Talk:Media freedom in Russia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

RfC: Battleground of two editors

We have two editors, myself and Ellol, who cannot compromise. Basic problems is this: we both are emphasizing different sources. Ellol uses mainly long quotations Gil-Robles's report in his visit 2004 and Russian Ombudsman Vladimir Lukin. Ellol argues that these report give better picture of overall situation of the freedom of press in Russia (Ellol accused Freedom House of anti-Russian propaganda). Myself, Peltimikko, use reports by International Press Institute, Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and United States Department of State. Peltimikko (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Response:
I merely say that the 2004 Gil-Robles report -- the report of the European Commissioner for Human Rights -- is very thorough, and it's entirely possible to use it in this article. I did not remove the different newer sources so generously introduced into the article by Peltimikko. However, he wants to ensure the better notability for the sources he cites by the way of removing points made in Gil-Robles report. I don't find such approach fruitful: for me, it looks like removing one POV while introducing the other POV; it's a very provoking behaviour.
The 2006 and 2008 reports of the Russian Commissioner for Human Rights are also notable, in my opinion.
As a Wikipedia editor I don't have a right to accuse anybody of anything. But there are Russian sources very critical of the Freedom House, and I don't think I violate Wiki-ethics by the way of citing them.
Overall, I don't say that some reports give better picture than different reports. What I actually say, is, that if something is said in the report, it should be stated in the article so without altering the sense. However, user Peltimikko seems to believe that simply quoting a report is "misusing" it; as providing a different sense than that in the report. I can't grasp this point; may be I'm too dumb to understand some highest truth in such a point? But currently, I disagree with removing sourced information on plain grounds that citing a source is "misusing" it. ellol (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Certain points, inserted into the article by Peltimikko are plainly simply false. In particular, his claim that the Russian private TV-channels Channel 5 and REN-TV will become under state control in 2010 is actually based on an anonymous statement made in a Russian newspaper. He seems to ignore further reports made by an anchorman of REN-TV, and structures representing owners of these channels, which unambiguously state that channels will remain independent. I think it's a good example of disruptive behaviour. ellol (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually I don't mind a compromise. There are only a few points that are critical for me (one is the claim about two channels to be under state control in 2010 -- that's simple ignoring the news which dismiss that information). If Peltimikko stops waving a flag and starts discussing the issues, I don't mind doing the same. ellol (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
As you can see in talk page, the issue is under continuous discussions. I started with this issue couple of weeks ago, as I saw the content was quite controversial. I made few minor edits which Ellol reverted 100%. Very well, I argued my edits and made few edits again. In most cases in this point, different editors try to find some kind of compromise, but Ellol's answer was simple: 100% reverse. After that, this has been going on during the whole process. Ellol cannot answer just simple question: Why his controversial theories and not supported countless number reports by human rights organisations. Instead Ellol confuses readers by fringe theories and revert all other views. Peltimikko (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Different reports may look differently on the situation. They are not actually controversial, but there's the natural pluralism of opinions. I wonder why Peltimikko considers valid only reports that view the situation in entirely black color, and doesn't treat others equally valid -- what's the major my point. I believe, that the most recent report of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe is no way a fringe theory -- unlike what Peltimikko states.
And again, I do not remove data from different reports, you can see that from my edits. Removing sourced information is Peltimikko's behaviour, not mine.
Unfortunately, Peltimikko seems to feel unfavourably towards a fair dialogue. ellol (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Dear Peltimikko! Freedom House and United States Department of State are certainly not reliable sources. I don't care which estimate guys like Donald Rumsfield or William Colby, or even Obama give to Russia. Especially after illegal occupation of Iraq. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If we presume they are not reliable, than who about International Press Institute, Reporters Without Borders, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International? Peltimikko (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, let's see their credibility in work. Let's begin with Reporters Without Borders. What place Pakistan has in relation to Russia? Could you, please, explain in detail this situation? Vlad fedorov (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean why the ranking of Russia is quite similar as Pakistan? Or do you refer to some report? [1] "...include the return with increasing force of censorship and reporting taboos..." Peltimikko (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Peltimikko, your version involves a number of issues that are not reported fairly to all sources:

  • The claim that "The last two remaining semi-independent television channels REN TV and Channel 5 will become under state control in 2010" ignores the multiple Russian sources which say this information is false.
In my versio, all views are presented (actually, as written by you.). Peltimikko (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The claim that "In recent years, companies with close links to the Government, state-owned Gazprom among them, have bought most influential media outlets." sourced to BBC, is misinterpretation of the source. In fact, BBC said:

Now you are making your own research.

What are you trying to say? Peltimikko (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The claim that "According to the World Press Freedom Review 2008 by International Press Institute, Russian independent media is under increasing pressure. The goverment use variety of methods to control of broadcasters, to sideline critical journalists, and to intimidate them into self-censorship." is the unjustified generalization of the statement by the IPI. In fact they criticized the media environment during the run-up to the Duma and Presidential elections.
"Pressure on Russian independent media outlets and their employees increased considerably in 2007." [2] "In Russia, freedom of speech took ever more knocks in the run up to the elections, and the country proved that it remains a dangerous place to practice journalism." [3]
  • You make use of the Freedom House sources without noting wide-spread criticism of it in Russia.
Thumb of rule: Read the latest version, before you revert it. Peltimikko (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You make use of the US State Department 2008 Human Rights Report without ever making an explicit note of the source, although a report by a governmental structure of a foreign state is prone to be politically motivated. In particular, I mean the passage "The Russian Government pressure has weaked freedom of expression and media independence, particularly of the major television networks. Authorities pressure the owners of outlets to soften critical coverage and harass journalist into practicing self-censorship. The government used its controlling ownership to restrict access to information about issues deemed sensitive."
Removed. Peltimikko (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You removed from the introduction the sourced short overviews of the situation in the country by The Russian and the European Commissioners for Human Rights. You removed the Constitution Article on Speech Freedom. You removed the observations on the 1991 Law on Mass media, its positive effects and the needs to safeguard it. ellol (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Overviews were in body text: constitution article was summarized. You removed human right organisations, and overweighted 5 year old report and Russia's ombudsman. Both are not ignored in my version.

As repeated many times, a) do not make your own political conclusions. b) international organisation reports are in first prior. c) do not confuse readers by your complicated and delibrated writings. Simply, clear, clear heading and summarized body text. d) and last, assume good faith, do not revert if you don't like it, and co-operate. Peltimikko (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that quotations of Gill Robles and Lukin are outdated and excessive. This should be fixed. Biophys (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

+

New amendmends to the legislation . [4] ellol (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"The great Internet firewall of Russia"?

Starting from the Spring of 2010 all Russian ISPs are monitoring Internet traffic of Russian residents and blocking access to websites from a "blacklist" passed down to them by government by replacing actual server responses with fake "404", "wrong Apache configuration", "Sedo parking" etc. pages (until August 2010 they were blocked by redirecting to Google or Yandex search engines). The problem is all Russian media agencies were silenced down and the launch of what de-facto is an analog of Chinese or Australian Internet firewalls was never reported in any "reliable source" as per terms of Wikipedia. This is a rather odd situation, since I can confirm existence of that Internet shield in Russia by simply typing addresses in my web browser (and everybody outside of Russia by using any Russian proxy server, like http://www.anonymizer.ru/), and then trying to access the same web sites via any proxy not located in Russia. I don't think some unknown guy like me posting screenshots would be enough for a reliable source for Wikipedia, though.

So, can somebody with more experience suggest how to add/deal with this information? The Internet shield was in operation for more than half a year and spans the entire country, so I think it's by far more important information related to censorship in Russia than currently included info on some separate ISP blocking a few sites just for several days. As to blocked websites, example addresses can be easily found in "blacklists" of other countries, e.g. that of Sweden: http://www.lapsiporno.info/blocked.glocalnet (bikini-pics dot us, cute-kitten dot com and many others will show you fake "403 Apache server errors" for any user navigating via a Russian ISP).

Or, is there some web service for recording current state of websites depending on IP that we could use to refer to (by screenshots or whatever other way), to illustrate that there indeed is official Internet shield in the country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.33.239.138 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hijacking of Censorship in Russia Article

The original article was about censorship in Russia. Somehow it got transformed into this Freedom of the Press article. Could we split that into its own article, and go back to the original topic which was about censorship. There is way too much POV in here. After reading what's here it is obvious there is no censorship and never has been in Russia in any shape and all reports that say otherwise are lies of foreign governments or anti-Russian organizations. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to at least remove long and partly irrelevant quotations/opinion pieces, but was immediately reverted [5] without response to my comment [6]. There is no way to edit anything related to Russian government. This is all collectively owned. Biophys (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you. This articles is a bag of POV spin and propaganda. Yet I have no desire to again get into massive edit wars with such a collective since the end result would be their victory and months of my time wasted. Its 'vandal gangs' such at this which got me to the point of virtually completely stopping all my editing. There were no gulags, Stalin was the kind father, and blah blah... Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure. There is no point of doing anything here. Biophys (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no right

The Constitutional speech freedom norm guarantees the freedom of ideas and speech for everyone, as well as the right "to freely look for, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information by any legal way". End of citing.

Speech freedom in Russia is privilege, not right. Since 'by any legal way' means that goverment can freely pass appropriate law to restrict the freedom. One of such silly law is "On mass media".

94.180.79.161 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there's no priviledge but voluntary rejection of natural rights by some citizens themselves, multiplied by freaky interpreting the same rights by others? In any case claims like "authorities restrict somebody's freedom of speech" cause several other thoughts like "What law allows him/her express this opinion except of freedom" and "what has this one done him/herself against this trend expect of helpless shouts of ostrich's head hidden into the sand?". However, nothing encyclopedic is to appear in this thread.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap ☏ 02:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Censorship in Russia

This redirects here, but I think we need a better article. At the very least, a disambig pointing here and to Internet censorship in Russia seems in order. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Freedom of the press in Russia. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Freedom of the press in Russia. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To be moved - no objections after full listing, and seems a reasonable request. Will request admin assistance for move. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


Freedom of the press in Russia → Media freedom in Russia – The page includes wider contents than just press freedom (broadcast media, internet); "Media freedom in <Country X>" is a new series of articles. Davide Denti (OBC) (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Old 'censorship' template

I've hidden the Template:Censorship by country for the moment pending further discussion.

