Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:39, 28 February 2017

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

2012/2013 comments

Ben Swann provided a unique investigation into a journalistic hoax that has been the source of a political controversy in two Presidential campaigns.

The section was unsourced and the controversy is currently covered at James Kirchick. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

.... in which case, per WP:1E, this should be a redirect, not speedy deleted. Ritchie333 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion due to non-notability of Swann

I nominated this piece for deletion due to concerns regarding notability. Below is the nomination statement.

I nominate Ben Swann for deletion because he lacks WP:Notability. Swann is a journalist, or a "creative professional," and therefore the six relevant notability criteria can be found at WP:Creative. He doesn't meet any of these. In failing to meet criterion 1), he is not "widely cited by" notable peer journalists; in failing to meet 2), is not used as "an expert source by major news sources or publications" (and in fact, doesn't appear to be cited by virtually any reliable (much less notable) news sources apart from the local Fox Affiliate where he works); failing to meet 3), has not "originated a new concept/theory/technique"; failing to meet 4/5), has not been featured in a well known book/film/monument/exhibition; and has not won significant critical attention from notable sources for his work. (Criterion 6 does not apply to him, as it specifically relates to academics) Also, everything on his Misplaced Pages page appears to be primary source/OR. He seems to be a reliable and skillful local journalist (hence his winning some state of Texas journalist awards), but he's nowhere near notable. Indeed, the vast majority of his Internet/Facebook mentions appear to be libertarians who appreciate the fact that he used his platform as a newscaster to attempt to defend Ron Paul from allegations related to Ron Paul newsletters. (Interestingly, his Misplaced Pages page was January 13th, one and a half weeks after his January 4th story defending Ron Paul.) Deletion is, in my judgment, an easy call. Steeletrap (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ben Swann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130929045544/http://www.kfoxtv.com:80/news/news/ben-swann/nJ5LY/ to http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/ben-swann/nJ5LY/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130608064532/http://cincinnati.com:80/blogs/tv/2013/05/30/ben-swann-on-his-new-venture-leaving-fox-19-and-his-favorite-stories to http://cincinnati.com/blogs/tv/2013/05/30/ben-swann-on-his-new-venture-leaving-fox-19-and-his-favorite-stories/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Pizzagate

Because I'm constrained by 3RR, here is my proposed text that should resolve the complaints presented by the editors who removed another version of the text:

• While working for a CBS affiliate, Ben Swann promoted "Pizzagate", a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle alleging that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring.

Supported by the following sources:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/18/cbs-affiliates-big-question-why-no-law-enforcement-investigation-of-pizzagate-allegations/?utm_term=.2760a5a5df81
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cbs-pizzagate-conspiracy_us_58803dfde4b00d44838d2576
• http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-hasnt-any-investigation-taken-place-cbs-host-defends-pizzagate-conspiracy/
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/18/meet-ben-swann-the-republican-pizzagate-truther-hosting-atlanta-s-cbs-nightly-news.html

That "Pizzagate" is "a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle alleging that John Podesta's emails, which were leaked by WikiLeaks, contain coded messages referring to human trafficking and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring" comes straight from the Pizzagate Misplaced Pages page. If we are going to mention Pizzagate, we should use the language agreed upon by consensus on the main article, no? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe all of the issues being complained about have already been hashed out at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory. For instance, there was an RFC there that was closed with a consensus that Pizzagate should be labeled as a conspiracy theory. I see no basis for recreating the wheel and possibly creating confusing inconsistencies among related articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the arguments above, however I think the paragraph makes no effort to cover anything but the criticisms of his piece, whilst ignoring what his segment actually said. I will add the point he made since it is a fact missing from Wikipedias coverage: no investigation has been done. That was I think the main takeaway from his piece and should at least be mentioned here. petrarchan47คุก 19:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems fair. It does still need to be mentioned, in line with discussions at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory, that Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that has been widely debunked. The reactions cited by Snooganssnoogans also ought to receive some content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you added some content. It seems neutral. I think we still need to cover the reactions though. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Dispute

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL EDITORS: this article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies: neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability (V), and no original research (NOR).

We must get this article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Because this article does not contain any inline citations supporting the claims that RT America (incorrectly referred to within the article as "Russia Today"), let alone inline citations to a reliable, published source, all references to RT or RT America as "propaganda" within this article will be removed without further discussion. This is in addition to the fact that referring to RT and RT America as propaganda outlets is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's core policy of neutral point of view, and is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages's main articles on RT and RT America. If you believe that RT or RT America should be referred to as propaganda outlets, the proper venue for these discussions is the talk pages for RT or RT America's main articles on Misplaced Pages. Do not revert these changes. Doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing in accordance with the above-stated policy. END OF NOTICE (inserted by Jacobwsl (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC))

I have added an NPOV language tag to this article as well as an NPOV section tag to the section regarding Ben Swann's coverage of controversial issues. It seems that since the 18 January 2017 episode of Swann's Reality Check segment, which examined the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, this article has been edited with language that may not conform to Neutral Point of View guidelines. Language appearing in this article since 18 January 2017 may violate the following principles of NPOV: avoid stating opinions as facts, prefer nonjudgmental language, and present viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Examples include:

• "He has promoted conspiracy theories" (use of judgmental language/lack of impartial tone, not in reference to the use of the term "conspiracy theories" but the claim that he "promoted" them, as opposed to "reported on, "covered," or a similar nonjudgmental, impartial, and factual term)
• "Swann sought to minimize Ron Paul's newsletter scandal" (use of judgemental language/lack of impartial tone, specifically "sought to minimize")
• "Ben Swann dedicated a "Reality Check" segment to the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory ... The theory alleges that John Podesta's emails ... contain coded messages referring to human trafficking, and connecting a number of restaurants in the United States and members of the Democratic Party with a fabricated child-sex ring" (this subsection implies that Swann promoted unsubstantiated allegations: when he covered the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, Swann was careful to remind viewers that there is no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, only that many media dismissed the allegations without further investigation)
• "In an appearance in 2015 on Russian propaganda outlet Russia Today" (this is an egregious statement of opinion as fact, it reveals Western/Anglo-American bias, and it misnames the TV network on which Swann appeared as "Russia Today" when in fact it has been named "RT" since 2009: see RT (TV network))
• "Swann speculated on Russia Today" (see above)
• "Vaccine denial" subsection title (imprecise, not impartial, and judgmental: it implies that Swann denies the efficacy or existence of vaccines, he does not: he covers vaccine-related controversies and adverse effects with a focus on vaccine safety--the subsection should be titled "Coverage of vaccine controversies" or something similar in order to meet NPOV guidelines.)

Please discuss. Do not remove the NPOV language and POV section tags until these issues have been resolved. --Jacobwsl (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There may be bits in there that are non-neutral, but it sounds like most of concerns surround the terms "conspiracy theory" and "Russian propaganda outlet." I'm not aware of any uses of these terms that aren't verifiable, i.e. supported by reliable sources. We don't whitewash verifiable facts, e.g., that Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory, as has been hashed out extensively at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory, just because those facts are controversial or offensive to some. That said, I agree that the heading "Vaccine denial" is non-neutral and should be renamed to "Vaccine controversy" to be consistent with Vaccine controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

