Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/world/europe/russias-rt-network-is-it-more-bbc-or-kgb.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/03/07/world/europe/ap-eu-germany-russia.html
  

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.

I think the basic problem with this page is that, although the Talk page is supposed to be about democratic discussion, every time I post a thought on this page my message is deleted within 24 hours. This raises serious concerns that some users may be attempting to censor this Talk page. Most of the Talk pages I comment on are very long with voluminous, healthy democratic discussion. Only on this Talk page, some unknown 'expert' Wiki user cuts me off. Hmmm. Something strange under the sun. Why is it that these 'experts' of Misplaced Pages have so much time on their hands that then can master this arcane website and dictate to other users who just make content comments, which I believe was the purpose of Misplaced Pages. So delete my post. You will answer to God. Well, back to work, -- "Time and motion wait for no man..." Gunnermanz (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to take a deep breath and read the good faith advice that has been offered to you. For starters, conduct disputes like this one with Philip Cross belong on user talk pages, not on article talk pages. That's why both Philip Cross and I posted on your user talk; Philip to explain why your comments here kept getting deleted, and me to ask you if you had any questions. Second, you need to read WP:NOTFORUM. This page is specifically for how to improve RT (TV network) and is not the place for complaining that Misplaced Pages is a joke or about how you don't like certain site-wide policies for this or that reason. Complaints about site-wide policies are most appropriate at WP:VPP. If you have questions about policies, I suggest the Teahouse. Now if you don't mind, please do not respond here; please respond at User talk:Gunnermanz if you still don't understand why your comments keep getting deleted here. Further complaining here about site-wide policies or editor conduct will likely end up getting removed or hatted. The bottom line is that no one is trying to censor or suppress your viewpoints; you just need to express them in more appropriate venues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

More Bullying

Your tone, sir, is patronizing, smug and arrogant, and I daresay that I may be older and more experienced and knowledgeable than you. You forget that my original objection was to this biased article on RT.

I have to get up every morning to work, and my work you can read in the financial pages of international newspapers online or in print. I do not agree with all of the articles I work on, but c'est le vie. But I digress.

I do not have time to study the intricacies of Misplaced Pages like you 'professional Wikipedians' seem to be able to. (How do you pay your rent?) For fifteen years, I've only read this or that article on Misplaced Pages and made comments.

I've never - EVER - deleted anyone's comments on the Talk pages, and if I've made an edit, or wanted to do so, I've discussed it on the Talk page first. That is what the Talk Page is about, sir.

I reject all your pretentious, sanctimonious and arcane declarations and have no interest in the bowels of Misplaced Pages.

I am an old man. I do not have much time left and am only interested in discussing the content of the article, which I assume you know, is what the Talk page is for.

Stop threatening me and address the objections I and other users have to this extremely biased article.

RT is being held to a standard that the Western corporate media is not. The Washington regime and the 'yellow' Western media enjoy very little trust among the American people. You, sir, seem intent on joining the treasonous Washington regime, ruled by a tiny 0.01% of the ultra-rich, to foment yet another war by rabble-rousing hated toward a renewed Christian country that should be our friend.

