Talk:Pravda

Waste of Time

I came to this site some thirty minutes ago to find a few pieces of readily accessible information. This process should have taken me perhaps five minutes tops. Now after half an hour I'm getting out. I essentially wasted 25 minutes trying to clean up this pathetic mess of hopeless articles written by imbeciles. I don't see as visitors to this site should have to do this all the time. I reckon the people in charge here are getting paid very well, thank you. They should concentrate on cleaning up their own articles and not waste everyone's resources with their petty pre-puberty internecine wars.

Adjusting articles after the fact is something all should do from time to time. But it is not and cannot be something which because of the appalling lack of quality of these articles dominates on a ratio of 5/1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.88.129 (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

^^^^ This entry is awesome, and should be automatically included at the beginning of ALL Wikipedia talk pages ^^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.85.61 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The place of origin

It looks crasy: "the leading newspaper of the Soviet Union" ... "was started in 1912 in Vienna, Austria" heh :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.202.2 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Finding some sources

If someone could track down ISBN 0820450081 or ISBN 0807611867 it could be useful. Matthewmayer 23:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question about date of origin

This sentence is confusing (and ungrammatical): "Pravda was founded as a newspaper for workers in 1912, the Bolsheviks started legal publication of the newspaper in St. Petersburg on April 22, 1913."

Was Pravda started in 1912 or 1913? - Maybe what was meant was that it was unofficially published in 1912, then first officially published in 1913?—Mateo SA 05:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) Talk

needs a mention of Iskra (spark)

The article needs a mention of the 1st Russian communist/socialist newspaper — Iskra (spark, Russian: Искра). It's a strange thing that the referenced article "The spark that lit the revolution" doesn't contain any references to Iskra as well. BACbKA 08:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reading between the lines in Pravda

Although Pravda's content was tightly controlled by its editors, it was not impossible to discern truth from the newspaper. Many readers became sophisticated in guessing at the truth. The phrasing of a news item was often an important clue when guessing about the real meaning. The most newsworthy items were usually mentioned briefly and placed in obscure sections of the paper; oftentimes, the back pages of the paper contained more real news than the front pages. Bad news that happened inside the Soviet Union was usually not mentioned directly; instead, the paper would fabricate a series of similiar disasters occurring in other nations.

Any specific examples of this? Ambi 03:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The most known one would be the ecology issue. Instead of talking about the Soviet cities contamination, Pravda would address the ecology in Tokio and New York, saying that the policemen in these cities must wear gas masks in order not to faint (I remember reading this myself, and I don't know to date how close to truth this report by Pravda was!) On subtler covert channel reading of Pravda news, a well-known St. Petersburg mathematician and dissident, late Revolt Pimenov, (prosecuted by the Soviet regime during the Brezhnev times; later (during Gorbachev times) became an elected into the people deputy counsil), suggested to his friends giving a special course as to how to determine the next swing in the course of the communist "party line" by interpreting the mere order of the Politbureau members as printed in the daily Pravda issue. (When falling out of favor, they were demoted down the list, and hence the ministries/ideas they were associated got lower priorities). BACbKA 08:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How is this different than say US reporting on ecology? Anyone who compares US corporate coverage of say global warming versus news coverage in the rest of the industrialized world, as well as polls showing that the US population believes what the US media is often reporting, which is different than coverage in the rest of the world, could say the same thing. Most people in the US do not know how much antipathy has built up in other industrialized countries against the US for not signing Kyoto, despite that being lightly covered. [1] Ruy Lopez 01:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I just don't see the relevance of the analogy. There's a big leap between what BACbKA reported and your average, Murdoch press, biased reporting, which appears to be what you're talking about. Ambi 02:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a big leap between what BACbKA claims and your average American corporate press. I have never seen anything as far-off as saying policemen in New York and Tokyo must wear gas masks in order not to faint. Actually, it would have been true to have said cities like Los Angeles were massively polluted decades ago (they even had smog forecasts during the evening news weather reports), but I can't imagine Pravda reporting that as news. If it did appear it was probably a joke in an editorial or something ("If they don't clear up pollution in LA soon they'll have to wear gas masks, haha").

As far as wacky American reporting, why limit it to media owned by Murdoch and the like? Let's look at an example from Time Magazine from two years ago.[2] The title -"Nepal: Return to Year Zero - Nepal's Maoist rebels are murdering, beating, bombing and looting—all in the name of 'protecting the people'". The first sentence of the article "Even with knives as sharp as razors, it takes time to skin a man." The last sentence - "As I climbed into my car, the man held onto my arm, eyes wide with fear, and hissed in my ear, 'Terror. Terror,' before running back to his house." The middle of the article is more of the same. Pravda almost always took a pro-USSR line (just as the US corporate media almost always takes a pro-US line), but I never saw the type of stuff you can read in Time like this or other "mainstream" US corporate media. I mean, this just looks like the kind of copy you'd find attached to US WWI propaganda ("Beat back the Hun"). With the point being that the idea that papers beyond Murdoch's being straight news is incorrect. And Pravda was always a lot more newsy and less propaganda than the type of thing I could have read in Time two years ago Ruy Lopez 16:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reading between the lines in any newspaper is the job of whole sections in intelligence services all over the world. Pravda is not an exception. There was no intentional "hide and seek" or I Spy game here. Information could be recovered from occasional word slips, basing on a knack in Party phraseology and standard propaganda tricks, such as "Letters of workers to the editorial board". Mikkalai 03:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "There was no intentional "hide and seek" or I Spy game here.". I agree about what you say on the intelligence-type reading between the lines, but this probably alludes to the story about Pimenov that had I mentioned in the talk above. As for the article text you have cut away for some strange reason, it was mentioning one specific technique out of the Pravda's propaganda bag of tricks, along with my ecology example. When something nasty happened, people would sometimes hear the rumours seep through despite all the efforts to suppress the facts; to soften the blow to the socialist well-being image, they did try to report on similar problems in the "capitalist enemy's camp", and when they didn't have enough facts to support themselves, they blew existing facts out of proportion or fabricated news out of complete lies. BACbKA 16:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll give you an example from the American media. Suppose one was of the mind that since the Cold War end, the US has wanted a permanent military base somewhere in the Middle East, like it has in say the Phillipines or Panama. With good candidates being places like Saudi Arabia or Iraq. And that it was decided pre-Iraq invasion that it might be less trouble to have that base in Iraq than Saudi Arabia (although perhaps the people might be reassessing that view now). Well, if one was of this mind, as I am, where in the news can I find such a statement? Well, you can't, nowhere in the American news does it say "America simply wants a military base in some centrally located large Persian Gulf country". It always says the US is defending freedom or something like that. In fact, I myself was unable to find a statement like this, but Noam Chomsky in Hegemony or Survival points to a paragraph in a Wolfowitz interview in Vanity Fair[3] where he says "There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things." Well, that gives us some meat for our thesis, but you have to search high and low to find that paragraph at the end of one interview with one official, and then try to read between the lines to see what it means. I have to read between the lines all of the time - the Wall Street Journal is a pretty honest paper, one of the most honest, but they beat around the bush on certain issues, especially regarding consequences of actions they endore. Ruy Lopez 17:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a good example of manipulative propaganda moves from some media, but it is a bit different direction, isn't it? We were talking about Pravda deliberately masking some particular piece of news, that it would like to go unnoticed or at least cloaked. When it came to justifying intervention elsewhere (Afghanistan and the Eastern Europe invasions earlier), there surely was brainwashing like you describe above... Funny thing, the motives were different a bit: in the U.S. people during voting have always been able to select candidates based on their platforms (OK, slogans all right and brainwashing too and you have to read between the lines to understand what they really might be meaning and never be sure until they're in the office for quite some time) – yet in the Soviet times the elections usually had only one candidate and whoever tried to vote against or, penguin forbid, write some anti-government slogan on the paper bulletin, he'd be in for KGB hot pursuit, whereas the electoral platform was all the same "advancing the cause of Lenin's/the Party teachings and the proletariat well-being etc..." I'm so happy I have forgotten the rest!BACbKA 19:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In reply to: As for the article text you have cut away for some strange reason,. The reason is simple: irrelevance to the subsection. Your "bad news" example is related to propaganda mechanisms, not to the way how to extract info "between the lines". How from the report about smog in Los Angeles you may guess a blow-out in Chelyabinsk? As for front pages vs. back pages, you seem no forget the layout of the paper (or have never seen them) Their content is absolutely incomparable in terms what information domain was covered. The mentioned phrases deserve a separate article, kind of Propaganda mechanisms in the Soviet Union, since they are not restricted to Pravda. (...This anecdote with the punch lines: "Pravda?" -- "Net, Vechernij Tbilisi!", remember? :-)(off-topic, but reflects the attitude) Mikkalai 21:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My "bad news" example was given as an answer to Ambi's question, as an example of news fabrication. The Politbureau members order one was about the reading between the lines. Ambi seemed to be satisfied with the examples. I didn't address the front vs. back issue at all, it was in the original text; now that I think about it, I agree with you on this point. I still think, nevertheless, that, at least until the propaganda mechanisms article you call for is written, something on the "similar bad news" fabrication technique should be present. BACbKA 10:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As long as a source is found, I agree with BACbKA. Ambi 11:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but it still goes under the title "propaganda", rather than "reading between lines", be it an article or subsection. Mikkalai 02:31, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pravda as euphemism/ synonym for government censorship

I think a section taking into account the "reading between the lines" aspect of the paper is necessary -- under such a heading could also be covered the usage of Pravda in the West to describe -- for instance -- Breitbart as the organ of the Trump administration; Fox News and other outlets have been used is similar contexts. In fact, my familiarity with Pravda came from such usage and I was disappointed to see the page lacking a section describing this aspect of Pravda -- I hear Breitbart referenced as "Pravda" frequently on the Chapo Trap House podcast and recall the Daily Show and other political comedy outlets referring to Fox News as "the Pravda of the Bush administration." The page seems incomplete when a reader who's come across "Pravda" used as a stand-in for censorship/ bias can't visit the Wikipedia page and be informed that "Pravda" in such instances isn't a literal reference to the paper or the Soviet Union in particular, but a general (and often comedic) allusion to journalistic bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeletaylor (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lenin medals

Image:Pravda-otsovruk-c.jpg is an image of Pravda from 1991 which does not have the Lenin medals next to the title. Image:KomsomolskayaPravdaRizospastis200509.jpg is an image of Komsomolskaya Pravda from 2005 which has the Lenin medals next to the title. They are not the same newspaper. The article claims that "The next editor-in-chief, Alexander Ilyin, handed Pravda's trademark — the Order of Lenin medals — and the new registration certificate over to the new owners". What is going on? I also remember reading a recent OSCE Magazine article showing Pravda with the Lenin medals. – Kaihsu 13:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The 1991 image had copyright problems. I reverted it to 1953 one (quite some time ago). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pravda wasn't a newspaper

Pravda wasn't a newspaper, like the NYT or Le Figaro. It was a tool to control the society. It's a shame, that the article doesn't explain it. Some quotations of 1937 would be helpful. Xx236 14:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article currently says that "Pravda became the conduit for announcing official policy and policy changes. It would remain so until 1991." What would you like to see added? Ahasuerus 14:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion about "reading between the lines" in 2004, no results. Maybe "Soviet propaganda" would be a better place for such informations, but it doesn't exist. Thank you for your comment - I don't understand what "conduit" exactly means regarding a newspaper.

Pravda, as any Soviet newspaper, was used to make cigarettes and as toilet paper (using Stalin's pictures was allegedly dangerous). Xx236 09:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely it was a newspaper, an official "organ of the CPSU". It served the ruling totalitarian regime and channeled its propaganda. You or I may dub it "toilet paper", but officially it was a newspaper. Please see WP:NOR ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The distinction that Xx236 appears to be making is between a "newspaper" and a "gazette", i.e. an official publication printed by some organization or body, usually a government. Historically, social democratic (and later Communist) parties referred to their official newspapers as "organs", a term which doesn't have quite the same connotations in English. I am not sure what the best way of describing these shades of gray would be.

As far as the use of the term "conduit" goes, in this case it means "a means of transmitting or distributing [information]". If this is confusing, then we could change the wording to "Pravda became the [main] channel (?) for announcing official policy and policy changes." Do you think it would read better? Ahasuerus 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a step in the right direction. Is this better: "... one of the main channels announcing official policy changes and disseminating domestic Soviet propaganda." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim that Pravda was only toilet paper. But the Wikipedia should inform, e.g. that the Soviet Union was a country without wrappings and toilet paper, as the result of the policy imposed by Pravda. And that there are many anecdotes, about people condemned, because they (mis)used Stalin's pictures. It would be interesting to know, if such anecdotes are based on facts, I bet there were many denunciacions of that kind. The reader should be informed what the Pravda was. It wasn't a newspaper like ones known to the readers. It was thin, boring, self-censored, didn't contain advertising. It didn't care about the reader. Do you know a newspaper printed for editor rather than for reasders? Do you call it a newspaper or rather a leaflet or bulletin? I'm not a native speaker to understand the difference. Letters to the editors of Pravda were probably faked, to pretend there existed public opinion in the SU. Such "newspapers" existed in any Communist country, but had local flavour, eg. Ceausescu's cult, different than the Stalin's one. The article should inform about such "newspapers", like Trybuna Ludu in Poland. Pravda was different under Stalin and under Breshnyev. The article should describe the differences. Pravda was obligatory for many Soviet institutions. Xx236 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't invent terminology. It is called "newspaper". And it printed "news". Period. Different countries may have different styles of newspapers. Your argument "didn't contain advertising" makes me ROTFL. This joke is even better than about herring-wrapping. `'mikka (t) 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pravda wasn't funny. Millions read Pravda and found terrible news there, even if "between the lines". Some of my comments are true for more Soviet "newspapers", so they should be in "Soviet press" or something like that. Generally newspapers contain advertising, economical informations, local informations. The majority of Sviet "newspapers" didn't contain such things. It's obvious for Soviet people, but not for an average reader of the English Wikipedia. Xx236 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a few points. Let's see if we can discuss them one by one.

1. "Pravda was thin". If we could add the actual page count for different periods, that would be certainly useful.

2. "Pravda was boring". This one is tricky since "boring" is inherently POV. Perhaps an example of Pravda's editorial style and a few quotes from a couple of different periods could be given instead?

I mean, that the editors didn't care about the readers. Generally editors tend to catch the attention. The party totally controlled the society so it didn't need to interesting. Xx236 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we already say that "Pravda became the conduit for announcing official policy and policy changes", which explains what kind of content was published in Pravda. Would you suggest expanding it further? Ahasuerus 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

3. "Pravda was self-censored". Is this an attempt to distinguish other, less important newspapers, which were subject to regular government censorship, from Pravda, which wasn't censored because its editors were high ranking Communist officials? If so, it is true that Pravda was a sui generis case, but on the other hand, its editors occasionally got into hot water with the higher ups, especially under Stalin. There are a few letters in that Stalin-Kaganovich volume that we could quote here.

4. "Letters to Pravda were probably faked". We should be able to find a Politburo decision making Pravda editors "responsible for organizing a popular campaign against/for XYZ".

5. "Pravda as a leaflet or bulletin". Unfortunately, the connotations would not be quite right.

6. "Pravda was different under Stalin and under Breshnyev. The article should describe the differences." This is certainly true, but it's not a trivial proposition.

7. "Pravda was obligatory for many Soviet institutions". That's a good point, we just need a source.

Probably more than 50% of the edition were "bought" by Soviet institutions, like trade, sovkhoses, banks. [Added by Xx236 ]

OK, I have found a source, adding it now. Ahasuerus 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

8. "the Soviet Union was a country without wrappings and toilet paper, as the result of the policy imposed by Pravda". If we try listing every single policy that Pravda promoted over a 70+ year period and what it arguably led to, we'll be encroaching on other articles' territory and make this one completely unmanageable.

9. "anecdotes, about people condemned, because they (mis)used Stalin's pictures". Sure, we can include it if we can find a source.

10. "didn't contain advertising". None of the leading Soviet newspapers published ads post-1930, so that's not really a distinguishing characteristic.

Where is this knowledge available in the Wikipedia, like several others allegedly obvious knowledge about the SU? If not - is it self-censure or censure (very active in many SU articles)? [by Xx236 ]

Don't get me wrong, please. Identifying gaps in Wikipedia coverage is a good thing and very much appreciated and encouraged, but there are tons of articles that are virtually begging to be written. To use a parallel example from Russian history, many leaders of the February Revolution (Bazarov, B.O. Bogdanov, Zenzinov, Steklov, Sukhanov, etc) do not have WP articles and some are not even mentioned. Other articles, e.g. Vladimir Lenin are content-free and POV-ridden to the point of being almost useless. Filling the gaps and correcting what's already there is just a question of time and resource allocation. Similarly, I don't think anybody is trying to conceal or censor anything re: Pravda, it's just a question of finding the best and most logical place for certain bits of information to live. Something that may not be a good fit in Pravda may find a loving home in another article. Ahasuerus 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

11. "Such "newspapers" existed in any Communist country, but had local flavour". If we can find sources that show that leading Communist newspapers in some/all Soviet satellite states were originally modeled after Pravda, that would be useful. Ahasuerus 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have forgotten Soviet republics. Any republic had a local party gazette. I don't know the names of the papers, were they printed in Russian or local language, how many place offered they for Pravda reprints (or translations). Communist countries were under strong supervision 1948-1956 and had more authonomy befor and after. Rumania had very specific Ceausescu cult and relative independence. Communist newspapers reprinted translations of Pravda articles on the first page, sometimes. The problem of translating Pravda articles was important, any deviation was a crime. Generally newspapers don't offer the first page for reprints from Pravda, do they? Western Communist newspapers were partially Soviet, but had to challenge other newspapers. Yougoslavia and Albania had local Party newspapers, but anti-Soviet ones. Xx236 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is in dispute, but again it's a question of finding the best place for this type of information. Detailed information for each country can go into that country's article, while this article can be modified to say something like "After the establishment of Communist governments in Central and Eastern Europe after WWII, the newspapers of the local Communist parties were modelled after Pravda". We'll just need a source for this claim; I think I have something in the back of my library. Ahasuerus 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean Pravda, but eg. Soviet Union, NKVD (especially The NKVD and the Soviet economy), where much effort has been done to consor me rather than to write something.

An example of Pravda "clone" was Pravda (Slovakia). The statement "In the past, the newspaper was the Slovak equivalent of the Soviet/Russian newspaper Pravda" isn't however informative. The Polish one Trybuna Ludu doesn't have an article yet, there is Rudé právo. Xx236 13:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pravda in jokes

The nuspaper was a target of numerous jokes. One of them is already in "Russian joke"

• A Georgian comes to see proctologist complaining about constipation. The doctor looks into his ass and says: "There is a newspaper stuck in your ass, genatsvale!" - "Pravda!?" (translation: "Is that so!?") - "No, Morning Tbilisi!" (to the question of toilet paper raised above)
• A worker about to be joining CPSU is asked a tricky question at partkom (Party committee): What do you prefer: "Pravda newspaper or Radio Liberty?" - "Of course Pravda!" - The partkom secretary, happy with the political consciousness of the candidate, decides to probe a bit further: "Why so?" - "Why, that's clear to everyone: you cannt wrap a herring (comment: the second main snack for vodka, beaten only by pickled cucumber) in a radio!" `'mikka (t) 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Surprisingly, I don't remember any jokes about cigarettes wrapped (samokrutka) from Pravda. `'mikka (t) 05:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Another one I've heard is "There is no truth in Pravda and there is no news in Izvestia", playing off the meaning of the names. LeoO3 16:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pravda.ru

I find it very strange that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Pravda.ru, which is the main Internet newspaper of Russia today, having a circulation far exceeding the "Pravda of the Communist Party" newspaper (the subject of the main article here), which is a shadow of its former self. An article outlining the differences between the two newspapers can be found here. - Embram (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Pravda.ru was actually founded by editors of the post-1991 Pravda who left that paper. Look at the names and its pretty clear they aren't "unrelated". Gorshenin, the editor of Pravda.ru actually worked for the Soviet era Pravda as far back as 1985 as the "Youth Editor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.120.217 (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pravda in arts

Pravda is the name of a bar...

Pravda is the name of a pub...

Pravda means truth in Russian, and any small boutique or cigarette kiosk can be named anything like that. i can't say that "Al-Ahram" is the name of a street, many hotels, beer brand, and by the way pharaonic tombs just because it is the name of a newspaper in Egypt, ignoring the fact that it means pyramids! that lacks seriousness. Khaled Khalil 09:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

zvezda

While doind disambiguation for Zvezda and looking for entries in wikipedia for Zvezda (magazine) and Zvezda (newspaper) I noticed that the articles Pravda, History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin tell quite different stories about Zvezda. Could someone Russian make order with this please? Mukadderat (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Pravda is returning to the "good old days"

as it was back in the USSR. The article should reflect this.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/And_wait_until_you_see_the_opinion_section.html

Pravda: war between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from the USA!

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/08/ap_levels_serio.html

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/print/021207.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousformysafety (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please fix the Link to CNN Cold War articles comparison

thx 188.108.114.183 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What's up with pravda.ru?

To call it a "tabloid" is an understatement.

They have stories like:

Soviet Army fought UFOs

Jesus Christ born in Ukraine

Not that controversial really. A priest named his son Jesus Christ --John Ericson (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Pregnant for half a century

Russians conquered Mars 30 years ago

Yes, in their training programs that is. I think this is related to the Mars 500 program. --John Ericson (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unknown fire and jelly-like creatures live in Earth's atmosphere

Mysterious dwarfish alien brutally murdered in Russia's remote village

And so on..

Well I'm doing a bit of research as to why Medvedev and Putin are so tolerant of Russia being the global centre of the internet child pornography industry. I had to register with Pravda to pose this query to their editor and then activate the registration - you know, the usual admin. But after logging on I still was unable to post my query to the editor. I gave it 24 hours and tried again. This time they had no record of me! So that's another site to stay well away from - p'arn the grammar please. Cheers Semperlibre. Wavy things, where are the wavy things? Ok here we go Semperlibre (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.153.146 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, the "fire and jelly-like creatures in the atmosphere" article can be found here. An interesting read to say the least. --Anonymous 20:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.31.214.20 (talk)

Shouldn't Pravda Online (pravda.ru) get its own page to avoid ambiguity?

The page mentions: The new Pravda newspaper and Pravda Online are not related in any way. The paper Pravda tends to analyze events from a leftist point of view, while the web-based tabloid-style newspaper often takes a nationalist and sensationalist approach.

In that case shouldn't Pravda Online be mentioned on its own page, instead of just being a redirect to this one? And if so also add it to the disambiguation page? Of course the "not related in any way" should perhaps be rephrased as the editors and many of the journalists came from the Pravda newspaper. --John Ericson (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pravda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   ---Prose quality is not very good. I would recommend making a request for copy editing at the Guild of Copy Editors, but do so only after addressing other issues (as a last step before re-nominating the article for GA)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   ---Many references in the article were not properly cited. I took care of a few of them myself, but more work needs to be done on the ones that I tagged. Please see WP:CITE for more information about how to properly cite sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   ---Many citations are still needed to verify the information presented. I've marked most of them with "citation needed" or "failed verification"

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   ---There are many important aspects of this topic that are not sufficiently covered. Please see comments below

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   ---Well done here. The images nicely illustrate the text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   ---This article still needs work to get it to GA quality. Please see further comments below. Once all the issues that I have noted have been addressed, you are welcome to re-nominate this article for GA. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments for article improvement

The largest factor for the article not achieving GA status is that there are many important aspects to the topic that are not covered. The article does a very good job at outlining the history of the newspaper (it just needs some more references); however, the article should be about more than its history. Here is a list of my suggestions for sections that should be written and information that should be included.

• Information about circulation. While the article states that it has a circulation of 100,000 -- where are these circulated to? Is it only in Russia, or is there distribution to other former Soviet states or in the US and elsewhere?

• • Related to this, the article briefly mentions an online English version. Is this a part of the same entity as the Russian online version? It would be great if you could include more information about these two.

• There needs to be a section written on the content that is published in the newspaper. What kinds of sections are there (is it just local and international news, or are there sections for lifestyle (fashion, cooking, book reviews, etc.), are there editorial sections?

• I think the article needs a section addressing fairness/bias of the paper. The paper received much criticism from Western media for not being impartial, and I doubt you would have trouble finding sources for that. You may wish to draw on the fact that the paper is owned by the CPRF and serves as its "organ".

Those are some ideas to get you started. Good luck and happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

-Thanks "Tea with Toast" for taking out precious time in reviewing this article. Yes I too believe that only history section has been covered in it. Though collecting history is an difficult part for an article, but the hard part is being done. I will try to implement your valuable suggestions. thanks.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian saying

"As the names of the main Communist newspaper and the main Soviet newspaper, Pravda and Izvestia, meant "the truth" and "the news" respectively, a popular Russian saying was "v Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy" (In the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth)."

Don't think the romanisation of the Russian on this is correct. Can anybody contribute the original Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.104.219 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding any sources that say this was a common saying in Russia. In fact the source we have, the NYT, just says "the old joke about the Soviet press was that there's no truth in Pravda and no news in Izvestia" without saying that anyone in Russia ever said this. Interestingly, I did find an article in pravda.ru that says this was a saying among Americans: "Во время холодной войны 1.0 американские СМИ любили поиздеваться над советской печатью, чтобы соответствовать "славным стандартам" западной прессы. Одной из самых популярных шуток был выпад в сторону двух главных российских газет — "Правды" и "Известий": американцам то и дело повторяли, что в "Правде" нет никакой правды, а в "Известиях" — никаких новостей." ("During Cold War 1.0 American SME (?) loved to poke fun at the Soviet press, for [something] in the Western press. One of the popular jokes was aimed at the two Russian newspapers, "Pravda" and "Izvestiya": the Americans said that in "Pravda" there is no truth, and in "Izvestiya" no news."). (sorry my Russian is not that good) Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi there. Russian is here. Wanted to say that neither I nor my relatives ever heard about this joke.

Before 1991 there was a strong censorship system that rendered almost impossible the news to leak into/out of the country from/to the outside world. 109.206.156.72 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation hatnote

Recently Barkeep49 added Pravda (Slovakia) to the disambiguation hatnote. I don't think it's necessary to single out that specific other thing named "Prava" beyond the disambiguation page link (I do see why Pravda.ru and Komsomolskaya Pravda, both of which are much more easily confused with the subject of this article, are mentioned separately). Thoughts? Huon (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions on this (and am not following this page or discussion, so thanks for the ping!) but after being told about it I did some searching and it does appear that the Slovakian Pravada is of some importance (despite a really poor page). I added it given the two existing see alsos but would be fine with a more generic DAB listing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kotlasskiy kraevedcheskiy musey (093).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1939-pravda-molodsov-ilichev-ryklin.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)