Talk:Media portrayal of the Russo-Ukrainian War

Boyd-Barrett

@93.72.49.123

One last point before I go to sleep and Real Life:

• The Assad stuff is irrelevant and I do not currently have access to the full text of the book version.
• Regarding MH17, your quotations appear at a glance to have been potentially selective, and did he actually say that "Ukraine shot down MH17"? (your words)
• Worth mentioning, whatever personal views this dude may hold, if he's getting published, it should be evaluated in the context of the editorial standards of his publishers.
• Regarding the original dispute, it would have been far less complicated for all involved parties and any future involved editors if you had just tagged as Bsn and started a TP or RSN thread

Also, keep in mind that under GS, you aren't supposed to be making these kinds of edits to the topic area without TP consensus.

So, let's talk.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The Assad stuff is relevant when deciding whether someone's a WP:FRINGE source or not.

As to MH17, he does not explicitly accuse Ukraine of shooting it down, he only denies Russian responsibility while also hinting at Ukrainian responsibility through endless unanswered questions (as if that makes things significantly better):

Alternatively, did Kiev believe its own propaganda and calculate that eventually an international civilian airliner would indeed be shot down by separatists or Russians (especially if Ukrainian jets routinely used civilian airliners as camouflage, as one source has alleged – see below) and that this would provide Kiev a major propaganda coup? Or did Kiev plan on shooting down such an airliner and then to blame the separatists or Russians or both – a high-risk strategy given US satellite surveillance, unless the USA was party to any such conspiracy? Or did civilian airliners seem so valuable as camouflage for Ukrainian military planes that the Ukrainian authorities decided to keep the skies open just for that purpose?

Evidence of Russian responsibility for the shooting down of MH17 – Dutch Safety Board and Joint International Team reports notwithstanding – continues to be contested. Even were Russia or ethnic Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine actually responsible for the tragedy, this would not detract from possible criminal negligence of the Ukraine authorities and of international airlines in continuing to keep open and fly over space where it was known that Buk missile launchers were positioned and where several military planes had already been shot down.

93.72.49.123 (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

When assessing whether a given source is reliable for a given statement we have to abide by WP:RS rather than by personal opinion. The fact that you disagree with some of the opinions held by Boyd-Barrrett is not a sufficiently good justification for removing a reference to his work. It doesn't help that you misrepresent his views (you said that he believes that "Ukraine shot down MH17" in an edit summary while the last quote makes it clear that he considers it possible that it was the Russians or separatists who shot it down. Alaexis_¿question? 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Czello, my point was that he may or may not be reliable, but the onus is on the editor who challenges the stable version to present arguments rooted in policy for the change. Alaexis_¿question? 10:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I see - apologies, I misunderstood your edit summary. I've self reverted (again!). — Czello ^(music) 15:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Czello That's not true. "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (WP:ONUS) That this cite has been unnoticed for some time is a very weak argument. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"He considers it possible that it was the Russians or separatists who shot it down", only to later say that maybe, just maybe, it was actually Ukraine the "Kiev coup regime" (hardly something a supposedly neutral and credible researcher would say) that shot it down (after all, we don't know all the truth!), and even if it was shot down by the Russians that doesn't matter because it's Western propaganda to demonize poor Putin and Russia. See?

By the way, while looking for other WP articles that cite this guy's works, I've found out (through the 2014 Odesa clashes article) that apparently one of the stories he cites - about "a young woman who was eight months pregnant" who was "strangled with an electrical cord" - turned out to be fake. A supposed propaganda researcher falling for classic atrocity propaganda, imagine that.

(In the next paragraph, he describes the burning of the Trade Unions House as "a carefully planned black-op, one that likely involved foreign intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with the fascist junta government in Kiev" - what is this if not the kind of stuff you would expect to hear on InfoWars?) 93.72.49.123 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an example! Indeed it doesn't look good, even though he's quoting Whitney when talking about the purported pregnant victim. Considering that this source isn't actually used for anything in this article, I think it can be safely removed from here. Other uses should be discussed on a case-by-case basis: we don't know if it's an isolated lapse of judgement or indicates a general problem. Alaexis_¿question? 19:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

He also claims that "The building was spray-painted with swastika- like symbols and graffiti reading 'Galician SS,' a reference to the Ukrainian nationalist army that fought alongside the German Nazi SS in World War II, killing Russians on the Eastern Front", with the only source being Robert Parry's generally unreliable ConsortiumNews.com. (He cites a completely different article for that, which, while not critical in itself, still gives me an impression that the book did not receive a thorough review.) He cites 35 articles by Robert Parry in total. Then he also cites Israel Shamir, in the generally unreliable CounterPunch, here (referring to the snipers who shot at protesters during the Revolution of Dignity):

One commentator noted that the role of snipers: “appears to be a staple feature of the US- arranged revolutions. Snipers killing both protesters and police were reported in Moscow’s 1991 and 1993 revolutions, as well as in many other cases”

That's only from a quick skim of a single section. There are many other unreliable sources cited in the book. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis any comments? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've already said that I have no problem with the reference being removed from this article. Alaexis_¿question? 10:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you mind removing it yourself, then, since I can't edit the article? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. Alaexis_¿question? 14:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

References

US Cluster Weapons a Clear Danger to Civilians

With the supply of Cluster Bombs to the Ukraine, the US has not only put the lives of civilians at risk, but has upset a number of key NATO governments. Given this, and the concerns of groups such as Human Rights Watch, should not this article avoid putting most of the blame for the deaths of civilians on the Russians?

I'm not sure where exactly this article puts the blame for the death of civilians on the Russians, but given that the majority of civilian casualties are as a result of Russian aggression, and indeed because Russia themselves use cluster bombs on civilian areas, then I don't see an issue with us stating that. — Czello ^(music) 18:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

With all the media coverage of the conflict, where are the reports that the Russians are using cluster weapons against civilians? Then again, with US cluster bombs that do not self-destruct, are not civilians likely to be harmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.165 (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is apparently heavily biased against Russia

Sure Russia is the one who attacks and invades parts of Ukraine, and invaders are always in the wrong. I completely agree with that.

However, just look at this article. Half of the opening part is dedicated to "calling out Russia propaganda", while not saying anything about the "other side" (Ukraine and the West). Is Western press that innocent and unbiased?

All news by the so-called "reliable" Western papers have made it seem like Ukraine will easily win very soon, and Russia has achieved nothing but failure after failure in the battle. They also ignore the fact that the Azov battalion that the Ukraine has been relying on is openly a Neo-nazis group, who has committed many atrocities against the Russian soldiers they captured. They were also surprisingly quiet about Seymour Hersh's article which claimed the US attacked Nord Stream (if they were so "unbiased", they could have at least published articles criticizing that claim), but so eager to blame Russia for it, and showed less hesitation to discuss the possibility of Ukraine being the culprit.

Western media also makes it looks like Russia is completely irrational and attacks Ukraine out of nowhere, for absolutely no reasons other than "Putin being a maniac dictator". They completely ignore all of the reasons behind it, such as the fact that EU and NATO keep expanding East-ward and bring their weapon closer and closer to Russian border. Remember how the US threw a massive tantrum when they learnt Russia was sending weapons to Cuba.

All criticisms towards the West is the "racist coverage", which is not directly related to the war itself. It subtly implies that the West doesn't have any propaganda at all towards Russia, that everything they talk about the war itself is so objective anf impartial, that only Russia plays the propaganda game 14.182.172.55 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

So…I agree that the layout is an issue. The lead should definitely be expanded, as well as the body.

Expansion is needed because in general, reliably cited content can’t just be removed. It can, however, be summarized.

One issue is the relative lack of easily accessible, reliable English-language sources covering instances and/or patterns of pro-Ukrainian media biases.

I think plenty of such sources exist in countries outside the central Anglosphere, but I’m hesitant to stir up the intense controversy that would probably result, as I try to limit my involvement in the frequent scuffles at Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine and elsewhere.

The issue here is a serious one, but I’m skeptical that an objective view is possible without the hindsight of history.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The article should describe media portrayal focusing on their bias and how they implicitly or explicitly convey government propaganda. This is done for Russian media but not for Western ones. Instead, the article is just one more biased piece. --Hispalois (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The comment above is a good example of actual Russian propaganda in action: it's a loaded question, with the accusations of bias being based on an assumption that 1) "Ukraine relies on neo-Nazis", 2) "EU and NATO kept expanding", and expects us to respond that in good will. Both arguments are false in the first place: neither NATO nor EU "expand" - countries apply to be accepted, and they are accepted or not. To join an economic or military alliance of its choice is the fundamental right of any sovereign country, including Ukraine - right that Russia is denying not only to Ukraine, but also other Eastern European countries, based on self-assumed status of "super empire", against any international agreements Russia signed. Cloud200 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2023

wining = winning 2603:8000:D300:D0F:3461:88EA:8A46:E80A (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As far as I can see only instance of this misspelling is in the title of a citation, but it's verbatim. We don't correct spelling errors in the names of citations when they're made by the source itself. — Czello ^(music) 08:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)