And I agree that the Ron Paul content improperly presented Wemple's opinion pieces as reliably sourced fact. This can't be fairly described as Swann's "controversial views" or "conspiracy theory." Is just a view that's been criticized by another journalist. I've removed the subsection. If the content can be re-written neutrally then it could be restored, as long as it's put in a separate section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and contribution, Dr. Fleischman. As I stated above, my concerns are not at all in regards to the use of the term "conspiracy theory," however I do have serious concerns about the potentially-libelous accusation that RT (TV network) is a "Russian propaganda outlet." Please see the Misplaced Pages article on RT. While referencing claims that RT publishes propaganda is fair game, it is unacceptable to label it as Russian propaganda outright. This is an egregious violation of the principles of NPOV, especially when one considers how often major U.S. media have been accused of publishing propaganda in both domestic and foreign major media. Not only is this characterization in clear violation of NPOV more broadly, it is also a specific and demonstrable example of Western/Anglo-American bias on Misplaced Pages and should be removed. --Jacobwsl (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The position that RT is a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin is extensively sourced, so our neutrality policy suggests that calling it otherwise would actually be non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The position that the New York Times and the Washington Post are propaganda outlets for the U.S. government, the national security establishment, or the West is also extensively sourced, both in credible domestic media and in foreign media. In fact, exactly as with RT, a former New York Times reporter has called the latter a propaganda outlet. There is a reason that RT, the New York Times, and the Washington Post are not called propaganda outlets on their respective Misplaced Pages pages, despite these allegations appearing in credible media. Please read our NPOV guidelines if there is confusion about this issue. Also see the Misplaced Pages article on RT. As with Pizzagate being called a "conspiracy theory" per the consensus on its main article, RT should be called a TV network and not a propaganda outlet, per the consensus on its main article. This is for both consistency across the encyclopedia and for reasons of neutrality. Snooganssnoogans is correct (below) in agreeing to refer to RT as "a publicly-funded Russian TV network," much like PBS and NPR are publicly-funded U.S. media outlets (although they are not specifically referred to as such in every article which references them, which is a point worth considering). --Jacobwsl (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of any reliable sources calling the Times or the Post propaganda outlets. But that's beside the point. A number of reliable sources say RT is a Russian propaganda outlet, and none do not. Therefore, per our policies on verifiability and neutrality, we can say RT is a Russian propaganda outlet. Your request that I "read our NPOV guidelines" is empty. I've read them many times and there's nothing in there supporting the view that controversial yet reliably sourced material must be removed. And then you go even further by saying that Snooganssnoogans said that it's "more accurate" to call RT a publicly-funded Russian TV network. That's falser than false. That's head-in-the-sand I-can't-hear-you false. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you are not aware of the reliable sources calling the New York Times and the Washington Post propaganda outlets is immaterial. But the comparison is not at all beside the point. It serves as a reminder that the encyclopedia strives to present as objective a view as possible, based on reliable sources (which, as it happens, are not exclusive to the U.S., U.K., or the West more broadly). This mission includes avoiding ethnic or national biases. The systemic Anglo-American bias on the encyclopedia is a problem we are actively confronting. In doing so, it is unacceptable to replace Anglo-American bias with some other ethnic or national bias (for example, by dismissing the PBS or the BBC as mere "state propaganda outlets"). Instead, we should strive to provide a neutral point of view. Your claim that no reliable sources do not say that RT is a Russian propaganda outlet is simply false. The reference to RT on this article should conform to and be consistent with the encyclopedia's main article on RT, which definitively does NOT say RT is a "Russian propaganda outlet." In any case, this article is not the place for such a debate: if you wish to make your case, you must do it on the main article on RT. On a different note, you are correct that I misquoted Snooganssnoogans, I have corrected my reference. As for "head-in-the-sand-I-can't-hear-you," it seems you are the one having trouble responding civilly and substantively to the issues I have raised, Dr. Fleischman. --Jacobwsl (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I could agree to calling RT "a network funded by the Russian government" if that's more palatable. There's plenty of reliable sources to support the notion that it's a propaganda network though. It would do the readers a disservice and be misleading if we were not describe RT for what it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. See my response to Dr. Fleischman above. --Jacobwsl (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't. That puts RT on a par with the BBC, which is highly misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No it does not. That is false equivalence. The phrasing only presents the inherently-neutral fact that RT is Russian, publicly-funded, and a media outlet, which is accurate and does not pass a value judgement. This is the standard that language used on Misplaced Pages must meet: to be nonjudgmental and factually accurate. We do not rate media outlets based on our subjective notions of what constitutes "propaganda." For something to be labeled propaganda, there must be a global (not an American, let alone an American "mainstream") consensus that it constitutes such. --Jacobwsl (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I can agree to renaming the Vaccine section: "Vaccine Controversy". The term "promoted" is accurate for how he addressed Pizzagate. Just "asking questions" or insisting that nobody has examined the conspiracy theory or that they are covering it up is a common tactic among conspiracy theorists. The Ron Paul content belongs. Wemple's views are attributed to him, so I don't see a problem. "Sought to minimize" seems like a fair description. Is there a more neutral term insisting that a scandal has been blown up or that it isn't as serious? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

When we say, "According to reporter X of newspaper Y," we imply that the attributed statement was reported as news and therefore was fact-checked. In this case it wasn't; it wasn't the WaPo newsroom talking, it was just Wemple himself. This can be made clear by using words like "opined" or "criticized." But, I still don't see how this can be lumped in with the other items in the list, in which Swann has promoted theories that are contrary to the reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why the section is also called 'controversial views'. But perhaps we can lump the newsletter bit into the career section or something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with that. I could also see it being moved into a new section called "Other criticism" or "Dispute with Eric Wemple" or something like that. It does seem like Wemple has really gone after the guy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, the heading "Controversial views" refers to the controversial views of Swann, not the controversial views of other journalists editorializing or criticizing him. You must not have noticed that Swann's coverage of the Ron Paul newsletter controversy is already mentioned in the article, and it had been long before the series of edits made after Swann's 18 January 2017 broadcast. In regards to your point about Swann's coverage of "Pizzagate," it may be that "just asking questions" is a "common tactic among conspiracy theorists," but Swann is a journalist and media critic and it is his job to report the facts and examine media coverage. No where in that broadcast did he ever speculate that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory was true, nor did he make any baseless claims or fabricate any information. He presented the reasons why Pizzagate emerged as a conspiracy theory, while also making sure to inform his viewers on the lack of solid evidence, and also noted that other media had failed to discuss or debunk the specific details of Pizzagate conspiracy theorists' allegations, instead dealing in broad strokes and innuendo. The original broadcast can still be found on YouTube if you care to check this for yourself. --Jacobwsl (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Snooganssnoogans offered to compromise by proposing to put the material in the career section. There's no point in biting them now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please limit your edits to useful contributions that address the issues raised, in keeping with our policy. Thanks, Jacobwsl (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Jacobwsl, please stop deleting the reliably sourced label of RT as a Russian propaganda outlet. You cite BLP, but the disputed content isn't about a person, it's about a company. You cite NPV, but you haven't identified anything in NPV that prohibits the inclusion of reliably sourced content. You cite consistency with RT (TV network), but that article confirms that RT is in fact a Russian propaganda outlet. Please do not cry BLP, and obtain consensus before deleting reliably sourced content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman it appears that you may be engaged in Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering in your claim that "the disputed content isn't about a person, it's about a company." Claiming that Ben Swann worked for a Russian propaganda outlet is claim that must meet our BLP policy because it is a statement not only about a company but also about a living person. I quote from the BLP policy that "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist" and also that "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." As for our NPV policy, I refer you to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. You must fairly represent the view of many reliable sources that RT and RT America are not propaganda outlets. In regards to consistency with RT and RT America's main articles, you are misrepresenting them. Nowhere do they unequivocally state that RT or RT America are propaganda outlets; rather, these articles refer to claims that those media are propaganda outlets by their critics. This may seem to you to be a subtle distinction, but it is a crucial one. I am going to revert your edit, in accordance with BLP. --Martin Friedrichsen 03:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to reliable sources indicating that RT is not a Russian propaganda outlet? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we can try to avoid edit warring. I have re-added the content with the reliable sources, this time adding a {{pov-inline}} tag to reflect our dispute. Is this an acceptable temporary solution while you look for sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment, as I understand the funding arrangements of PBS, it is not funded or owned directly by the US Government. The BBC is certainly not owned or paid for directly by the UK Govt, therefore it is misleading to describe RT as 'publicly funded'. As I understand it, RT is only publicly funded in the same sense as the Russian Army is publicly funded, ie from public taxation through the Russian Govt, who are its funders, owners, and managers. Pincrete (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: description of RT (TV network) in Ben Swann

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the following sentence:

After leaving WXIX-TV in 2013, Swann regularly appeared on RT America, part of the publicly-funded Russian TV network RT...

