Talk:Media portrayal of the Russo-Ukrainian War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New article

This is a work in progress. Bear with me. RGloucester — ☎ 05:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an AMAZING article. I think the section on Ukrainian media should be larger, and maybe have sub sections for Ukrainian/Russian speaking news sources from within Ukraine. I would love to read more about how the Ukraine media has portrayed the annexation on a day to day basis, how much coverage and what type does it get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.166.19 (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Russian criticism of Western media

The article implies that Russian media is criticised by everyone and Western media is critisized only by Russia. This is unfair and inaccurate as a lot of Western sources (like Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity) have noticed distortions and propaganda in Western media. 0x60 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not mainstream media. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rand Paul Goes To Russia And Delivers Letter For Trump, Marking Our Era Of Irony Elinruby (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

POV tag

I see this article is being used to promote the Western mainstream media narrative on Ukraine. The fact is, this article is biased against Russia and presents only the allegations presented by Western organizations against Russia. With a neutral, impartial reading of the facts, it is clear that this is an oversimplification, when the US is now openly admitting to interfering with media organizations coverage and inserting fake news into the wire services in the same manner as the cold war. Let's be real here. The article needs a POV tag, which I have added. Now discussion should follow. I would ask for a wide variety of editors from a variety of countries to review the assertions posted here and restore some balance to a terribly one-sided, and I think factually inaccurate account. 142.176.63.85 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh right, before I get shouted down by various troll accounts with uncertain ownership, lets cite some 'acceptable' sources, such as [1]

There are dozens if not hundreds of such articles. Start referencing them. The POV tag is well justified currently. Thanks.142.176.63.85 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Another, much more incisive, and I think representative argument is here [2] Again, please discuss; I cannot see any justification whatsoever for this article not having a POV tag until balance is restored. 142.176.63.85 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an even older one, [3] Now could someone please tell me why the US and their propaganda - which is more insidious as it is ubiquitous - is completely ignored in favour of the one-sided narrative in this article? This requires serious cleaning up and rebalancing to include reasonable sources that are providing the other side, particularly if the assertion in the article is true, and we are in an information war. Tired of seeing the debate being hijacked by one side with clear loyalties,ikipedia is better than this - isn't it? 142.176.63.85 (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Using "Western mainstream media narrative" (as currently on this page) means following WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Your argument means that this page is complying with the policy and therefore the tag is not justified. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/25/us-set-to-revive-propaganda-war-as-putin-pr-machine-undermines-baltic-states
  2. ^ http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda
  3. ^ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/

Peaceful euromaidan

The sentence 'The Euromaidan was widely portrayed as a "peaceful" pro-demoracy protest movement that legitimately removed former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych from power' cites "peaceful", but I don't find it in the sources given (has BBC changed the cited article over time?), and I don't remember BBC and Swedish media really describing the euromaidan as peaceful at the end, with Self-defense of the Maidan sotnia given coverage. Narayanese (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

POV tag: entry is obviously pro-Maidan and pro-Western and anti-separatist/federalist

I question the rationality of this entire entry, but assuming it stays ... it, like most in Wikipedia on this general topic, is strongly pro-Maidan and pro-Western and strongly anti-separatist/federalist. In addition, many of the broad generalizations about "media portrayal" in the West, Russia, and Ukraine are inaccurate (which is why I question whether this entire entry makes any real sense). Ukraine, for example, includes eastern Ukraine, whose media has portrayed Ukraine's unrest as generated by what people there consider a Western-aligned and anti-Eastern-Ukraine oligarchic coup d' etat in Kiev, rather than being "manufactured by Russia." As for the Russian media and alternative media in the West, they have often portrayed Maidan as an event strongly influenced by the West, particularly by Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Department of State. None of this is in the 'Russian media' section.Haberstr (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, as on the other article your complaint boils down to "reliable sources don't reflect my POV". Well, I'm sorry. Anyway, revert. Volunteer Marek  08:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
"Alternative media", what's that? Never heard of it. Actually, by the way, I've read Donbass News (a local news outlet) since the start of the conflict, and they've been anti "separatist/federalist" since the start. RGloucester — ☎ 14:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is unbelievably POV, just like the main article. Where to begin? I feel sorry for those trying to fight the onslaught of biased western media presented here; I don't have the energy myself. Maybe when US decides ISIS is a greater threat than Syria/Russia, more balanced RS will emerge and the article can be cleaned up. I'll be keeping my eyes open for that. Don't forget to look at Anitwar.com everyday for some of the best NPOV RS. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this is sarcasm. Or, perhaps, I hope it is. RGloucester — ☎ 18:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, please assume good faith. Assuming otherwise poisons the discussion here. And we are here for the important and delicate task of trying to reach a consensus on possible bias and POV in this entry. That will be tough, but assuming someone's sincere statement is sarcasm doesn't make the task any easier.Haberstr (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please check your soapbox at the door. Antiwar.com is RS for zilch, and personal opinions don't help us to improve this WP article. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Antiwar.com links to dozens of RS every day that editors here looking to correct what they see as a POV might find useful. Please also see WP:Wikihounding. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems like you are encouraging editors to right great wrongs. This is not a good behaviour to encourage. RGloucester — ☎ 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The tag is WP:POINTy and disruptive and should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:POINT involves editing that wars with a WP policy, which is the opposite of what I am doing. Obviously we have a disagreement about the neutrality of this entry. I feel it is strongly biased against the rebels and separatists, and against Russia. It reads like US/UK war propaganda, and obviously give little weight to, for example, why the separatists say they are in rebellion. It gives great weight to OR and RS speculation about official Russian involvement in the conflict, and little weight to the RS who question the reality or degree of that involvement. I represent a large group of editors across the many problematic and POV Ukraine entries. I kindly request that all here follow WP policy as it is written on the POV tag, engage in a civil and good faith discussion, and attempt to reach a balanced consensus on how to repair this entry's POV problem. Or, if you don't think it has such a problem, explain why the perspective of Donetsk and Luhansk media are not here.Haberstr (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No, you seem to think that the article is POV because it doesn't rely on "alternative media". Basically you want us to use non-reliable sources which match your POV. *That* is actually "at war with WP policy" and so yes, it is WP:POINTy. I also don't understand how you can claim to "represent a larger group of editors" - what do you mean by that?  Volunteer Marek  15:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, indignant soapbox talk page rants about the alleged POV are disruptive and @RGloucester:'s rebuke was clearly appropriate. Let's not have any more AGF "reminders" here. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have specified that Antiwar.com has pages on every nation where you can scroll down for years of articles. Here's Ukraine's. And I already see relevant RS like from the nation, NY Times, common dreams, etc. Also link to some consortiumnews.com articles which sometimes are useable if the author is an expert and/or journalist known for reliability. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Since these RS listed at antiwar are ones we use anyway, what exactly is the point of talking about antiwar (which itself is not a RS), other than just to link to it?  Volunteer Marek  17:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
(also I'm not sure that common dreams would be RS in many circumstances.  Volunteer Marek  17:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see those specific refs used. Non-RS sources that link to RS sources can be very useful, as they were here. If someone uses the Ted Rall article editors can debate it's usefulness and bring it to WP:RSN. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, who decided that all sources not agreeing with a pro-Ukrainian portrayal of the events are automatically unreliable? I don't see that stated anywhere, and it's in open violation of WP:NPOV, which states just that, the articles should be neutral, not biased towards one side. The assumption of bad faith towards anyone not agreeing with the pro-Ukrainian POV is going rampant too. And if it doesn't stop, I am personally taking the responsible to ANI for improper conduct. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no perfectly neutral sources on the subjects like information wars. I think something like Ukrainian media quoting Russian media (for example, here) should be allowed if consistent with other sources. In particular, these claims made on Russian TV were widely covered in many "western" and Russian sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
if you have RS bring it Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

interpretermag.com

  • This is not a news blog as per WP:NEWSBLOG since this is not a column hosted in the website of newspapers, magazines, or news organizations.
  • As per the "About us" page of the blog, the blog translates media from Russian press and blogosphere into english. Translations of personal blogs can also be included in this. This is unacceptable as a reliable source as per WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:QUESTIONABLE.
  • Many of the statements for which this blog is used as a citation has other inline citations.
  • I am removing this blog from the article as it is not a reliable source. I will insert the {{Citation needed}} tag so that more reliable sources can be inserted. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

it was reverted here by User:Hergilei. Please discuss to reach a consensus. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is what NEWSBLOG actually says: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." The segments used in Wiki were written by professional writers so they're acceptable sources. Hergilei (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:NEWSBLOG, the full quote is: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.". So only those blogs which are hosted by newspapers, magazines and other news organizations (referred to as "these" here) may be accepted if the writers are professionals. Interpretermag does not qualify as any of these. Interpretermag is not a newspaper, magazine or a news organization. It even translates the blogosphere as per their own account. It is wrong to accept a blog which is not produced by a newspaper, magazine or a news organization just because it is written by a professional. --Drajay1976 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I already quoted all of that (and more) from NEWSBLOG. I see nothing to suggest we can't use segments from IM written by professionals. Interpretermag is an online journal, a form of magazine, and employs professional writers. Note that this site has been quoted by media in different countries, including The Guardian, Prague Post, Voice of America, and 15 min.

Hergilei (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Interpretermag "is a daily-updated online journal dedicated primarily to translating media from the Russian press and blogosphere into English and reporting on events inside Russia and in countries directly impacted by Russia’s foreign policy." It can contain translation of private blogs. The news analysis the website may contain is "in addition to" the translations and is heavily dependent on the translations. They may call themselves a journal, but it is not a magazine at all since its primary intent is translation. news organisations may quote anything including a private blog. The fact that some news organizations have quoted interpretermag proves nothing. News organizations have method of rigorous fact checking. Interpretermag translates from the blogosphere!!! What sort of fact checking will go into that is anyone's guess. But all that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The point is that it is primarily a translation service which is a project of institute of modern russia. The blogs in the site often go unnamed!!! This is not a news magazine by any stretch of imagination. Since this is not a newsorganization, it cannot be accepted as a reliable source. --Drajay1976 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I support your removal of material translated from the blogosphere if someone adds it to Wiki. However, the segments that are written by professional writers are acceptable according to Wiki guidelines.Hergilei (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, Hergilei. The subject of this article is media portrayal, therefore identifying which media said what, as well as attributing it to the reporter who wrote the article is fairly much the substance of the article. How 'reliable' the news outlet or the authors are purported to be is irrelevant. It's been cleaned up and reads comfortably. I'd be concerned if a reader couldn't get through it without encountering a 'he said, she said' in every sentence, but it has been balanced well and is informative with no assumptions as to the veracity of any of the reportage being made. See WP:ADVOCACY. Are you suggesting that, according to our own POV, we decide who is a trustworthy source and who isn't? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Retracting that sentence. You're absolutely right.Hergilei (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia's political involvement in Europe

I wonder whether this section really belongs here, since it says nothing about media portrayal. Buzz105 (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving the material to Russia–European Union relations. Hergilei (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, this would be better. Buzz105 (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources

I see there is an edit conflict on whether to include statements backed by Euromaidan Press. I agree with Herzen on this source, since it includes articles calling to "attack and kill members of Putin's regime, their associates and close relatives" or "disperse uranium to Russia" (in some sense, it's the same as using Kavkazcenter as RS on Chechen war). If these statements are true, I think shouldn't be difficult to find better RS for them, and therefore there would be no need to give links to extremist sources (I understand that the sources don’t have to be neutral, but giving links to websites like these means advertising them to Wikipedia readers).

I would also like to raise the question regarding some other sources, for instance, Left Foot Forward and Thefederalist.com. They're both recently established political blogs, and are therefore questionable per WP:USERGENERATED. Perhaps they could have been used as RS if this was a little-known issue with small coverage, but given that there are more than plenty of publications on the Ukrainian crisis, and the article is already overflowing with quotations from sources like New York Times or The Independent, I believe adding those would be WP:UNDUE. Buzz105 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did you find it? Here is diff in question. Neither this text nor the publication tells anything about dispersing uranium to Russia and other things you are talking about, or at least I did not see it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
There. If you say that reliable Western sources have covered this matter, I believe it would be better to directly use these sources. Buzz105 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
What you quoted was an opinion piece by Thomas Theiner. Sure, his personal views are questionable. However, having a questionable opinion piece published in source "X" does not invalidate everything published in source "X". My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. But if you believe that Euromaidan press can not be used at all, pleas ask at WP:RSNB. Yes, it can be used.My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Cohen

The excessive mention of his column(s) is clearly WP:UNDUE, especially given that he's somewhat WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I find that I agree with your evaluation of Cohen as anything outside of a WP:BIASED source at best. Under such circumstances, use of his op-ed pieces are UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sources don't have to be neutral, actually. A lot of sources provided in this article are biased the other way round (for instance, Bzhezinsky or Kasparov, who builds his political career on criticism of Putin). By the way, what is about Thefederalist.com and LFF (I've mentioned them in the section above)? I wonder why an internationally recognized expert on Russia-US relations is UNDUE, and some obscure "Pierre Vaux" and "Tom Nichols" are OK. Buzz105 (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Cohen is still mentioned in the article, just not all over the place, which is what the WP:UNDUE problem was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is, the "Western media" section is heavily biased in its structure. The main section includes mostly anti-Russian/anti-Putin opinions, and the "Criticism" includes only criticism of pro-Russian opinions. In fact, it reads like: "Columnists A and B suggested that the West should be tougher with Russia.