After going through a few of the linked articles, this 'censorship' project started years ago has lost any real cohesion. Not only are concepts of censorship being held together by WP:SYNTH, there is no way for the reader to distinguish between historical states from current states, or even the forms that censorship takes. Equating forms of state censorship in the RF media with the Russian Empire and contemporary theocracies is... well, a leap into philosophical vagaries at best.

Any thoughts from other editors as to whether the template and subject matter needs to be thoroughly reviewed? I've left a note on the template's talk page, but it really hasn't seen terribly much action since it was created in 2008. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media freedom in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pskov assaults, not only Shlosberg

http://www.bbc.com/russian/rolling_news/2014/08/140827_rn_osce_journalists_russia.shtml Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling

I think we need to put in a new effort to correct the grammar and spelling in this article, as in many places it's really bad. I did fix up one section but I'm only one man and would appreciate the help of others to fix it up. :) Bitsdotliestalk 05:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media freedom in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Media freedom in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Media freedom in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media freedom in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Russophobia in article

All article is blatant russophobic propaganda. All links are pointing on anti-Russian resources, or pseudo-independent agencies, financed by western countries and oligarchs, or western pro-american press. How free it is you can see here: https://ruxpert.ru/Свобода_слова_на_Западе‎ "This article gathers examples of violations of freedom of speech in the West, such as harassing carriers of an objectionable point of view, repressions and murders of journalists and dissidents , censorship in the media, hindering journalistic activities. As is known, in the course of the information war, Western countries constantly accuse Russia of restricting and violating freedom of speech - the Western media widely exaggerate both real and, for the most part, alleged violations of freedom of speech in Russia. However, this often ignores or ignores the numerous problems with freedom of speech in the West itself."

Human Rights Reports: Russia - US BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, official american government organization, USA propaganda. Reporters Without Borders - financed by USA oligarch and russophobe Jorge Soros and French government and NED (prooved in Russia to be foreign agent). Human Rights Watch - financed by USA oligarch and russophobe Jorge Soros, countries in North America, headquarter in USA.

Is HRW really independant? Nobel Peace Laureates to Human Rights Watch: Close Your Revolving Door to U.S. Government, http://www.alternet.org/world/nobel-peace-laureates-human-rights-watch-close-your-revolving-door-us-government

Oleg Popov, from 1969 to 1982 who participated in the human rights movement, argued that 

 “HRW assumed the functions of advocacy for the diplomatic, economic and military intervention of NATO countries, primarily the United States, in the internal affairs of other countries” .

https://web.archive.org/web/20061005051609/http://www.moskvam.ru/2004/08/popov.htm

Amnesty International - financing by USA dept, UK department of international development and Eurocomission. Western russophobic propaganda, agents of bringing "USA democracy" to independent countries.

Articles must be objective and should not have any propaganda.


5.167.172.1 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Ghost

Violations of free speech right on western countries

On Putin's visit to Vienna and freedom of speech in the West http://ruskline.ru/opp/2018/iyun/7/o_vizite_putina_v_venu_i_svobode_slova_na_zapade/

The European Commission declared war on freedom of speech on the Internet http://politrussia.com/society/evrokomissiya-obyavila-voynu-616/

Público: there is “freedom of speech” in Europe, but not for Russians https://russian.rt.com/inotv/2017-12-01/Pblico-svoboda-slova-v-Evrope

Peskov condemned the violation of freedom of speech in relation to the Russian media in the West https://life.ru/t/новости/1171658/pieskov_osudil_narushieniie_svobody_slova_v_otnoshienii_rossiiskikh_smi_na_zapadie

In Moscow, hard walked on the "freedom of speech" in the West https://www.politnavigator.net/v-moskve-zhestko-proshlis-po-svobode-slova-na-zapade.html

Western universities have done away with free speech https://vz.ru/world/2018/6/7/926554.html

The scheme to combat the "enemies of the people" in the United States brought to perfection https://vz.ru/politics/2017/12/11/898633.html

Freedom of speech in the United States finally strangled. Who is next? https://tsargrad.tv/articles/svobodu-slova-v-ssha-okonchatelno-zadushili-kto-sledujushhij_152911

The Kremlin condemned violations of freedom of speech in relation to the Russian media in the West https://tass.ru/obschestvo/5817854

Censorship in the West: Freedom of Speech in a “Democratic” Europe https://politobzor.net/77136-cenzura-na-zapade-svoboda-slova-v-demokraticheskoy-evrope.html

Censorship in Facebook https://ria.ru/20190127/1549970274.html

5.167.168.46 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Ghost

А теперь иди делай уроки. В следующий раз не забудь рассказать о рептилоидах. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.16.80 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Updating map

The map is clearly outdated as right now Russia seems to be free on par with China MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_freedom_in_Russia/Archive_2&oldid=1187426292"