] does that. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support question 1 and 2 The lead in an article generally shouldn't have loaded language, especially such as "propagandist," without attribution. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I also support removing the word "propagandist" from the first sentence. It's inclusion, though a reflection of truth, is also redundant in its use. It can already be safely assumed that by virtue of being a "state-controlled" media outlet that some amount of propaganda is being peddled.Writethisway (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose "propagandist" label: state-controlled news orgs often pump out propaganda, and RT is no exception, but slapping the label "propagandist" on them is silly and not something reliable sources tend to do either. It is far, far better to explain why people consider them to put out propaganda, as is done in the lead now in the third paragraph, rather than just slap a snarky and denigrating label on them. Endwise (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support removing "propagandist" from the first sentence.
Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why.
, per HouseOfChange. This is better achieved by giving a fuller account later in the lead, rather than shoving the crude 'label' into sentence one. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC) - Remove We need to avoid misleading readers by using descriptions that can be misinterpreted. RT is seen by some as part of a propaganda effort because it includes commentators that formerly worked for U.S. media and cover topics including foreign affairs and social issues that may make the U.S. appear in a bad light. For example, by covering the Black Lives Matter protests, they drew attention to Americans that the country had racial issues, which would undermine their confidence in their government. Without this explanation, readers might think that RT invented the protests. This should of course be explained in the text. TFD (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Remove since most media have some kind of agenda. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Remove word and label per above and WP:VOICE "Present opinions in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Eden5 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think it necessarily goes against WP:NPOV regardless of whether it has attribution or not, but as per the above comments I think it should be removed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Remove, because Russian state controlled already implies propagandist. It is egging on the obvious.--Seggallion (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Remove The claim against RT was that it served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S., such as former talk show hosts on mainstream U.S. media. So for example covering racism in America serves a propaganda purpose because it makes the U.S. look bad. But that does not mean the presenters' intentions are to do that or that their claims are false or exaggerated. Larry King for example was perhaps the most respected anchor in America and joined RT because it allowed him editorial independence. TFD (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)