Criticism

Columnists C and D were criticized for being too soft on Russia". I suggest adding Cohen's opinion to the main section and shortening the criticism of him in the "Criticism" section. Buzz105 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephen F. Cohen has a long way of publishing pro-Soviet (Bukharin) and pro-Russian opinions. The US sovietology finished around 1990, some veterans continue their fight under Russian banner, unfortunately the banner isn't leftist or progressive.
It's Zbigniew Brzezinski, please learn.Xx236 (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
First, it is a very serious claim that Cohen has general pro-Russian/pro-Soviet bias, and therefore RS are needed for it. Second, even if he does have this bias, he is still notable. Criticism of him may be included in the article, but it is ridiculous to include extensive criticism of some scholar without first quoting the opinions of the said scholar. Buzz105 (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, come off it with asking for RS regarding RS. There's an abundance of "RS" for Cohen's identified bias as per the article Xx236 has politely wikilinked for you. The fact that you're pushing the WP:IDONTLIKEIT line is simply that: you don't like it. If you have sincere doubts, you're welcome to take the specifics surrounding the article and context to the RSN, but please stop pushing it here on the article talk page, when consensus is clearly against your perspective and demands for 'proof' that emphasis on his opinions are considered, in good faith, to be undue. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and the function of editors here is not to be journalists. We don't reflect our own opinions, but that of RS. While Cohen is hardly an extremist, neither are his views anything other than his views. If you haven't understood that current affairs articles like this must avoid WP:RECENTISM by now, you're probably wasting your time and energy in this part of Wikipedia. Op-eds are handled with extreme care, regardless of the perceived credentials of scholars and specialists while we're dealing with ongoing subject matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/pathetic-lives-of-putins-american-dupes.html I support every letter about Cohen. People oppreesed by Soviet Union were attacked by the crazy left, now we are tought what is good by the same leftists. Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117606/stephen-cohen-wrong-russia-ukraine-america Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice catches, Xx236. The second article, in particular, spells out the WP:FRINGE in Cohen's opinions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Error

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "TN180942" is not used in the content (see the help page).Xx236 (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dishonest representation of a source

This [1] is a pretty blatant misrepresentation of the source. If you read the source it's actually all about Kremlin propaganda, manipulation, falsification and misinformation. It's about the crack down on independent media in Russia. Etc. The title "Everyone Lies" is NOT a claim that all sides are equally guilty of propaganda, rather it is a reference to a statement by Kiselev in which he pretty much says "everyone lies, so it's okay if we lie too" as a justification for making shit up under the guise of "news".

This is all very obvious if one actually reads the source. Hence, using this as a source for the claim that "Western and Ukrainian media" are guilty of propaganda is outright dishonest. Please don't try stunts like this again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

To repeat myself, regarding repeated attempts to misrepresent a source [2], please stop. You're taking a single sentence out of an article which is almost entirely about Russian propaganda. The very next word after that single cherry picked sentence is ... "But". As in "but Kremlin propaganda is on another level" which is what the entire source is about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've read the paper with care and there's no doubt that POV pushing was based on trashy WP:SYNTH of what the source actually discusses. This new wave of anti-anti-Putinism being promoted (yet again) here is getting very, very WP:TEDIOUS. In fact, as VM has noted, it's a blatantly twisted and tweaked reinvention of the source (known as a lie/falsification). Okay, I get that there have been some pretty screwy renditions of 'the truth' in Western sources over the years, but we know where government-line lies have been told because Western sources have also provided us with in-depth analyses of events. You wouldn't be aware of where the twists and turns occurred were it not for the right of access to dissenting views and evidence. Interpreting RF outlets as "any enemy of Western governments and press must be the friends of 'the truth'" is a sad, deluded case of oversimplification.
Again, I'm issuing the challenge of finding RF mouthpieces giving RF government dissenters a voice. Please clear your analytical faculties and try to parse sources without shoehorning them to fit your pet theories. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Even if the Dougherty article cannot be used, there are still two other sources provided by me.
This isn't anti-anti-Putinism, but rather anti-black-and-whitism. The article seems to cherry-pick the opinion pieces that basically say that "Russia is guilty of everything"/"Putin is a XXI century Hitler who has to be stopped by NATO at any cost" (there's no such uniform perspective of "Russia against the rest of the world" as this article would like the reader to believe; the Western opinions, especially in EU, are more diverse). Buzz105 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy represents mainstream RS. If your interests lie with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and you consider this to be an issue of "anti-black-and-whitism", you really shouldn't be editing articles that conflict with NPOV in order to reflect your personal POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, the opinion introduced in this edit is basically the central dogma of modern Russian propaganda. According to this dogma, there are no any honest or reliable media ("RS" in wikipedia setting) at all. All of them only propagate outright lies, disinformation and conduct information wars. This should not go anywhere.My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Does this belong in the article?

