Talk:Marina Ovsyannikova

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 2A02:8388:1641:4980:52EB:F6FF:FE28:C651 in topic is she a propagandist or not?

The fine was in rubles, but ...

edit

What currencies should be put in parenthesis? I don't think that one should skip Euros, however someone is pushing the agenda of the British pound.--Ukraina has borders with the Euro zone. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Considering the current volatility of ruble, I'd say it makes little sense to quote the number in any currency but ruble. Birdofpreyru (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
USD, GBP. EUR is less of an interest; English-speaking EUR users are the Irish. Not as numerous as UK/US. The other issue is what quantum; we keep going back and forth with the GBP amount: 200/214. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
The U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and that's why it's usually used by sources like Reuters for the convenience of its international audience. Since exchange rates fluctuate, it makes little sense to quote the amount quoted by RS in other currencies because they apply only to the date the article was written. It also doesn't say anything about how 30,000 rubles compare to Ovsyannikova's income or how much it would buy in Russia, presumably more than $280 in the U.S., £200 in the U.K., or €255 in Ireland. Current exchange rates can be looked up here: https://www.oanda.com/currency-converter. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
We could specify the date of the currency exchange, i.e. "Reuters said it was X amount on YY date". Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
edit

In this detailed interview with Novaya Gazeta («Когда начинается «Время», многие коллеги выключают звук») the family's fleeing from the First Chechen War when O. was 12 years old is mentioned as a “trigger” for her action, in addition to other interesting details. --Rießler (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ukrainian of Russian descent ?

edit

Should the category Ukrainian people of Russian descent be included or not? Due to her place of birth (Odessa, Ukraine) and the fact that her father is or was apparently a Ukrainian citizen (and so of Ukrainian origin) I would suggest including it.—-Koelnfan (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • From the formal point of view, she never had an Ukrainian passport. She is not eligible to be an Ukrainian citizen. From the point of view of self-identification, she clearly self-identifies as Russian and not as Ukrainian. She only lived in what is now Ukraine until she was two years old.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, I do not think her father ever was an Ukrainian citizen, but he presumably is/was of ethnic Ukrainian origin.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

is she a propagandist or not?

edit

As Marina worked for years on a purely progadansit state-owned media, she is by default a propagandist journalist. Ukrainian sources write about it. Why not add this into the preamble? --Tsans2 (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Tsans2: Hey, thanks for engaging in good faith on the talk page. As a general principle, I prefer to describe what someone actually did (e.g. "so-and-so disseminated propaganda") as opposed to labeling them as a "propagandist", and only resort to label usage like that if they are widely and consistently described as such in reliable sources. I don't find the "propagandist" label used almost at all, apart from what appeared to me to be the relatively low-quality or obscure Ukrainian media like censor.net used in that edit (to be clear I'm not saying Ukrainian media is inferior to Western media, I'm saying that it appeared to me that those sources in particular weren't great).
I do think I agree with you though that more attention should be paid to her time at Channel One, where it does seem she spread Russian propaganda, but at a quick glance after her stunt it seems "ex-propagandist" would be if anything a more apt description of her. For instance, The Telegraph describes her as an ex-state mouthpiece who spread propaganda for years but has now turned on her Kremlin bosses. In her own words: “Unfortunately, I have been working at Channel One during recent years, working on Kremlin propaganda,” Ovsyannikova said. “And now I am very ashamed. I am ashamed that I’ve allowed the lies to be said on the TV screens. I am ashamed that I let the Russian people be zombified.” per WaPo
So I think we can say that in her time at Channel One she disseminated propaganda, and include her statement in which she describes herself "working on Kremlin propaganda", but I don't think we can apply the "propagandist" label to her in the lead. Does that sound reasonable? Endwise (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
yes, I totally agree with you. Actually I had an idea to add something like "former propagandist". thank you for your research and help. And again, I'm sorry if my edits were bad, vandal, etc. By the way, I think she is not anymore a journalist. maybe we should also describe her as a former/ex journalist... ? Tsans2 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't think your edits were vandalism, it's just bad practice add back things which you have been reverted on without discussing them. Endwise (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've added something to the body/lead about it, though I maintain my prior aversion to labels (even ones like "ex-propagandist"). Anything else we should add? Endwise (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Using the word "former propagandist" is problematic, because ultimately many journalists - or TV reporters - would fall into that category. I think it is best to avoid that, unless it is really a super-clear example, such as Solovyov. But even there people stated incorrect things about him. Wikipedia must be as objective and as accurate as possible. 2A02:8388:1641:4980:52EB:F6FF:FE28:C651 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
She no longer works there and the sourcing is not good enough for such a contentious label of BLP, there needs to be plenty of high-quality sources for such a label. She herself described her time there as working on propaganda so that can be mentioned which seems to have been done in recent edits. Mellk (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ukrainian sources are clearly partisan and should be best avoided in this article. Ukrainian media also feature conspiracy theories that she was actually set by FSB, which are pure lunacy (and based on false premises such as that Russian news are not broadcast live). Let us only use serious sources here. Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
This was indeed a surprise - Ukrainian sources seemed to be more engaged in labeling her as a pro-russian asset, than russian sources labeling her as a pro-ukrainian asset. For regular people coming to wikipedia, wikipedia has to be as objective as possible and as accurate as possible. I was not even aware that she is now in France (in 2023), considering there were other reports that stated otherwise - including sources that would claim she is still in Russia. So wikipedia really must be as objective as possible. 2A02:8388:1641:4980:52EB:F6FF:FE28:C651 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply