Talk:Channel One (Russia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
I moved this to conform with translit guidelines, but on the second thought shouldn't this be at Channel One (Russia) or Channel 1 (Russia)? Iranian Channel One is currently at Channel 1 (Iran).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please move the article back. Google fight on this issue is inconclusive. As there isn't a single firm rule for Russian transliteration, in this case I think -yi makes the spelling clear. (Place names use the national system, linguistics use scientific transliteration; see Romanization of Russian) --Ghirla | talk 12:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Ghirla! "Inconclusive" seems to be a too generous word here, I think the correct word should be "no difference". "Pervyi" leads "pervy" by measly 56 hits (637 vs. 581), and if you add "-wikipedia", then the difference is smaller still: 601 vs. 579. If you want to go with Google, then "Perviy", with its 14,900 hits, makes a lot more sense.
- The thing in this case, however, is not what Google says. Granted, we use more common names when magnitude of difference is on the scale of 100 or more, but for less-known names it makes all the sense to go with the consistent translit scheme. I am not sure if you missed the discussion, but at this time Russian is transliterated as per Wikipedia:Transliteration of Russian into English, and there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) aimed to finally bring order to the Cyrillic translit mess. You are more than welcome to join, by the way.
- Anyway, what do you think about moving this article to a normal, uncontroversial name such as First Channel (Russia) (306 hits), Channel One (Russia) (53,000 hits!), or Channel 1 (Russia) (225 hits)? All other versions can, of course, stay as redirects.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Channel One (Russia) is pretty good IMHO. Actually, I attempted to move the article to Channel One some time ago, but there is a dab page sitting there. Then I decided to leave the article's name as it is. --Ghirla | talk 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's right to say Channel One is the oldest channel in Russia. The frequency may be the oldest in use, but "Channel One" as talked about in the article certainly isn't the oldest channel in Russia.
- There might have been certain reorganizations but it doesn't change the fact that many people and programs are the same as they used to be in the Soviet era. For example, they still have "Vremya", "Utro", "Chelovek i zakon", "Chto Gde Kogda" as it was in the 1970s. --Ghirla | talk 07:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that's like that saying the current Russian Federation is an old country because it contains cities that are hundreds of years old. "Channel One" isn't Russian's oldest channel. "Channel One" isn't the same thing as ORT even. They share the same frequency, and yes, some of the same shows. To say it's Russia's oldest channel is factually incorrect, but whatever, I won't change it.
- Channel One is ORT that changed its name. When Persia requested other countries to style itself Iran, it didn't make it a "young country", did it? Sorry, I can't agree with your arguments. --Ghirla | talk 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I guess you're not a lawyer. "Channel One" wasn't just a name change, it was a change in company registration, ownership, etc. It's a different OAO now. And if you know a little about international law, then you know that "regime changes," (like your example with Persia) are different things than when an actual state (i.e. the Soviet Union) becomes defunct and a new state (i.e. Russia) is formed, and has to be readmitted to the UN, resign treaties etc. The transfer from ORT to Channel one was more like the change from the USSR to Russia, rather than Persia to Iran.
- Once again, can your provide any sources that there "was a change in company registration, ownership, etc."? I'm not aware of any. Also, Russian Federation inherited all the property and liabilities of the Soviet Union en masse. It was never readmitted to the UN and never resigned its treaties. So you analogy is wrong. --Ghirla | talk 13:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is my last discussion with you on this topic, but your claim that "Russia inherited all the property and liablities of the Soviet Union en masse" is not correct. Most of the Soviet property inside the Russian Soviet Republic went to Russia, but Soviet property in other Soviet repubics often went to those new independent countries. I suggest you read about what happened to Soviet nuclear weapons after the Soviet Union fell, the details of Soviet debt repayment etc, and their status vis-a-vis the USSR's international obligations. It isn't nearly as simple as "Russia inherited all the property and liablities of the Soviet Union." Russia is a different legal entity than the Soviet Union (Persia is not a different legal state than Iran, per your example. In fact, I'm not sure when, if ever, they made an official name change specifically from "Persia" to "Iran," as you suggest. I'm not even sure that those names were ever the official names, but I don't know that country's history well enough. I only use examples with things I have good knowledge about. Thus, I would appreciate it if you could find a source for your claim, giving the date). In any event, when a country changes its name, that doesn't neccesarily mean that the country has changed it's legal status, as is the case between the USSR and Russia. The current Russian state is 14 years old. Before 1991, Russia wasn't a country, but a unit of the USSR.
- Once again, can your provide any sources that there "was a change in company registration, ownership, etc."? I'm not aware of any. Also, Russian Federation inherited all the property and liabilities of the Soviet Union en masse. It was never readmitted to the UN and never resigned its treaties. So you analogy is wrong. --Ghirla | talk 13:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I guess you're not a lawyer. "Channel One" wasn't just a name change, it was a change in company registration, ownership, etc. It's a different OAO now. And if you know a little about international law, then you know that "regime changes," (like your example with Persia) are different things than when an actual state (i.e. the Soviet Union) becomes defunct and a new state (i.e. Russia) is formed, and has to be readmitted to the UN, resign treaties etc. The transfer from ORT to Channel one was more like the change from the USSR to Russia, rather than Persia to Iran.