Seumas Milne of The Guardian said that "the crisis in Ukraine is a product of the disastrous Versailles-style break-up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s", and "(Ukrainian) Neo-Nazis in office is a first in post-war Europe". He criticized the policy of NATO's eastward expansion, and stated that "it is hardly surprising that Russia has acted to stop the more strategically sensitive and neuralgic Ukraine falling decisively into the western camp, especially given that Russia's only major warm-water naval base is in Crimea".[1] Likewise, John J. Mearsheimer, writing for New York Times, suggested that "to save Ukraine and eventually restore a working relationship with Moscow, the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO", and "take... NATO expansion off the table".[2]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former American National Security Advisor, said "We have to convey to the Russians our concern that those words spoken by Putin are terribly reminiscent of what Hitler was saying about Austria before the Anschluss."[3] Garry Kasparov criticized Western politicians, saying that many were "lining up to become a new Chamberlain."[4][5]

The referendum on Crimean independence was considered "illegitimate", "un-democratic", and "under the barrel of a gun".[6][7] Many western sources state that the anti-government groups were actually Russian special forces incognito, referred to as "little green men", and that the unrest was intentionally fomented by the Russian government.[8][9]

I have no idea why articles stating Obama and Turchinov's thoughts on Crimea are being used as proof of a particular media portrayal. Also, is this article really the right place for Brzezinski's reaction to Putin's statements and Kasparov's comments or should they go in another article? Also requesting discussion on the Milne and Mearsheimer quotes, are they needed in the article? Hergilei (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference GN140305 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Mearsheimer, John (8 February 2015). "Don't Arm Ukraine". New York Times.
  3. ^ "Putin's words over Crimea 'terribly reminiscent of Hitler'". Euronews. 20 March 2014. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
  4. ^ Vale, Paul (8 December 2014). "Kasparov Likens West's Response To Putin To Chamberlain's Appeasement Of Hitler's Germany". The Huffington Post.
  5. ^ Gera, Vanessa (20 November 2014). "Kasparov likens Putin to Hitler, urges West to act". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-19.
  6. ^ "Crimean authorities work under barrel of a gun - Ukraine leader". Reuters. 6 March 2014. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
  7. ^ "Obama: Crimea progress cannot come from 'barrel of a gun'". Polskie Radio. 13 March 2014. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference MT140311 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ "Little Green Men". Open Democracy. 21 April 2014. Archived from the original on 2014-04-23. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
You're not addressing the changes made to the pre-existing content, and have not included the additional material you've reinstated prior the 'discuss' stage of WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
What specifically do you want me to address? You complained that I had "removed sourced content which merits discussion per WP:BRD." So I reinstated the material. If I missed something, then let me know or simply add it back yourself). Could you please specify which changes you have a problem with instead of reverting everything? Hergilei (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Seumas Milne (For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality) is not a journalist but a Soviet activist. A similar statement can prize Nazi Germany on the same level of academy.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusion as to what WP:NPOV is

Whilst I'm currently addressing Buzz105 specifically, the understanding what WP:NPOV actually means keeps cropping up on this, and other articles pertaining to controversial current events, on a regular basis.

NPOV is not a reflection of subjective understandings of what reliable sources state on any given subject, nor watering down the substance of the sources and refactoring clear intent of condemnations or accolades. The fact that positions are taken are should not be approached as being op-ed content that threatens Wikipedia's neutrality. NPOV is genuine reflection of what reliable secondary sources state on any given subject.

If any given editor/contributor has misgivings as to whether the positions of reliable secondary sources are reasonable representations of these sources, please bring these questions to the talk page rather than attempt to edit war the content of the article and follow WP:BRD rather than WP:GEVAL. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I have tried to represent the position of said authors, using terms like "what they saw as" and "alleged" to avoid giving the impression of unquestionable truth. If you consider my version biased, we may discuss how to rephrase it. But the original version is POV beyond doubt: "Ukraine is a pawn" is not a direct quotation from any of these authors, but a willful interpretation of their statements by their critics. And this is already included in the "Criticism" section. Buzz105 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Please note that WP:ALLEGED, and any other adjectives contravening WP:WORDS, are only used in specific cases where a genuine legal dispute is being described. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Unprecise: "as a result of instigation by the Ukrainian government"

It's about the post-Maidan government, at the beginning Russia supported the Y. government.Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've tidied the introduction a little for the moment. The whole section could do with a bit of an overhaul as it's mixing Euromaidan events with the installation of the interim government after Y's speedy retreat to Russia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis ?

Isn't it rather Russian media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis and its critic?Xx236 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm of the opinion that, not only has the article evolved into the Russian media portrayal vs the majority of the rest of the world's portrayal, the sheer volume of content is awkwardly structured around trying to accommodate the WP:TITLE rather than the reality: two diametrically opposed narratives.
Any thoughts from other editors as to whether a better title is is in order? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
This article has ballooned into an absurd mess, full of WP:UNDUE content. It does not resemble the article that I created a year ago. I've washed my hands of it for that reason. I imagine that it is beyond help. RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't blame you. I've fairly much given up on all of the articles surrounding events in Ukraine. They've become a parody of encyclopaedic content. I'm having great fun at the Fascist symbolism and Wolfsangel article. Gotta lurv the way Ukraine has become the evil enemy of goodness and niceness epitomised. Way to go on tapping in on the 'the opposite of US/Western information must be the TRUTH' for our new wave of enthusiastic Wikipedians. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

State propaganda

The section on Russian media should be divided into three sections - state propaganda, critical coverage in Russia, and international reactions to Russian coverage. The key issue is the extent to which the state controlled Russian media is being used for official propaganda. That should be reflected in the sections.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Qualms about "Media in Russia" section

I currently have two qualms about this section of the article:

  1. I propose removing the statement that "the (Euromaidan) movement was portrayed (in Russian media) as having LGBT agendas". Of the three sources given, two of them (Claire Bigg and Timothy Snyder) merely state that Dmitry Kiselyov called the Klitschko brothers "gay icons" (which was a very personal attack and did not state that the whole movement had "LGBT agendas"). The third source does state this, but it is Moskovskiy Komsomolets, a yellow/tabloid-level newspaper which doesn't really illustrate mainstream Russian media (there is Ukrainian press of similar quality which makes statements like "Putin has connections to ISIS", and none of that is included in the article). Mainstream Russian media like Sputnik, Lenta.ru, RT, etc. said nothing about "LGBT agendas of Euromaidan".
  2. The section "Critical reactions (to Russian media portrayal) in Russia" includes an opinion by Gleb Pavlovsky who doesn't say anything about Russian media portrayal at all, so I believe his opinion doesn't belong in this section.

--Buzz105 (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

  • In the first place I would suggest that you stop deleting large sections of the article without having good reasons for it. For example, you have deleted a number of sections merely based on the fact that their URLs have changed (BBC) or that they were posted by Euromaidan Press. In the latter case the article was originally published by Vilnius University[3] and merely reposted by EP. Cloud200 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • First: I have qualms about mentioning the diplo-speak of Russian officials, the alleged statement of Madelaine Albright about Siberia, etc. This is WP:COATRACK: the article is not about the deep roots and techniques of Russian propaganda, but about the general media spectrum in regards to the Ukrainian crisis (this information may be at place in some other article, like Propaganda in post-Soviet Russia, but not this one). Second: I understand your argument on Euromaidanpress when it re-posts articles by other sources, but opinions of Euromaidan's own editors are WP:UNDUE. A partisan nationalist website which published calls in support of the Right Sector is WP:FRINGE in comparison to The Guardian, New York Times, and others (as you see, we don't cover criticism of Western media by, say, RusVesna for the very same reason). --Buzz105 (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I think when bringing the WP:COATRACK classification you have missed one important point — its definition: ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely (highlights are mine). This article is just what it is about — it discusses media coverage of the conflict, which obviously includes a large dose of Russian propaganda on that subject. One reason to keep it here in such a detail is that Russian propaganda engine was really restarted on industrial scale with the conflict in Ukraine and this article in its current for does very well document that. You have a point in that the naming of the article isn't very precise which is probably because this is what someone just came up with when originally creating it, but this can be fixed easily — just rename it to something like Media portrayal and propaganda on the Ukrainian crisis. Cloud200 (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The current title is fine per WP:NDESC. Brevity is of the essence, and there is no need to emphasise 'propaganda' when the article is structured in such a manner as to clearly identify various the POV of media around the globe. I'm just going to ping the original author of the article, (RGloucester), for their input as the selection of the title was carefully thought through... and remains the best title per sources. The set of events discussed in the article were known as the 'Ukrainian crisis', and this has not changed. If you wish to change the title, please find WP:RS suggesting that it was/is known as something else. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, Buzz105, I've removed your WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT tag added here only recently. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least the pieces about Albright and language habits of Bolshevik leaders are definitely COATRACK because they are not directly about the Ukrainian crisis, and not about media portrayal (statements by government officials are a separate topic; "media portrayal" is about statements made by journalists and analysts). --Buzz105 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. It is directly related to the annexation of Crimea and the RF stance (Putin does speak for the RF). The "New York Times" article makes it perfectly clear. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The lead - Ukrainian crisis ?