Look at other Misplaced Pages Talk Pages. Theirs is a healthy argument going on in many languages. You have no right to suppress free thought. Like the old folk song, the grass of truth grows under the lies of cement and breaks it in time. Gunnermanz (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am extremely busy at the moment and this response is therefore written in some haste. I thank you, sir, for no longer immediately and arbitrarily deleting my every comment on the false pretense that it is not relevant to the content of the article, which is nothing more than your subjective judgment. Specifically, you and your ideologically allied editors engage in the false pretense that issues I've mentioned are of no relevance to understanding this critically important topic - critically important for two overpowering reasons, first that, outside of independent journalists, RT is virtually the only mainstream source communicating to the West the viewpoints of both the Russian people and the Russian government, a point of key relevance in either exacerbating or ameliorating the appallingly dangerous tensions between two world powers, either of whose nuclear arsenal would if used almost certainly cause the extinction of the human species on this planet. Given the importance of this topic, this Talk page should by rights be five times its present length and filled with the views of a diversity of users, but given the undemocratic domination of this Talk page by you and your ideological allies, one can safely assume that any such views have been subjected to the same sort of authoritarian censorship that mine have. Again, specifically, I've made two important points which by any reasonable judgment are of vital relevance to the monumentally important topic I mentioned, namely the hijacking of Misplaced Pages as yet another vehicle to further the campaign of anti-RT, anti-Putin and (given what neutral sources have repeatedly shown is far greater popularity in his own country enjoyed by President Putin among his own people in contrast with the widespread unpopularity of Western politicians in theirs) anti-Russian propaganda and the manufacturing of anti-RT, anti-Russian and anti-Putin hysteria in the West by what Washington veteran Mike Lofgren has called the "Deep State" ), and hence this article, namely that (1) reputable scholars from top American universities, namely Princeton (Professor Martin Gillens) and Harvard (Professor Lawrence Lessig), and others, have pointed out in scholarly papers and lectures that the United States is no longer a functional democracy but an oligarchy "captured" by those whom Ferdinand Lundberg long ago referred to as the "super-rich" and that (2) they do this through a process Professor Lessig aptly calls "Tweedism" (and I would also add the dual citizenship (which would be unthinkable here in Japan, which President Theodore Roosevelt called "a self-evident absurdity," which allows foreign billionaires to effectively buy US citizenship and then exercise far more power than untold numbers of native-born Americans who like myself can trace their descent all the way back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony). This point is of vital relevance to this article because it is only with a full understanding of this wider power context that any fair judgment of RT can be made, and you know it. The latter point in particular has been highlighted among others by Japanese former ambassador to Ukraine Mutsuo Mabuchi, an ultra-conservative by the way, who in his book 「世界を操る支配者の正体」Sekai wo Ayatsuru Shihaisha no Shōtai among others) says it is precisely what the Washington regime did in Ukraine and the reason why the constitutionally elected former president of that country was nearly assassinated and violently overthrown, amid abundant proof of U.S. covert involvement (never mentioned in the corporate media), and replaced with a billionaire. RT is virtually alone as a source through which Americans can learn the Russian side of this critically important issue, but nowhere is that important fact mentioned in this article or even allowed on this Talk page. Former National Defense Academy professor and equally conservative former ambassador to Uzbekistan and Iran Magosaki Ukeru, whom I know personally, has made similar points (as in 「日米同盟の正体」Nichibei Dōmei no Shōtai (The True Nature of the Japan-U.S. Alliance), focusing especially on the long history of false flag and other anti-democratic foreign interventions which the "deep state" has perpetuated abroad while blatantly lying to the American public. To pretend that these issues are not relevant to understanding the rabble-rousing against RT by governments and corporate media sources with a long history of deceiving their own public is disingenuous and borders on willful mendacity, and to use such pretense as a glib excuse to censor other Misplaced Pages editors one disagrees with would be shameful behavior for anyone who truly believes in government of, for and by the people. Thus far, you and your ideologically allied editor have not given other users even the opportunity to consider the relevance of my suggestions so that, following the input of a wide variety of users, I might modify or refine them so they do conform with the consensus view -- once it is reached. Instead, you glibly arrogate all authority to yourself and immediately censor them, an action I do not perpetrate against you even though I obviously disagree with you. It is abundantly obvious that the building of that consensus requires that comments on this page, including this one, to remain long enough for a variety of editors to consider and provide suggestions on. What you and your ideological allies arrogantly ignore is that the issues of relevancy and the interpretation of what sources conform to Misplaced Pages's requirement of reliability are themselves precisely the kind of issues which require exactly this kind of good-faith consensus to be built. You, sir, do not have the authority to make that call on your own as if you were the judge in a courtroom and the rest of us mere observers entitled to offer our views only by your leave. To smugly arrogate the authority to make this judgment yourself and immediately and delete and glibly dismiss the comments of other editors acting in good faith instead of waiting for input from a variety of viewpoints is undemocratic and anti-intellectual behavior which by any judgment disqualifies a person as a Misplaced Pages editor. As I noted in a comment which you or your allied editors immediately censored, it is precisely for this reason that I have never - ever - engaged in such behavior in my fifteen to twenty years of using Misplaced Pages. You ask me to make specific suggestions, and I most certainly promise you I will do so. For the present, however, since I am not quite retired at the age of sixty-four and must still work for my living, I have a mountain of work due Monday morning which I must immediately get back to and must also address the fact that I've received warnings that someone has made failed attempts to log into my Misplaced Pages account and my main computer (I'm using a backup system now) has just the other day mysteriously become unable to access the Internet and the company which provides the routers for the building I occupy is at a loss to explain or solve the problem even after attempting for half the day. But in answer to your question, I will mention a couple points which I will elaborate on in coming weeks when I have a break from work and have certain surgery completed which will put my left hand out of commission for a couple weeks. The first point includes reaffirmation of the point made by editors such as one unsigned editor and Editor Reollun, namely that an double standard is being applied with RT which is not being applied to the Western corporate media. I don't have to tell you that Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal and Jeff Bezos (who like other tech billionaires has close ties with the Pentagon) owns the Washington Post. Virtually all of the "reliable" Western media outlets are in the hands of billionaires. Above you've dismissed my input as an interpolation into a discussion initiated one year ago as a justification for deleting it. But as I've noted above, it takes time and the input from a variety of editors before a consensus can be built regarding relevance and reliability. It is therefore obvious that such input will be added over time. Your argument that my comment concerned an issue already "settled" is therefore false. But it is false for yet another important reason, namely because the above editor's concerns, despite being abundantly reasonable and relevant, have still not been reflected in the body of the article. The second point I would raise is one I alluded to above, namely that in the context of this dangerous revival of Cold War hysteria being created by frenetic politicians (even though Russia is no longer communist and Putin is openly supporting a vibrant renaissance of the Christian faith in Russia after decades of communist oppression), RT is virtually alone in providing the Russian point of view. This latter point is specifically relevant precisely because the ignoring or distortion of this revival of Christian faith is one of the best examples of the biased coverage of Russia and Putin. When the female punk rock group "Pu**y Riot" engaged in disrupting and obscene behavior while trespassing the inside the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, a shrine holy and sacred to Christians, what was the universal reaction of the Western corporate media, pundits and politicians in the U.S. and the West but to totally overlook the illegal and blasphemous behavior of the members of this punk group (one of whom participated in group sex in a pornographic movie) even as they insulted the Christian religion and infringed on the precious rights of Christians to worship at the shrine. Amazingly, the Western corporate media went even further to attack the Russian government and Putin by characterizing their defense of the rights of Christians to worship at the sacred shrine as "suppression" of the free speech of these criminals. Yet there is no mention in this article of this appalling example of bias by the corporate media, nor so much a peep about it or the many other examples on this Talk page, obviously because any such comments will be immediately censored by you and your ideological allies. At last resort I appeal to your own self-interest: You yourself and all those you love will not survive if even one of Russia or the United States are tipped into a nuclear war, perhaps an accidental one precipitated by the dangerous tensions created by the hostility against Russia which saturates the Western media. Thus one vital addition needed in this article is the point that RT, with the exception of independent journalists still accessible online or on YouTube (even as "Big Brother" Erich Schmidt of Google (notorious for his "If you have something to hide you shouldn't be doing it" quip threatens to censor RT and other Russian content on Google and YouTube), is that RT is virtually alone in the West not only in providing the Russian viewpoint but a platform for reputable Western voices who question the amid the vast archipelago of billionaire-controlled media and billionaire-funded "think tanks" churning out vast mountains of what can only be described as anti-Russian propaganda (as painstakingly documented in Lofgren's book), propaganda for precisely the same reasons this very article as it currently stands is just more anti-Russian propaganda. Importantly, now that the U.S. government has censored RT as a "foreign agent," RT videos on YouTube, for instance, are virtually the only place where Americans and other Westerner citizens can listen to President Putin's speeches and interviews so they can form their own judgments of him. Using the expression "Western partners" to describe those who insultingly characterize him as a "thug" or a "dictator," he never fails in my judgment to conduct himself as a gentleman and, in my view, far more like a statesman than any Western pundit or politician. You may disagree, but even as the Western corporate media gives many hours of airtime to all those Western politicians who vilify Putin, RT is virtually alone in providing Western citizens with the means to hear Putin so they can formulate their own judgments about him. But of course, this is precisely why RT is being censored and Putin vilified by Western politicians and the billionaire-controlled media. This important point, like the other objections I've raised above, goes unmentioned in this article because you and your ideologically allied editors consider it "irrelevant." I have no doubt at this point that if I were to attempt to edit the article to this effect my contribution would immediately be censored in the same way that the corporate media would and doubtless does censor any attempt by staff reporters to dissent from the "Putin-as-dictatorial-thug" narrative. So I will touch on these and other points in future comments as soon as I finish this pile of work I have, solve this mysterious problem with my Internet connection and get out of the hospital for hand surgery. Meanwhile, I am an editor of many years standing and do not make comments lightly. I've made many lengthy and thoughtful contributions on other pages that are many years standing and take my responsibilities as a Misplaced Pages editor seriously. As I mentioned, I have never even once arrogated the authority to immediately delete comments by other editors on the Talk page even when I disagreed with them. No individual or small minority of editors has the right to arrogate the authority to censor this or my other comments on this Talk page until a broad consensus has been reached regarding their relevancy. I note that you appealed to a Misplaced Pages Administrator whom you call by first name, characterizing me as being completely in the wrong. I'm afraid I am not as technically inclined as you and in any case have never before felt the need to work my way up in the Misplaced Pages hierarchy or appeal to an Administrator whom I address on a first-name basis. I hope it does not come to that. Gunnermanz (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

To save others the pain of reading this TEXTWALL, absolutely none of it is relevant to improving this article. Just a particularly rambling version of the usual pro-Russian stuff about the corrupt West and the political / corporate media conspiracy to vilify the wonderful Vladimir Putin, with the odd threat of nuclear holocaust. Gunnermanz I don't know how many times this must have been explained to you over your "fifteen to twenty years of using Misplaced Pages" but the (more complete) articles are the product of content published in reliable sources and written in a way that complies with the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. As this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, the quality of different articles varies according to skill level of those who contributed to it. Generally the more important the subject, the more experienced the editors who get involved, therefore the more stringent adherence to policy. As article talkpages are not forums for our opinions on the world, the removal of your previous comments is justified. If you want is article to change significantly you are going to need sources about RT not opinions. And finally we have heard it all before, is talkpage currently has nine archives!TiB chat 10:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhhhhhhh thanks Gunnermanz. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank God this was "written in some haste"! — JFG 06:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)