Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vitalmove (talk | contribs) at 21:13, 5 August 2007 (→Just to review...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Iran Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Press TV on Current Events

Editors here may be interested that some users believe Press TV cannot be referenced on Current events page. See Discussion here: ... Seabhcan 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Wiki third-opinion

Dear Misplaced Pages,

I am trying to update the article for Press TV, but user Perspicacite prevents me from adding a list of programs. I'm trying to add entries describing four programs hosted on Press TV. The programs are: (1) The American Dream - A news commentary program hosted by Mark Levine in the United States. (2) Four Corners - A news commentary program. (3) Middle East Today - A news commentary program hosted by Shahab Mossavat. (4) Between the Headlines - A review of the day's headlines hosted in the United Kingdom.

In addition, he insists that the top of the article say the network is funded and run by Iran, even though this is uncited and contradicted by cited sources in the article. Press TV is funded by the government in the same way as is the BBC, but it is not run by the government as described in the vision section.

I am new to Misplaced Pages and don't know how to stop Perspicacite. Please advise.

Sincere thanks. --Vitalmove 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You can view the channel by typing this into your internet explorer mms://217.218.67.244/presslive , if you would like to view the channel before providing an opinion. --Vitalmove 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion - Initiated

As your additions seem to be a little controversial, everything added should be cited for reliable sources. If it's reliably cited, there can be no argument, unless there are opposing sources, in which case both verified facts can be included. I'll check back here to see what you have to say. DRosenbach 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Which edit is controversial? I made two edits. My first edit was to add the names of four programs and their hosts. The second edit was to remove Perspicacite's uncited claim that the station is run by Iran. In the article you see a cited source explaining the station is funded by Iran (like the BBC is funded by the UK's government) but run independently. I also made some minor edits (removing spaces, linking Yvonne Ridley's name to her Misplaced Pages entry.) --Vitalmove 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There certainly is nothing on the IHT link that suggests that the government exerts editorial control. There is nothing about it being independent either. So the comparison to the BBC should not stay, as it might be misleading. Hornplease 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where in the IHT article does it say Iran exerts editorial control over the station? I'm not sure if you have read the Press TV Misplaced Pages entry yet, but it has a section devoted to the station's funding and management, which quotes the station's head (with citation.) That source also notes the similarity to the BBC's funded but not managed by the government structure. --Vitalmove 22:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should include some bit of a intro in the "programs" section. Perhaps it might seem as though adding four shows to the program list is uncontroversial, but ideally, no information should be added to[REDACTED] without being sourced. So while the majority of edits do not include sources (including many of my additions), citing sources would undoubtedly strengthen your claims to vandalism, as unsourced material may be removed at any time. Try finding some website or program guide to substantiate your claims that these programs do in fact appear on the station. Please don't get me wrong...I'm not saying they are objectively controversial...I'm just giving you some suggestions, as you asked for, to protect your edits. Hope all is well, as I see your edits restored and your co-editor has not reverted them (yet). Good-day. DRosenbach 13:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add sources for the shows eventually. I assume there is no doubt these shows exist. You can confirm their existence by watching the channel, either via satellite or the internet stream. mms://217.218.67.244/presslive

Please also point out any statements in the article which are uncited or controversial.--Vitalmove 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okie...here are some suggestions on generating an improved article:

Press TV has stated three mission statement:

Source this.

Here: Please add it as a citation.--Vitalmove 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy makers of Press TV believe that since the 9/11 attacks, the world's media had divided into two camps: On the one side was the perspective offered by Western media, while the other side (al-Jazeera) was pro-Taleban and pro-al-Qaeda. The stated mission of PRESS TV is to offer a different view, unlike Al-Jazeera and western media (such as BBC and CNN)

This paragraph is a bit confusing. The first sentence suggests that there are two camps, inhabited by the west and AJ, respectively. The next sentence asserts that the objective of Press TV i to offer a "different view, unlike AJ and the west." This last sentence is a non-sequitor, as it contends that Press TV offers this "different" view, in contrast to these other two, who you state 'do not offer different views,' yet it is not made clear what 'different views' are. It could also be interpreted that AJ and the west are not offering different views of each other, which is not true, as per the first statement. Thus, if you you mean to say is that "Press TV will offer a third perspective, either between the two polarized camps, or unrelated to the two camps," what is written doesn't necessarily convey that message with clarity.

I didn't write that paragraph, but I'm going to leave it alone. I thought it was clear and well written, but thank you for your opinion. It's sourced here If you want you can add some of the quotes from that article. --Vitalmove 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Like other nationally funded news networks, such as the BBC, Press TV is funded by the government.

Source this (and perhaps be a bit clearer as to which government -- your mention of the BBC may lead to some believing that the British government might be involved, in that perhaps this is similar to the BBC not only in government but in which government)...

