Talk:2010 Georgian news report hoax

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

Talk[edit]

Editorializing statements such as "... pointing to its privately-owned status, although the station is widely regarded as being under the control of the government in Tbilisi.", the emphasis on opposition sources and the unqualified labelling of the TV senders and defenders of the hoax report as allegedly pro-government suggest that this article should be checked for its neutrality. Or in other words, an article is neutrally written if you are unable to determine the stance and opinion of the author on the subject matter. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. I will post a note on the Wikiproject Georgia page to get some more editors involved. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an editorial statement, but it is clearly backed up by multiple sources -- most non pro-Saakashvili sources point to the fact that Imedi is "privately-owned" - with a very shady shareholding behind it - and that it is headed by an ex-Saakashvili employee, and that it is widely regarded as being under the control of the government in Tbilisi. These are verifiable facts, not editorialising. As such, I don't believe the neutrality tag belongs on the article because of that. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides what non-pro-Saakashvili sources are? And I think I made it clear that the problem is a general one, not just this one sentence. Just look at how in this article statements that defend the broadcast are followed by some other statements that contradict these. That is what I mean with that this article editorialises. I am alsoc concerned about the choice of sources. This is a controversial subject, and that means that one reliably source many different and contradicting view points. To use the first sentence of the article as an example, I am sure you can source that IMEDI TV is pro-Saakashvili, but you could also source that IMEDI TV is an independent TV station.
What needs to be done is the removal of the editorializing, that is statement that are pro-government or pro-Imedi shouldnt be followed by an immediate rebuttal. The article shouldn't present as fact what are not facts but opinions (such as whether IMEDI is pro-Saakashvili or whether Giorgi Arveladze is a close ally or not). Given all this I am not even sure how carefully the sources were choosen, or whether they were cherry-picked to advocate a particular point of view. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the POV dispute clearly applies to the article in general, I've restored the NPOV tag. cmadler (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the sources used in the article. The Georgian Times (Georgian), RIA Novosti (Russian), Georgian Daily (Georgian), Polit.ru (Russian), BBC News (British), Eurasia Review (publication of the neocon The Jamestown Foundation), Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australian), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (US govt propaganda), Time (magazine), Lenta.ru (Russian with reputation for being often anti-Kremlin), Voice of Russia (Russian), Christian Science Monitor, News.am (Armenia), The Moscow Times (Russian with a vehement anti-Kremlin slant in reporting), The Daily Caller (an American political news website), Interfax (Russian NGO news agency), The Telegraph (British), Civil Georgia (Georgian NGO run by the UN Association of Georgia and supported by USAID, Friedrich Ebert Foundation and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Trend News Agency (Azerbaijan), Spiegel (German), ABC News (American), The Times (British), Sky News (British), Reuters, Russia Today (Russian govt owned TV channel). Just where is the problem with selective news sourcing? FYI, I used Google News to source information, and opened every single article relating to the subject, and what is presented in the article is what I have been able to find on Google News. I hope that the problem isn't using Russian sources, as this would be quite tedious, as I can easily provide dozens of refs from other media which would state the same thing--but I refuse to do so on the article, just because an editor has a problem with the country of origin of the source. As to the other problem, the lead has been changed, to make it NPOV. As there has been no attempt to NPOV the article by other editors, and as the only problem which has been clearly identified is now fixed, I have removed the POV tag from the article. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in regards to alleged editorialising. In essence, what Vrubels is arguing is that the article provides WP:UNDUE weight to non-Georgian govt opinions. However, according to WP:UNDUE, Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. If one takes the time to peruse the various sources available on this subject, they will clearly see that what is presented in the article is in fact in line with the proportion of those opinions/whatever prevalence in the overall available sources. The hoax report has been almost universally condemned by the Georgian opposition, Eduard Shevardnadze, Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia, many Georgian journalists, the Russian government, the French, British and US ambassadors to Georgia, the President of Abkhazia, the government of South Ossetia, the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, the European Commission President, NATO, etc. The incident has been described as serious miscalculation on the part of Saakashvili by almost all of those sources. Basically the only "people" in opposition to the "condemning" views on the broadcast is Imedi and parts of the Georgian government, and their opinions are present in the article, inline with the prevalence that they have appeared in available sources. They more than mean WP:UNDUE. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to Imedi being pro-Saakashvili, one should look at this from Giorgi Badridze, Georgia's ambassador to the UK, in which he says among other things, "It is true that the station is managed by a former senior government official and has a pro-government editorial slant." Although he does dispute whether it is under the control of the government. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

I have now added more sources in relation to the poll that was run by a Georgian newspaper, which indicates that 63% of Georgians believe Saakashvili had beforehand knowledge of the report, etc. More sources can be provided if needed. If someone who speaks Georgian can access the actual article at http://www.kvirispalitra.ge then that too can be used as a reference for the article. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 16:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Arveladze - ally of Saakashvili[edit]

It is not POV to state that Giorgi Arveladze is an ally of Saakashvili, when RFE/RL, RIA Novosti, The Moscow Times, EurasiaNet, Russia Today, Variety Magazine, Scoop.co.nz, The Georgian Times, Today.az, Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, The Times, etc, etc all state this as a matter of fact within their reports of this very article topic. Is there any reason it should not be mentioned? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether it's mentioned, it's a matter of how and where. I've moved the mention of the Arveladze-Saakashvili connection to a different section where it is actually relevant. cmadler (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Georgian news report hoax. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 19:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Georgian_news_report_hoax&oldid=1196567070"