Be changed to:

After leaving WXIX-TV in 2013, Swann regularly appeared on RT America, a division of Russian propaganda outlet RT...

citing the following sources (or others):

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2017‎ (UTC)

• Yes. Amply supported by high-quality, cited sources, and necessary for the reader's understanding. The Ioffe article in Columbia Journalism Review is very clear on this point. "Publicly funded" is basically whitewashing; it misleads the reader into thinking that RT is analogous to, for example, the BBC. But that's simply not true; while the BBC and many other publicly funded media outlets are editorially independent of the government, RT is not: it's a government mouthpiece. If people wanted to use another phrase (e.g., "Kremlin-aligned," a descriptor used by the Washington Post), then that may be worth considering, but "publicly funded" is unacceptable. Neutrality 19:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Public-funded is weasely. RS on RT is clear. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• No. Publicly-funded is certainly weasely and misleading (which public?), if that form of words is used then 'Russian-government funded' would be more accurate. However, regardless of how many people think it, 'propaganda' is inherently not factual and this is not a page about RT, where the accusations and opinions about the quality and neutrality of RT can be properly evaluated. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

What's inherently non-factual about "propaganda?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

'Propaganda' is an evaluation of intent, all news has its bias, when the bias is so apparent that presenting a certain political view or defending a certain political entity completely takes over from any notion of 'balanced' reporting, we call it 'propaganda', that is necessarily and inherently a judgement not a fact. However that isn't my main argument here, we might all agree that 'Daily Mail' is a sensationalist, unreliable, trivia-obsessed news outlet and might find tons of sources to endorse that judgement, but we wouldn't say that where the context didn't demand it. We would probably say 'British tabloid'. Even an indisputable claim, such as that "The Telegraph is a Conservative paper" (it says that of itself even), we would not put unless context demanded that we describe it as 'Conservative'. I agree that 'publicly funded' is misleading, I also happen to agree that RT is little better than Russian-government propaganda, but why does the context of a TV presenter changing job necessitate saying that when the link is the proper place to evaluate RT? Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If you agree that "publicly funded" is misleading, but don't support "propaganda"—what would you suggest as an alternative? Neutrality 20:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I've suggested above 'Russian-government funded' or similar. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• No per Pincrete. Jusdafax 19:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes (as nom). Pincrete, here's why it's significant. There has been a lot of press recently about how Russian government has been running a disinformation campaign to erode confidence in western institutions such as the mainstream media by spreading fake news and promoting conspiracy theories, and RT has been an important part of that campaign. (I'll find reliable sources for this if you need them.) Part of what Swann is known for is questioning stories put out by the mainstream media and promoting conspiracy theories. The alignment between Russia's campaign and Swann's reporting might or might not be a coincidence, but it's an alignment that we shouldn't be obscuring by hiding the reliably sourced fact (not opinion) that RT is an instrumentality of the Russian government. This fact is based not just on a perception of bias, but on the Kremlin's actual control of the network's top-level personnel, statements by former employees, and shifts in coverage that have closely mirrored changes in the Kremlin's policies. Please read the Ioffe piece before concluding that this is the equivalent of calling The Daily Mail a "sensationalist, unreliable, trivia-obsessed" news outlet (which, btw, would be undue piling on) or calling The Telegraph conservative. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• No 1) RT is funded by the Russian government, but like the BBC, it is editorially and operationally independent. While some former RT journalists have accused the network of pro-Russian bias and several critics have labeled it a "propaganda outlet," the same is true of BBC and many, many other media outlets which are NOT referred to as as "state media" or "propaganda" on their respective WP main articles (let alone in every article where they are so much as mentioned. Many reliable news media, including independent and nonprofit news outlets and investigative journalists have rejected unmitigated claims that RT is "Kremlin propaganda" (I can provide sources). 2) For consistency with the main article, RT should not be called a "propaganda outlet" here. 3) This discussion should be taking place on the talk page for the main article for RT (TV network), not on the talk page for Ben Swann. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC) … … I'm striking this comment; the user had been blocked for sockpuppetry in this RfC. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobwsl. Neutrality 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

That's just flat incorrect. RT is not "editorially independent" of the Russian government. The actual reputable sources firmly establish that RT is a mouthpiece by the Russian authorities. See The Economist (directly referring to RT as Russian propaganda and "Kremlin-financed media weapon"); Julia Ioffe, What Is Russia Today?: The Kremlin's propaganda outlet has an identity crisis, Columbia Journalism Review (Sept./Oct. 2010); John Besemeres, A Difficult Neighbourhood: Essays on Russia and East-Central Europe since World War II (Australian National University Press, 2016), pp. 359-60, 435 (repeatedly and explicitly describing RT as "Russian propaganda"); Daphne Skillen, Freedom of Speech in Russia: Politics and Media from Gorbachev to Putin (Routledge, 2016) ("... As the Kremlin's mouthpiece, RT ..."). Even Vladimir Putin himself has basically acknowledged this: "his unusually candid description of the network's pro-Kremlim coverage undercut RT's official description of itself as editorially independent." Neutrality 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

RT asserts its editorial and operational independence. So does the BBC. Both have had their editorial independence questioned. Unsurprisingly, the independence of RT has been questioned more frequently in English-language media. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So you have nothing to say to substantively response to the multiple academic and journalistic sources I've presented. I think that says it all. (P.S.: That RT "asserts" something should have zero bearing at all.) Neutrality 20:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• No per Pincrete and Martin Friedrichsen. This discussion should be happening on the talk page for the main article on RT. Also, please be aware that "publicly-funded" is not a weasel word/phrase. Claiming that "publicly-funded" implies U.S.-funding is also false and exposes a U.S. bias. For example, the BBC is also listed as "publicly-funded" on WP, see the list of publicly-funded broadcasters. TheWikiWatcher (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC) … … I'm striking this comment; the user had been blocked for sockpuppetry in this RfC. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacobwsl. Neutrality 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

— TheWikiWatcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This editor has two edits, including this one, and none to the main namespace. The closing administrator should disregard this comment. Neutrality 18:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, I'll get to work ;) Thank you for assuming my good faith. Remember all editors have to start somewhere, sometimes that is in an article talk page. TheWikiWatcher (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

BBC is not owned or controlled or funded by UK govt. To the best of my knowledge, no govt owned and funded network is referred to as 'publicly funded', they are referred to as 'govt. owned'. It is misleading to say that RT is 'publicly funded'. Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, you are wrong. BBC is funded by the U.K. government through a tax levied on all TV viewers. Like RT, BBC maintains that it is editorially and operationally independent. Like RT, the editorial independence of BBC has been repeatedly questioned. Misplaced Pages is not the place to engage in innuendo. TheWikiWatcher (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

TheWikiWatcher, precisely, the UK Govt does not pay a single penny to the BBC and does not control its funding beyond every few years setting the rate that each TV-owning household will pay for a licence. The Govt. does not give to nor withhold money from the BBC ie it does not fund the BBC. The money does not even pass through the hands of the UK Govt, since the licence is purchased at a Post Office and passed on to the BBC. Are you saying that RT's funding is as distant from the Russian Govt as that? How are you saying RT is funded to justify 'publicly funded'. Where are the sources justifying this description ?

BTW, RT does not even broadcast to the Russian public who, it is implied, are so generously paying for it. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

nb At this point in the discussion, an alternative text was agreed as an interim measure "Swann regularly appeared on RT America, a division of the Russian Government funded network RT" Discussion here. Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, per WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
• No. "Propaganda" is a loaded term. The more-neutral wording already in the article is better. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Following comments originally posted as a reply to above. Pincrete (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, what you are telling me is that you want to 'make a point' about the job move or the alignment between Swann and RT's agenda. Fine, if it's RS'd and with due weight then say whatever the point is. Of course 'Conservative' is not on a par with 'propagandist', the point is we don't put any unnec adjectives as though they speak for themselves. We don't describe Hitler as 'evil' just because it's RS'd and almost universally agreed as true. The word would need to be necessary for understanding in context, and we would probably either say more or not use the word at all. I agree that present wording is 'weasel-ly' and misleading, I just think you should either be clearer about the point being made, or describe RT in purely neutral factual terms and let the RT page cover the rest. Pincrete (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Most people know who Hitler was. Most people do NOT know what RT is. I think the fact it is a propaganda arm is an important aspect to this mention. Objective3000 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That isn't the reason that 'evil' is redundant, it would be just as redundant describing a lesser known monster. It is redundant because it tells the reader what to think rather than supplying the info to make their own judgement. I agree that 'publicly funded' is misleading, especially as it implies US public. Also that the fact that RT is owned/funded by Russian govt is relevant and can be expressed in a few neutral words, I just think the RT page is the proper place to examine to what extent, and on what issues, RT is 'propagandist'. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to make a point. I'm just explaining why the reliably sourced fact that RT is a Russian propaganda outlet is noteworthy and highly relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll also point out that Swann has taken some surprising pro-Russian positions. Perhaps we should add those to the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I agree with you to the extent that 'publicly funded' is misleading (and probably unsourced), I just don't agree that 'propaganda outlet' is necessary or neutral on THIS page. Pincrete (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The following reliable sources reject that RT is simply "Russian propaganda":

--Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This is pure static. None of these are reliable sources saying that RT is not a Russian propaganda outlet. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And the only ones that refer to funding say "government-funded English-language outlet RT" and "RT, the Kremlin-funded English language news channel". So can we agree that RT is not generally described as 'publicly funded'? Not even by these sources criticising US media. Putin himself says "Certainly the channel is funded by the government", where does 'publicly funded' come from? This is some surreal form of Doublethink where Russian public=Russian government. Pincrete (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Publicly funded?

Can we seperate two elements of this discussion? No one contributing so far has disputed that the Russian govt funds RT, most sources, inc Putin himself confirm that. No one has supplied any ref that describes RT as 'publicly funded', and it is even unclear what that means when the public who watch it do not fund it. Therefore, can we agree that 'publicly funded', is both inaccurate and unsourced?

Whether 'propaganda outlet' is apt, neutral and necessary is a separate subject. Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what it should be called. But, publicly funded ain't it. Objective3000 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, Neutrality, Objective3000, Dr. Fleischman, Jus (naming all participants apart from master & sock). I know it is customary to not alter disputed text while an RfC is running, but as even the socks above acknowledged that RT is Govt funded, does anyone object to the text being altered to "After leaving WXIX-TV in 2013, Swann regularly appeared on RT America, a division of the Russian Government funded network RT"?

Sources above (including some supplied by banned users) support this description. It is then up to those who opened the RfC to decide whether they wish to pursue the "propaganda outlet" description. Pincrete (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no qualm against altering the language as you're proposing, reflecting an interim improvement while the RfC runs its course. (I've heard people talk about the "custom" to not alter disputed text while an RfC is running, and I don't agree with it. It invites editors to game the system by starting RfCs to "freeze" their preferred version.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Russian government-funded," as there is clear consensus that this is better than "publicly funded." That said, I want to make clear that this is only an incremental improvement. I don't think that "Russian government-funded" fairly represents the cited sources, which indicate not only that RT is funded by its government (like the BBC) but that it's controlled by it (unlike the BBC). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete: this change is fine with me; my views are that of Dr. Fleischman's above. Neutrality 00:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with this change. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

81.152.40.198, please stop edit warring and come to talk to explain why you think we should say that Swann is a conspiracy theorist. Our BLP policies has a strict rule that any controversial content about a living person must be supported by reliable sources, otherwise it must be deleted on sight. I'm not aware of any sources expressly supporting the "conspiracy theory" label. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears @81.152.40.198: is unwilling to discuss. He's already received a block and now continues the same behavior after its expiration. Objective3000 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Who closed Swann's social media accounts?

Snooganssnoogans and Objective3000, I'm hoping this was unintentional, but please don't remove reliably sourced content and replace it with contradictory content, as you both did regarding who closed Swann's social media accounts. The cited source says CBS46 shut down dropped his accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please reread the source. CBS46 evening anchor Ben Swann today blocked his “Truth in Media” website and dropped his primary Twitter and Instagram feeds, as well as his Facebook “Truth in Media” page,... This clearly says Swann dropped the accounts, not CBS46. Objective3000 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Duhhhhh. I can be so dumb. I read that sentence on three separate occasions and misread it every time. Sorry both. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Entirely possible that the author designed that sentence to be misread. Objective3000 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The author of the blog-piece later says that CBS46 "clearly" made him shut them down. The source sounds pretty fishy, which has contributed to these confused edits back-and-forth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the source is mostly reliable but that "clearly" language suggests that the writer was just speculating, so I agree that particular sentence isn't reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I had the exact same feeling reading that sentence. Objective3000 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely the black helicopters :-) Guy (Help!) 11:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Since June 2015, Swann has been an evening and late-night anchor for WGCL-TV CBS46 in Atlanta, Georgia. , where he continues to host his show Reality Check, while continuing to lead the Truth in Media organization.