- Channel One is ORT that changed its name. When Persia requested other countries to style itself Iran, it didn't make it a "young country", did it? Sorry, I can't agree with your arguments. --Ghirla | talk 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that's like that saying the current Russian Federation is an old country because it contains cities that are hundreds of years old. "Channel One" isn't Russian's oldest channel. "Channel One" isn't the same thing as ORT even. They share the same frequency, and yes, some of the same shows. To say it's Russia's oldest channel is factually incorrect, but whatever, I won't change it.
-
-
-
-
-
- Anyway, much more important is this: even if you don't have a legal education and don't accept my analogy, you should still understand that OAO "OРТ" was a different company than OAO "Певрый канал." You seemed to be confused by the fact that they both occupied the same television frequency (the frequency that you see when you push #1 on your remote control), but this article isn't about the frequency, it's about the company, OAO "Первый канал." You don't buy a frequency, you rent it (or, depending on the country, get government rights to broadcast on it). In other words, the government will always control the frequency that comes into your television when you press "1." The government may or may not control the companies that have access to that frequency however. Currently, the government controls both the frequecny and the company. Finally, go to www.1tv.ru, and find the section История Первого канала. You will see this. "Первый канал вышел в эфир на первом частотном канале 1 апреля 1995 года. Он занял место программ государственной телерадиокомпании "Останкино", вещавшей на этом канале с 1991 года." Notice, there are two different companies mentioned here. One frequency, two companies, this article is about the company. NTV is older than Первый канал. Want more evidence? Go back to http://www.ach.gov.ru/results/12/01.php., point 6.1 of the report: "Открытое акционерное общество «Первый канал» (до 20 сентября 2002 г. – закрытое акционерное общество «Общественное Российское телевидение») создано в соответствии с Указом Президента Российской Федерации от 29 ноября 1994 г. № 2133 «О совершенствовании эксплуатации первого частотного канала телевидения и сети его распространения»." Do you understand the difference between ОАО Первый канал and the первый частотный канал? Even if you want to argue that ОАО Первый канал is the same thing as ЗАО OРТ (which it's not), then you would still have to admit that it's younger than НТВ, because OРТ wasn't formed until late 1994.
-
-
-
-
Also, where is the source that the Russian govt. owns 38% of the shares? Nevermind, I already found the source http://www.ach.gov.ru/results/12/01.php. It's 51%. Whoever said 38% isn't very familiar with Russian business structure.
- If my memory servs me rights, my source was the New York Times: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A1FFE345B0C768CDDAB0894DE404482 --Ghirla | talk 07:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- That link takes me to a subscription article about Russian cinema. Anyway, the correct amount is 51%. The New York Times Russian reporting is pretty pathetic in general, and the Shchetnaya Palata document is the source I will trust.
[edit] Controversy Section
I would like to know your specific reasons that you took off the controversy section. The "Original Research" page of wikipedia state, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
I have not created primary sources. I merely listed excerpts from a few stories and noted the criticisms of them. You can find these stories and make a judgement yourself. It is not controversial that many in the West and inside Russia are critical of Channel One news. If you need, I can embarass you and find dozens of sources for this. But I'm sure you already know that many people both inside and outside of Russia criticize the content of Russian news.
I want to know specifically, what lines you claim are POV pushing and original research. What written is not verifiable? That seems to be the key Wiki standard. Otherwise, you have no basis for removing this, and it appears that you are the one with an agenda or POV pushing. I'm afraid if you enter into a debate with me on this issue, just like the previous one, the facts will be on my side.
[edit] References
Do we really need both references to the text of the Journalist's Code of Conduct in the External links section? is it a general ref for the article? Maybe we could have one inline reference for the code of conduct and keep the external references section for the general info about the company? abakharev 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- The sounds like a good idea.
[edit] Citations
I've been trying to clean some citations here. I'm at a disadvantage because my Russian is minimal. It looks to me like some of the citations are not to what would generally be considered reliable sources. It would be very useful if a native Russian speaker with a good sense of Wikipedia standards for sources would go through and examine each of these. - Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Even one of the English-language sources - the Jamestown Foundation - is not what I'd usually call a great source.
I don't think anything in the article is particularly incorrect, but I'd really like to see more sourcing from sources that would generally be considered reasonably authoritative and neutral. - Jmabel | Talk 05:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Trying to access the reference http://www.mk.ru/blogs/MK/2008/01/16/1/333640/ locks up my browser (it does appear to be a relevant page, but something is presumably wrong with it technically). Do others have the same thing happen? If so, given the multiple citations given in the same context, I think we should drop this one as a hazard. - Jmabel | Talk 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
