Talk:Press TV

Obviously, there was another page devoted to criticism, Press TV controversies, And it has been integrated into this page. I suggest instead of the existing writing war, separate the article, as in the past there is a separate article devoted to criticism, like the rest of the pages there is another criticism page as the rest of the other channels See also: Al Jazeera controversies and criticism BBC controversies CBS News controversies and criticism CNN controversies Fox News controversies MSNBC controversies The New York Times controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrahlawymasry (talk • contribs) 06:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Many of those off-shoot articles would have been created because of the length of the principal article. At 51K, this article is not unduly long. Philip Cross (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, at 51KB, this article is above the 50KB or above threshold discussed in Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split and, because of its content, as suggested by Amrahlawymasry seems to be perfectly suitable for a split into a main article and one for controversies. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal and see no reason to allow PressTV to be a special exception. This entire article is not NPOV anyway. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Two separate articles existed until last year. They were merged only at the end of June 2020, see Talk:Press TV/Archive 3#Merger proposal. This article was not then significantly shortter. Philip Cross (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Still, if it is above the 50k threshold, then it is worthy of splitting according to the WP Guidelines, even if it makes two 25k parts (otherwise the bottom limit would not be 50k in splitting guidelines). I still don't see any good reason stated by anyone to treat PressTV differently than the articles mentioned above like Al Jazeera's, BBC's, CNN's, etc. That would also help make the article much more NPOV than it is now and create some consensus/resolution as to ongoing complaints about this article's non-NPOV status by various editors over time. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Change this: . "It is affiliated with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), the only organization legally able to transmit radio and TV broadcasts in Iran." to "It is an independent organization from the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, although its head is appointed by the Supreme Leader of Iran. It is the largest TV and radio broadcasting organization in Iran." The organization is not affiliated with the government. The office of the Supreme Leader of Iran can, for example, bypass IRIB and broadcast its own TV, radio, and internet publishing, which it does and has. The external links used to cite this sentence are also questionable. Just from a read of their headlines, you can see they are more like opinion-editorials than objective journalistic style productions. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are you proposing to cite for this change? Philip Cross (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Current content re James Fetzer needs more solid citations. These links might be worth looking at: https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/gd/10/4/article-p431.xml https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/660265 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RyH-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Fetzer+presstv&source=bl&ots=hD8wMw8eP1&sig=ACfU3U170rC4EFNEO0JSJUYDdVuGEyEF6w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-4OiIo_n_AhVcT0EAHRxkCNk4ChDoAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=Fetzer https://www.twincities.com/2013/01/04/retired-umd-professor-theorizes-that-government-behind-newtown-massacre/amp/ https://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/from-nonsense-to-indecency-1.40149 https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2013/01/10/veterans-today-editor-blames-newtown-tragedy-israel https://theses.hal.science/tel-03276314/document BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)