It's stated in the interview linked at the end of the paragraph. It's also sourced here , which you can add if you want. If you want further proof of the BBC's government funding (very common knowledge in the UK) you can google the words BBC government funding for thousands of links.--Vitalmove 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Sarafraz, head of the new channel, said most of Press TV's 30 journalists were non-Iranians, and included many Britons as well as Americans.

...and this.

It's sourced in the interview noted above and the station's website. --Vitalmove 04:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As for your suggestion that the reader substantiate your as of yet uncited, unverifiably confirmed information him or herself is, as per policy, this is an unsuitable proposal -- the burden of verifiability lies on the contributing editor, not the guy who can watch the show and see for himself what is and what is not in the program. Clearly, every reader can confirm any statement by researching the topic or interviewing a celebrity him or herself, but that's not how Misplaced Pages works. I hope you do not get discouraged. I remember when I first joined Misplaced Pages, and everything I did seemed wrong and I was almost reverted out of existence. People were sarcastic to me too, but no one suggested that I change my user name...haha!! I'm still here, and I hope you stick around, too. PS - perhaps putting some info, a picture, a little something on your user page will make it seem like you're a bit seasoned and not a push-over -- your non-linking user name every time you post gives you away as a new user. Please don't hesitate to drop me a line whenever. :) DRosenbach 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, this seems to violate the common sense rule. You can easily watch the shows to verify their existence - I obviously didn't make the shows up. The fundamental rule on Misplaced Pages is to use common sense, if I recall correctly. Also, although the station is only a few days old, I'm sure eventually there will be other articles on the shows which can be cited. --Vitalmove 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the second part of your paragraph before writing my entry. Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't want to turn into a Wikipediaer. All I wanted to do was to add a little to the Press TV article, but now it's taken up way too much of my time. Misplaced Pages needs to make it easier to add information to articles.--Vitalmove 05:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Misplaced Pages as an entity can do anything. The forum has been established...and people have picked it up and ran. It is now whatever they make of it. In a sense, they, me (and even you) are Misplaced Pages. It's like an election. In a comprehensively large one, and especially one with an electoral collage, one vote wil rarely if ever make a difference, and anyone who denies this is simply delusional, but the many delusions put together end up with a resolution based on the majority of voters. Although one voice here is very little, and it may seem like one can never accomplish anything, one would be surprised at how much one contributor can add. DRosenbach 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to new French and German articles

Dear english-speaking editors,

I just created french and german versions of this article, taking the minimum, *not-yet-controversal* content as a baseground. I hope it will create a nucleus for further contributions. Please add the links to this english version if you are an administrator, or switch the article in semi-protection so I can do it myself. The links are:

de:Press TV fr:Press TV

BTW, dear admins, when do we get a single multi-language user in wikipedia ;)

Regards,

89.48.253.194 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be vigilant for edits by User: Perspicacite

About a month ago, this user prevented me from expanding the article. I was trying to add a list of shows and a funding and management section, both of which he repeatedly deleted. I requested a 3PO, and discussed the issues with an admin. However, when the admin invited perspicacite to discuss he refused . He responded by wiki-stalking me. The examples of wiki-stalking are described here. The article was locked to prevent further edits. Eventually it was unlocked and he has gone back to deleting the funding & management section and deleting the list of shows - see his edits on August 3 and August 5 . I have reported him to WP:ANI. --Vitalmove 18:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarity with the BBC

This network's funding is not explained. For this reason, I think it's inappropriate to say that it's like the BBC or claim that it has independence like the BBC. The BBC's independence is clearly explained by its corporate structure, but all of these citations seem to merely assert that the network is and will be independent. We need something better than that to put it matter-of-factly in the lead block, I think. Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to limit this discussion to one thread. See the original discussion below. --Vitalmove 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the word independent in the block