It's a war, not a crisis.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The lead describes the crisis without the Russian military intervention (compare the infobox) and quotes sources till September 2015.Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Another good reason for renaming the article — see discussion above. Cloud200 (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Lucifer story and other "retracted" news

@Buzz105: please do not delete information about fake news just because they were retracted, like you did with the Ukraina.ru Lucifer story[4]. Even though the story was later retracted from the original website, it still did its job — it was reposted on a number of clone websites and blogs and remains there today (e.g. [5]). Even more importantly, it was probably reposted on hundreds of VK and other social media groups, which is a very frequent tactics of fake news distributors so it makes perfect sense to record such activities regardless of the original story still being there or not. Cloud200 (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Synth and cherry picking

I've reverted this latest content per WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRY. Having gone through the text of the Joseph L. Black book (overlooking the fact that page numbers were not provided), the entries alluded to were far more convoluted than the synth provided as content. The language of the content was also loaded with disregard for WP:WORDS. I'll be taking a look at the other entries from that particular book (which also lack page numbers). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Tweaks to content

I've reverted this change to the text as it may seem to be a minor change, which I understand to be an attempt at simplifying the language of the text however, IMHO, I believe 'echoed' to be a better neutral descriptor over 'agreed with'. 'Agreed with' implies an active acknowledgment of agreement with RF sources on behalf of the Western pundits opining on the situation. I'd be fine with the change if there were WP:RS attesting to all of there being such 'agreement'. If they did not actively state that they intentionally took the same position posited by the RF, I'm reticent to infer such a relationship between the pundits and the RF/the RF's media outlets as WP:SYNTH. To the best of my recollection, the notables involved came to their conclusions of their own volition, ergo their opinions 'echoed' those of the RF independently of parroting RF sources. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Iryna for the explanation. My only issue with the word "echo" was that it is usually used with a negative connotation (ie. echoing Assadist propaganda, echoing the regime's media). I was looking for a more neutral word, but if echo is the only choice, then that's that. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.37.183 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, IP 128.6.37.183. Ah, yes, it's interesting that people see different problems with language as being potentially loaded, but I do see your point. Personally, 'echo' remains my preference as 'agreeing' suggests a non-existent active/collaborative stance. While I don't think it's worth overthinking lest we end up getting bogged down in semantics, do you (or any other contributors) have any thoughts as to a third option sans ambiguity? Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Iryna. Perhaps 'reflect' or 'concur' will do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.37.142 (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, 'concur' suggests active collaboration with the RF media. I think 'reflect' is a good choice. Ultimately, I don't see it as being a major shift from the use of 'echo', but enough to avoid the negative connotation in Wikipedia's voice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Glad we can come to an agreement. Changed the word to 'reflected.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Cheers. I removed the 'have' so that it conforms with MOS:RELTIME. Given that the 'crisis' and commentary date back a few years, I think 'have reflected' made it sound as if the analysis was recent. Hope that makes sense. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor arrested for violating Russian law

"Prominent editor of Russian Wikipedia pages detained in Belarus," Yahoo.

"Authorities in Belarus have arrested and detained ... one of the top editors of Russian Wikipedia.... Bernstein was reportedly accused of violating the "fake news" law Russia passed in early March by editing the Wikipedia article about the invasion of Ukraine. Under the new law, anybody found guilty of what the country deems as false information about the Ukraine invasion — remember, the Kremlin calls it a "special military operation" — could be imprisoned for up to 15 years." --2603:7000:2143:8500:19EE:D8B5:8A85:4329 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Update needed to include 2022 invasion.

It seems like a lot of this article references articles and debates that happened about media coverage of Ukraine and Russia from years before the current invasion/crisis began. More updates to include the 2022 invasion of Ukraine would be appropriate. --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainians maintain that it is the same war, which has never stopped, but no question this article needs an update Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

working on this Elinruby (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Section on Ukrainian media

Need to distinguish the Berkut beating journalists at Euromaidan from the actions of the democratic government Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian crisis ?