this is incorrect... Swann no longer hosts Reality Check or Truth in Media

It should correctly read: Since June 2015, Swann has been an evening and late-night anchor for WGCL-TV CBS46 in Atlanta, Georgia. organization. Ben swann (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.cbs46.com/story/29304911/ben-swann
2. http://www.cbs46.com/story/29304911/ben-swann

Done E _C K _S A E _S  04:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor wording

The article currently states "The theory falsely claimed that John Podesta's emails". "Falsely" here is a confusing qualifier. It needs to be more along the lines: "This theory is considered false by XYZ, as it claims that Podesta's emails...". Nergaal (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence of references to paedophilia, and there never was. See WP:WEASEL. We don't need to attribute the fact that these claims were entirely bogus because the attribution would be every single person who has the faintest clue. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dude, this is a controversial topic where it is not constructive to push inflamatory language in an encyclopedia. Go open the pizzagate article and see that the first sentence there is "Pizzagate is a debunked conspiracy theory that emerged during the 2016 United States presidential election cycle alleging that John Podesta's emails" and "determined to be false by multiple organizations". Don't use a more inflamatory language that the pizzagate article uses. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

False equivalence. It may be controversial, but the claims re Podesta's emails are entirely unsupported by any credible evidence whatsoever. It's a sky-is-blue level of claim, and we absolutely should not attribute it, nor should we bend over backwards to excuse people who promoted it. Implying the claims have any merit whatsoever is a clear BLP violation. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, it is not a BLP violation to use descriptions here that are not used in the main article itself? Nergaal (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To claim or imply any legitimacy at all for this defamatory and wholly false story, is a serious breach of WP:BLP. It implies that Podesta is complicit in child abuse, for a start. I think you may be out of your depth here. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't say the flat Earth theory is false according to XYZ. It's false. Reliable sources clearly state that Pizzagate is false. Objective3000 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Read my reply above. This is about being encyclopedic not about rating theories. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP is not rating theories here. It is using reliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Then use the wording WP uses on the conspiracy article itself. There are plenty of controversial things in this article to give the pizzagate story its own spin here. Nergaal (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the articles did use the same wording. You just changed that wording in the other article and then claimed a mismatch that you created. Please keep the discussion on one talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What? You wanna check my edit history before throwiaccusations like that first? Nergaal (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal, see WP:YESPOV, and in particular the part saying, "Avoid stating facts as opinions." The reliable sources state without contradiction that Pizzagate has been debunked and is false. This isn't their viewpoint, it's a readily verifiable fact. In-text attribution of the type you're describing would be non-neutral. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Let me clarify: why was my edit reverted by @Objective3000: 1 2 3 times. My edit was constructive and I've defended here. On the other hand, the other editor hasn't even bothered engaging into any discussion yet has made several personal attacks and false statements/accusations in the past several hours. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit warring notice, Nergaal. I warned the wrong editor, and that's why I self-reverted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

My edit was reverting to consensus. I did not violate 3RR as you accused on my Talk. I reverted different text by two editors, one of whom has been reverted repeatedly and has refused any discussion Your claim that I have not engaged in discussion is false, like this conspiracy theory. You did violate 3RR and EW. Please be civil. Objective3000 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Dude, wp:3RR is TOTAL reverts in the page, regardless of where in the article. The other guy argued his reasoning, you did not provide any conter-reasoning in your revert. (My double-rollback was from a misclick when trying to figure out the changes, thus my self-rollback). You started making accusations without providing any actual evidence. I engaged into a discussion which you did not provide counter-arguments to. You claim consensus, yet you never provide any evidence for consensus. Yet there are two other editors in the last day that seem to agree to my wording. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Stop. 3RR does not apply to reverting BLP violations. This stops now. I left a warning on your talk page, if you continue, I will block you. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class television articles
• Unknown-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment