Talk:Roj TV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Roj TV: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
[edit] Comments
Please do indicate how your addition improves the article. See also WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN (last one b/c of your suggestion for me to discuss on talk page, instead of you yourself initializing it).
- (exact transmission time varies somewhat) : trivial piece, more importantly original research
- title of section: we can reach a consensus here
- so far unsuccesfully: addition of unsourced info before a source giving idication of being sourced, but in fact it is trivial repetition as well, a better one would be to say "it is banned" when it is banned (if it will ever be banned).
- insists:same, POV change of sourced statement
- The Turkish authorities have repeadedly made formal complaints to The Danish Radio and Televison council regarding ROJ TV but to date none of the complaints to the have been upheld by the board who have ruled that the TV channel has not violated Danish law.: Unnecessary, original research, unsourced
- don't see why the rest of this section is better in your version
- This is not the right article for "Kurdish broadcasting in Turkey", but making that section is warranted as long as the text stays here. I am not against it at the moment, even if the existence of that section might be breaching WP:NPOV (why should it be there, is someone trying to make a point?) If there is a relevance, it is not well established.
Once again, see WP:CONSENSUS, please don't overlook this suggestion. DenizTC 11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than repeadedly reverting/cutting out test you feel is insufficently sourced would it not be better to but "citation needed" on the bits you take issue with and then leave it for a few days to afford other editors the opportunity to come up with acceptable citations (or if you feel the citations are insufficent discuss it here) ? If after a reasonable period of time nobody can come up with anything then by all means edit/delete. Reverting or removing bits of text posted in good faith with little or no explanation/discussion, particularly on an article dealing with a controversial subject tends to give rise to unhelpful edit/revert wars.
- * 1) Strictly speaking you are correct about it being OR but it is nevertheless useful for any interested person trying to view the programme. Its time does very quite a bit (some weeks doesnt seem to go out at all).
- * 2) Title of Section: (Presume youre referring to "PKK connections" V's "Controversy"). "PKK Connections" is a tad POV (Since the channel denies Turkish Govt claims about it being a PKK mouthpiece), "Alleged PKK Connections" is probably too POV in the other direction, "Controversy" is a fairly reasonable compromise is it not ?
- * 3) Would "repeatedly" be better then ?
- * 4) Is "Insists" not appropriate in the context of the channels denial of some serious accusations (terrorist links etc) made against them ?
- * 5) RE: Sourcing Until recently there was a statement from ROJ on their website (gone now but I can try and dig it up via an archive if necessary) in which they quote the Danish Radio/TV council rulings
- * 6) Assuming you are referring to the Med TV/ITC saga. Including the bit about "allegations of bias on the ITC's part" makes the section more NPOV
- * 7) The section on "Kurdish broadcasting" is relevent because helps to explain to the reader WHY the people behind ROJ TV are claiming there is a need for their channel in Turkey.
- 80.229.222.48 23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