If you look at the BBC's Misplaced Pages article, you will see that they have both ownership by the government, and independence, in the block. Since the BBC article mentions its independence in the block, the Misplaced Pages article should be allowed to do the same. Shouldn't it? --Vitalmove 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the sources seem to be self-descriptions, so I think we should leave it out of the main block until a third party authority confirmed actual independence. Actually, I didn't mean to revert that change. You had added it in since I started editing, and I didn't want to remake the same style tweaks. Incidentally, I think there's no reason to source the BBC funding. It's obvious, and the link might give the erroneous impression of synthesis. Cool Hand Luke 18:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's impossible. There is no independent third party which grants the seal of "independence" to a station. Every news station, whether the BBC, Fox News, NY Times, WSJ is alleged to be biased in some way. This seems like a simple matter of fairness. The BBC has the word independent in its block. Also, the BBC's ownership & independence sentence is near the bottom of its block. So shouldn't Press TV get the same treatment? --Vitalmove 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The independence of this station will be controversial, so we need an explanation for it; a third-party evaluation. The BBC's independence arises from it's trust fund and separate directors. PRESS TV's corporate structure is not apparent like the BBC. Cool Hand Luke 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The BBC's indepdendence is also controversial and is a topic in the United Kingdom. Here are two stories I googled in only a minute. . --Vitalmove 19:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Insofar that the BBC's independence is controversial, it should not be flatly asserted in the lead block there. That does not excuse the line here. You'll notice that the BBC lead only says it's an independent corporation. That's different from editorial independence. The corporate structure of this network is entirely unclear, so any analogy to the BBC is inappropriate. Cool Hand Luke 19:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I know of corporate law and a corporate structure is by no means proof of independence. Corporations are very easily controlled by the people who fund them (the shareholders.) The BBC requires annual government funding to survive. If you want to take independence out of the BBC article then that is fair. This is a minor disagreement any way. I think we are generally in consensus. --Vitalmove 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to leave this alone, and keep independent out of the block. Thank you for the discussion. --Vitalmove 19:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to review...

Consensus: Press TV is unreliable and not independent. Why are we still debating this? Perhaps we could get the opinion of the editors who already commented on this? Zntrip, TheDJ, Tbeatty... Perspicacite 19:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That was not a discussion as you wiki-stalked me and if I recall correctly, you also targeted another person's username. Even Zntrip abandoned you. With all due respect, you make me very uncomfortable and I wish you would leave the article. --Vitalmove 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are either under the impression that I am incapable of posting diffs you believe I am too lazy to contact other users. Either way, it really makes no difference. I'll remind you again of the WP:3RR rule. Perspicacite 19:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to get at above is that the BBC is at least corporately independent from the government. We cannot even claim that here: the only thing suggesting independence is PRESS TV's own assertions of independence. The network also positions itself as being some sort compromise between the BBC and Al Jazeera, but I think this language should be removed from the article. Most sources seem to find the network less credible and independent than Al Jazeera. See e.g. this editorial and this quote that implies Iran launched Press TV because Al Jazeera was "too neutral" on the Middle East. Cool Hand Luke 20:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As I described above, corporate independence is an illusion. Corporations are not independent of their shareholders in any way. I know of corporate structure. Google BBC independence and you will find hundreds of articles calling it into question, two of which I linked above. --Vitalmove 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That editorial is from the weekly standard. The comment under the article summarizes the absurdity of their position when it states "Oh no! Iran has been using the same one-sided, shameless propaganda tactics as FOX! That's SO unfair. Could anything be more hilarious then the Weakly Standard complaining of the lack of a "foundation of media objectivity" in Iranian TV? Posted by roger_inkart at 10:39 AM : Jul 30, 2007"

Re: the quote about Al-Jazeera being too neutral. Press TV has come out and said that Al-Jazeera is too close to (neutral with) the Taliban/Al-Qaida.

The problem is, as described in the discussion above that every press organization is viewed as biased by some group. There is no such thing as a perfectly independent press agency. My question for you is, why are you only targetting the Press TV news agency's article? --Vitalmove 20:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias and media independence are completely different things. You wanna self-revert any time soon? Perspicacite 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a false dichotomy intended to perpetuate, rather than resolve, a dispute. It doesn't add anything to the discussion but ill will. As noted in my multiple ANI complaints against you for stalking and cyber-bullying, your style make me very uncomfortable. --Vitalmove 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You know I was going to be nice and ignore your violation, but since you continue to resort to personal attacks I'm going to see this through. Perspicacite 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. Cool Hand Luke 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'm not claiming that the BBC is free of bias, just that they have one easily verifiable measure of independence (corporate independence), which is all that article asserts that they have. This network seems to have no verifiable independence in any matter whatsoever. Surely when the BBC article only claims corporate independence, this article can't claim independence itself on no reliable sources. This is a controversial subject, and I think the section should deal with it, but we should leave sweeping conclusory sentences out of the lead block.

Your interpretation of Al Jazeera's "neutrality" appears to be original research. It's clear from the context of the article that Al Jazeera is being criticized for not having enough of a Middle Eastern bias. Al-Qaida is not mentioned in the article, and Variety is more of a reliable source than a self-reported PRESS TV release. To clarify, I'm not saying that the article should say that PRESS TV is biased, just that the material in relation to Al Jazeera seems to be self-serving promotion among other things. Cool Hand Luke 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree with your desire to not put "independent" in the block. Are you saying that the journalists own claims of independence should be removed too? One of the journalists, Mark Levine, goes to great lengths to assert that he is independent and not censored. It's cited under the "funding & independence" section. --Vitalmove 21:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles