Russia: Politics and law / Mass media B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force.

Media B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

Template:TelevisionStationsProject

Television B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image:Logo rttv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Russavia has removed a paragraph from the lead with the message "Removed entire "breathless cheerleader" section in lead - it is NPOV, and 3 sources do not support the synthesis raised - take it to talk page", so I have taken it to the talk page. The paragraph is NPOV because it balances Russia Today's view as being an alternative to the "Anglophone point of view on international news" with critics of Russia Today TV's neutrality. Russavia also asserts that the sources do not actually claim that Russia Today TV is a "breathless cheerleader" for the Kremlin and that it is synthesis. As such I have provided a quote from the sources (actually 4) here exactly in context.

Thrilltalk 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

paragraph: However, criticism has been raised against Russia Today for being a "breathless cheerleader" for the Kremlin[4] and for being to much "in the hands" of the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin.[3][5][6][7]

relevant quotes from sources:

"At first glance [Russia Today] looks a lot like CNN, but it can be a breathless cheerleader for the Kremlin."

The channel’s roots in the Kremlin staff, including the president’s briefer Alexey Gromov and the president’s advisor Mikhail Lesin were spotted off-the-record.

Dmitry Peskov, who is Gromov’s first deputy, confirmed to Kommersant “the idea of Russia Today was backed up and understood in the staff of the president.”

Besides, the channel’s founder is the state-run RIA Novosti and its funding is effected for the state budget’s account ($30 million for 2005).

RIA-Novosti created Russia Today with the aim of presenting the government's view on news about Russia

The Kremlin is already spending millions of dollars on the English-language satellite news channel “Russia Today.”

several analysts say [Russia Today] will amount to nothing more than Kremlin propaganda.

Unless anyone can prove how these quote do not support the paragraph, I'm reinstating the paragraph again. ASN (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's all that important. Western media preaching to Russia about not being enough like the west, what else is new? I think we should be more concerned with facts rather than opinions, after all this is an encyclopedia. It's kind of like music and movie reviews, if someone wants to find out about it, they can just watch it and make up their own mind (it's even free). I don't see why you would be so hard pressed to put preconceived notions into readers heads using other peoples opinions. I don't think the general public is so stupid as to need an "expert" to tell them whether or not something is propaganda, and in an ironic twist, that could be seen as propaganda in of itself. Nevertheless, I left the criticism in, and added some additional information to balance it. However personally I think the paragraph should be removed completely. LokiiT (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions do matter, and should be included, even if they do not sound new to you. It's important to know what has been said about any topic, from all sides. Even movies pages have "reaction" section which summarizes opinion about the the movie. ASN (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One sided opinions do not belong in the intro, please see WP:NPOV. When someone comes to this article, by no means should they be reading negative opinions before all else. That is ridiculous. Look at the BBC, CNN, CBC and Al-Jazeera articles. Criticism does not go in the intro. There is no self praise in the intro either, please quote what you're talking about, all I see is facts, stats and objectives. If it's going to be a problem, maybe we should just delete all opinions like I suggested earlier.

And further, that kommersant article doesn't criticize Russia Today at any point, please re-read it. Only western media has criticized it. LokiiT (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there were both sides represented in the intro: critique about channel's affiliation to kremlin, and opposing statement from editors about their editorial independence. not much difference from what is at Fox_News_Channel, where criticism does go into intro. ASN (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is an opinion other than one-sided? WP:NPOV says to present all significant points of view, not none. Criticism does have a place in the introduction, from WP:LEAD

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

It does not matter whether the criticism comes from someone "Western" or "Eastern", all that matters is that it is reliable. Thrilltalk 08:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would you prefer we move the entire criticism section back to the lead? Because it's certainly not neutral to just have negative points. The only reason I moved it in the first place was because it was getting too big. (Read what WP:LEAD says about length compared to article size, 4 paragraphs is too big. This article is 11,000 characters, so its lead should be 1 or 2 paragraphs.) And I think it is important to note that it's western media criticizing, the topic of Russia and media freedom is a touchy topic indeed when it comes to western media. LokiiT (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, yes, because the criticism was brief (1 sentence) and well sourced, it was designed for a lead. The response to the criticism in the criticism section could be compressed to one sentence also, something like "Russia Today TV and the Russian Federal Press and Mass Communications Agency deny this."

The lead-to-article length relationship is a problem, but I think this is something that cannot be cut out of the lead for space reasons. The best solution would be to keep this in the lead and add a more detailed account in an existing or new section (not a criticism section, Wikipedia policy discourages criticism sections). Copying the criticism section verbatim would still leave some weight issues to be resolved.

A possible "third way" would be to compress the criticism stuff like one would for the lead and integrate it with the article without mentioning anything in the lead. This would be less helpful to readers, but marginally better than a criticism section. Thrilltalk 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with criticism sections is that they become "troll magnets", so to speak, where people just list endless amounts of criticism in what becomes an unfair POV attack against the subject. I think given the size, popularity and subject matter of this article, we shouldn't have any such problems. If it does become a problem I would be for removing the section and incorporating the criticism more evenly into the article, but for now I think the section is fine.

And again I must point out the fact that there are no other media broadcasting articles that include criticism in their leads, despite most of them having significant amounts of criticism in the rest of the article. I don't think we should hold double standards. Policies like what to include in the lead need to be looked at with common sense. We're talking about opinions on a media broadcasting station, not intellectual scrutiny over some sort of scientific theory or otherwise factually controversial topic. LokiiT (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't advocating a criticism section. I was advocating integration of the criticism. I also will say there are other media broadcasting articles with criticism in their leads, Fox News Channel comes to mind. Criticism is always opinion, and the lead policy makes good sense. The lead section should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. To force the reader to dig through mounds of text before learning about connections that could compromise RTT's journalistic integrity would be a disservice to the reader and more public relations than encyclopedic. Thrilltalk 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried to insert politics in the lead again. There is no reason to add political commentary to the ownership of RIA Novosti there. Cliveklg (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that we can find more credible critics to cite than the Jamestown Foundation. They are extremely critical of nearly every aspect of present-day Russia. They are not comparably critical of other countries with similar problems. I'd really suggest that we would do better to cite criticism from international human rights groups with more of a history of even-handed criticism of propaganda and censorship. - Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source some of this criticism of Jamestown from reliable sources? Thrilltalk 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be taken to Wikipedia:RSN ASN (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the habit of having to source my talk page remarks, but I'll see what I can find. My point is, though, that I think we can find similar criticisms made by sources that have more credibility. - Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even a cursory reading of our own article Jamestown Foundation makes it abundantly clear that this is largely a neoconservative organization. I'm not saying that means they are reckless with facts - from what I can see, they are more responsible than many who share their politics - but this really is as if (to take an example from someone on the other end of the political spectrum) we had our criticisms of something drawn mainly from The Nation. It's not a bad source, and I'd trust them on facts (though not always on the big picture), but there are probably better - and, specifically, more credible - sources on this topic. - Jmabel | Talk 17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link isn't necessary anyways. There are enough links supporting that paragraph. Why so much controversy over something that most readers will never even notice? For the record though I agree that Jamestown is pretty anti-Russian. You'd be hard pressed to find anything positive about Russia in one of their articles, at least that doesn't end up being a back handed compliment. LokiiT (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Russia Today has received some criticism in Western media for its close ties with the Russian state authorities "

• Did you read the sources?

"Chief Editor Anton Nosik, of a major English-language computer internet site in Russia (Mos-News.com), is one critic of the channel who is skeptical. Mr. Nosik says the idea smacks of Soviet-style propaganda campaigns, dating as far back as Joseph Stalin". That right there makes your wording completely untrue. I am reverting back. Ostap 02:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that was reported in Western media. Please stop edit warring over two simple words that you feel you must change (you accuse me of POV pushing, yet you're the one who initiated the change). You are one revert away from breaking WP:3RR. LokiiT (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we use English sources on English wikipedia does not mean that all criticism comes from the Western media. There is no need for the "western" label to the criticism, especially since the criticism is coming from Russian journalists. I am asking for a third opinion. Please be advised that you are also one revert away from breaking WP:3RR, and since you already have multiple blocks for edit warring you might be blocked for longer duration. Ostap 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's Russian or other non-western media that criticizes RT then please by all means add it and this will be settled. I personally haven't seen any non-western media criticize it, so I think it's noteworthy that this is one type of media from a specific part of the world calling another type from another part biased, rather than a world-wide consensus. Regarding my reverts, I'm well aware that I have reverted three times. what you wrote on my talk page is wrong though, your first edit counts as a revert as it technically reverted someone else's earlier edit to include that phrase. LokiiT (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an english wiki written through a US perspective. Of course half of the article will have a criticism section with no usable or reliable references. It's sick and stupid, but just go along with it.

Sort of like the reporting on Russia Today.99.103.228.194 (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-G

The criticism section seems good, but it's way too long! It's almost a third of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.106.61.219 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

This looks to me to be improper synthesis. Unless there is some source that analyzes media criticisms of Russia Today TV, and explicitly states that these exclusively originate from Western media, it should be left out. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 10:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need another third opinion or is this settled? Ostap 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that a good look at RT.com turns up some serious questions about the political motivation of RT towards the destabilizing of the United States Government, or its people. It should be mentioned in this short explanation. Here are a few worrisome articles from RT.com

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-07-10/oakland-manslaughter-police-riot.html http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-10-24/police-brutality-america.html http://rt.com/Politics/2009-10-30/american-empire-collapse-2020.html http://rt.com/Politics/2009-11-02/us-revolution-obama-dix.html

M. Felzien process.engineer@yahoo.com 76.102.125.111 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the following from the article:

During an episode of Peter Lavelle's Crosstalk that involved British journalist Douglas Murray, Lavelle asserted that "the people that perpetrated 9/11 were not even fundamentalists at all".^[1] RT also taped a news story that aired the views of the 9/11 Truth movement.^[2] In July 2010 RT gave a platform to Daniel Estulin who alleged that the Bilderberg Group is seeking to "destroy Russian society from within" and that "the US government is building 13 secret bases in Afghanistan for the forward push to an eventual war against Russia."^[3]

At issue is not that these things are controversial but the original research. We need someone criticising them, not YouTube clips of the video itself. Gonfaloniere (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the New York TWC Russia Today channel was just replaced with a "LaoStar TV USA - Coming Soon" message. Anyone know what happened and if it's anything permanent? The article's the first place I went to, so I'll look around the net a bit for some answers. - Tajik24 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading RT Forums, ever since I've got embezzelled in the "Battle of Title" and although I found little there to support my arguments, I did find quite a lot of people, while critiquing RT's Coverage, calling RT's Forums truly Democratic. I've also heard others complaining that their articles weren't being published, or were heavily edited, yet these claims were actually published on RT Forums. Any idea on how to put that into the article? Should I try to write an article on the forums just to see if it works? Anyone want to experiment? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western State and commercial media should be identified as such. Voice of America and "Radio Liberaty" qualify as Western state media. New York Times and CBS News are Western commercial media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.38.178 (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They launched a Spanish language channel. I'm not sure however how to name the new article - would "RT (Spanish)" be appropriate? --IJK_Principle (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hence to force the viewer say "See, even Russians say Americans own". I wonder if there're sources supporting it. --Leladax (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying a broadcaster funded from the Russian federal budget is actually a front for US propaganda?? Please, run that one through the checklist. --Yablochko (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extension of the Orange Revolution into Russia. Al-Jazeera and Press TV are similar operations. They have to deceive the Russian people and global population by appearing to be anti-American and pro-Russian, a trust mechanism. Ja, it's a collaborative effort between the Americans, Brits, Israelis, their intelligence agencies, and Neo-Cons in Russia. If Putin had approvals in the 20s, their mask would come off. Stay tuned for 2012.

391 loser (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The commercials and promos do not stall the programming as their counterparts on CBS.com did when I watched 60 minutes this past Monday. Choice of 3 resolutions allows me to continue watching and surf the internet at the same time. If not using my computer for anything else while watching the stream my dsl connetion of 746 kbps usually works with no stalling at the default medium resolutiion. If I am going to use another instance of my explorer8 browser I just click below for a lower resolution. Does anyone know of any other broadcaster on the internet that comes anywhere near to their consideration for their internet audience? I wonder how well the stream works for those using dialup.1archie99 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

To say that ownership is by the Kremlin and/or Moscow is no more correct than to say that the PBS network was owned by the Ford Foundation or the United States Government. In its early days PBS was almost entirely supported by these two sources. Here is a link from Google that translates the main part of the web page into English that is cited in the article regarding the proposed funding by the government in 2007 for Russia Today. http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ng.ru%2Fpolitics%2F2006-09-05%2F1_svobodaslova.html&sl=ru&tl=en I would like to see this url added to the original cite that contains no English at all. Also, we could use an update on the amount the government is spending to support RT. I remember there being more commercials on RT in its earlier days including that of a Russian oil company. 1archie99 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novazee added "... According to some American journalists and European heads of department “Reporters without borders”, the channel is the mouthpiece of government propaganda." I think the sentence is slightly broken. Is the "Reporters without borders" in the addition Reporters Without Borders? If yes, then Reporters Without Borders is not a department and maybe the "department" in the sentence should be changed to "organization". --EarthFurst (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Sweden, Reporters Without Borders are more known as Reporters Without Brains. All they do is defend the power of the media barons who rule, politicize and corrupt the news flow i the Western world. On several topics, news through the mainstream is more indoctrination than information. Of course reporters living on news-distortion and subjugation dislike when someone new comes through with alternative explanations. carl@lundstrom.com --95.152.68.207 (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put in a bit more about the editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan? She's an interesting character, only in her mid-twenties and has been largely responsible for turning the operation from a BBC-wannabe into a Fox News-style political mouthpiece. (She has acknowledged publicly the role Fox has played as an exemplar). I would like to do a bit of work on this article but don't know where to start... -- Yablochko (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead reads like a description of their broadcasting avenues not their content. It also doesn't mention who owns them / funds them etc while it does mention the cost of operation. Is this normal for a channel like this? Also in the controversy section it seemed a bit funny that it was called 'controversial' to report on conspiracy theorists. Is that really controversial or is it just a demonstration of poor or good reporting? I mean if the theorists were talking about a likely conspiracy eg. Reichstagg burning, big deal ... it seems though they were talking about the Bilderberg group and 9/11 truthers ... but does WP really take a stance on that being controversial / good / bad reporting?--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the lead should probably look more like the page on CCTV, RT's Chinese equivalent. Its lead looks like this:

China Central Television or Chinese Central Television [...] is the major state television broadcaster in mainland China. CCTV has a network of 19 channels broadcasting different programmes and is accessible to more than one billion viewers.[1] Most of its programmes are a mixture of documentary, comedy, entertainment and drama, the majority of which consists of Chinese soap operas and entertainment. This station is one of the official mouthpieces of the Chinese government, and reports directly to high-level officials in the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) Central Propaganda Department.

As for the conspiracy theories, some of the stuff RT broadcasts is full-on political agitation...for example claims that Obama orchestrated the BP oil spill. It doesn't matter if the presenters themselves endorse the conspiracy theories or not, simply giving them so much airtime seems to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the US government with FUD. Yablochko (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is any credible secondary party (such as reporters without borders) making the allegation you're making Yabochko? If not, its not a valid view for WP. Also ... Perhaps ABC, BBC and CBC are more relevant, the state owned broadcasters for Australia, Britain and Canada. China is happy to be called a dictatorship and actually owns CCTV while RT seems to be 'funded' according to the sources by the Russian government, which claims its a democracy. They context of funded is not explicitly clear (eg. that they are funded completely or if they are funded in part). These things need to be established I think (humble opinion), both in the body of the article and summarised in the lead.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, with all due respect, the amount of text in the criticism section for the main page of Fox News relative to the amount of text in the RT main page (excluding the criticism pages for both), is significantly more. I know that is not a perfect metric, but to an average, non-contributing user (me), coming from neither the US or Russia, that seems to imply in some subliminal way that therefore there is less criticism of the service. Considering the criticism out there (it does have enough content to spill over to another page) and the significance of the service, maybe adding to that section a few more sentences would be appropriate. Especially relative to the aforementioned CBC and ABC. 77.246.87.241 (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put this in the third opinion section above, but I just removed a good chunk of original research from the controversy section, not because having 9/11 Truth movement people isn't a crackpot thing to do but because we need someone else pointing that out. Gonfaloniere (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a need for a proper list of satellites transmitting RT, as well as other methods used to transmit RT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.39.31 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RT is one of the very few "television stations" or as I prefer to call them "television channels" freely available world wide on the internet. Also freely available are CCTV from China, PressTV from Iran, and France 24. Many others are available world wide but not in the U.S.1archie99 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article cites RT about itself being publicly funded. Sorry, RT talking about RT is at best an opinion. RIA Novosti—the Novosti (News) Russian Information Agency, the RT parent, is the media outlet of the Russian state. RT self-comparing to the BBC is laughable. I see the identical gross misrepresentation in every RT related article I've done a cursory check of. Or is that Чехов. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for you to get excited as no one claimed that RT is a privately owned corporation. This is an encyclopedia. And as such it only deals with cold facts and the facts are RT is exactly like the BBC, Al Jazeera, France 24, CCTV and Deutsche Welle and so on and so forth. Nothing more nothing less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnigol (talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a Reliable Source that avers that RT is exactly "like".--Galassi (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about bringing some arguments for doubting the text, Galassi? I never saw you bringing arguments, only blindly reverting and interferring according to you political bias. --Voyevoda (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "You'll need a Reliable Source that avers that RT is exactly like" means. Galassi, you obviously are a person with limited English proficiency. You have a difficulty composing a proper English sentence that doesn't violate the elaborate NPOV requirements that Wikipedia sets forth. You have a delusional assumption that you have the right to construct any sentence and put it anywhere in an article as long as it is cited. But that just isn't the way Wikipedia works. Loginnigol (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban violation

• This edit is interaction ban violation. Please self-revert. Biophys (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]