It is a war and if anyone casues the crisis it is Russia. Should be Media portrayal of Russian imperialism. Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making this about your personal opinion. We should look after the objectivity of information. Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't get too worked up over the semantics - the whole world knows what's really going on, even the evil people who caused it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, this is just projecting your opinion on "the whole world". Condeming or not condemning Russia is all just about politics and it shows: the only countries sanctioning Russia are those that oppose its influence: the West. I've got some news for you: the other 6 billion people on this planet see it all a lot more objectively and have their own ideas about who's "evil". So, in conclusion, there will always be debate about who started the conflict. Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Subjective statements supported by tendacious references

This is a characteristically devious use of Wikipedia by certain interest groups, by keeping within the editing rules and procedures, to lay out a largely pro Western anti Russian account of the events in Ukraine. It has been densely and cleverly referenced in order to deceive the robotic editing tools Wikipedia routinely deploys to check articles conformity to community guidelines. Furthermore, a large proportion of Wikipedia editors, and especially those who are particularly active in the areas of international affairs, military and defence, are (in my humble opinion and has been demonstrated in various articles across Wikipedia which involve primarily past and present events, in which the United States has a strategic military or economic interest, such as the history of the Cold War, the rise of communism in Russia and Asia, Vietnam right through to recent matters such as the diplomatic controversy caused by the death of motor cyclist Harry Dunn outside RAF Croughton, a US Air Force Base, by Mrs Sacoolas, a US citizen, who fled the UK to avoid court action) edit these articles, in particular suppressing or deleting contributions, in order to maintain a pro United States interpretation. 2A02:C7E:1C6E:B400:B8DC:6AE4:C084:A416 (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal for the article? Vague conspiracy-mongering about "certain interest groups" is unhelpful. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Your purpose here is no doubt "SPA" and pro-Putin, which has no defense. The Reliable Sources will be followed, and none of them are going to be supportive of massive missile and artillery barrages on population centers or the removal of children from a country that posed no threat to Putin. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I can see your editorial eraser hovering in the air over my contribution to the Talk Page here. I think it is worth drawing users' attention towards what is a very clearly defined trend within the areas I have listed drawn from my own personal experience based on studying the background and self published biographical details of those editing and cancelling of which a disproportionate number had career backgrounds in the United States armed forces. There is an almost inevitable teleological progression within Wikipedia towards a post imperialist United States led Western "version" of history and current affairs. It is worth bearing this in mind or surely taking my views into account when referring to these areas as presented in Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:1C6E:B400:D082:C68B:21CA:54E8 (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sadly a very unbalanced article. Is it really true, that the only criticsm of western media is, that they were not harsh enough with the Russian Federation between 2014 to 2022? The fact that Russian and Chinese media do lie does not absolve western media and especially wikipedia of their responisbilty to the truth. Unfortunately the article is unsalvageable and if Wikipedia had any integrity it would delete propaganda like this. People who read this should also read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony Fairfis (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have verifiable sources that pass the RS criteria for your opinion - then bring it/them forward. I invite you to try. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Land area shown in the banner

Seen as this is supposed to be a neutral page, why is Crimea included in the same way as "mainland" Ukraine is on the map? Crimea de facto hasn't been under control of the Ukrainian gouvernment since 2014. Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Under international law, it is still part of Ukraine. Personally, I feel this is an area that Ukraine won't get back (I don't see NATO getting involved to the degree of going to war and pushing the RF out), but politically will remain a hot potato for a decade if not more. So, the map is as it is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is not well written

In western media I only see Ukrainian victories and Russian losses yet if I find more neutral sources the reporting is a bit more balanced that shows both sides have suffered major defeats at times. How come the article doesn't reflect that? 2405:DA40:5138:5400:3CEF:C98C:4831:6AD5 (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

By all means, put your fingers where your mouth is and bring forward these "more neutral sources." Good luck with that. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Biased Media Portrayal of Russia at War

One-sided Media Portrayal of Russia at War

From any reading of news reports, it would seem that the Ukrainians hardly ever/never carry out human rights abuses and the Russians do little else. Given such reporting often lacks the general fairness or balance expected of press, TV news and internet, would not the above title be more a fitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.139 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No, as reliable sources do not indicate that the media portrayal has been one-sided. — Czello (music) 13:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, see here for example. This is from 2014 but already after the war started. Alaexis¿question? 14:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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.[1][2][3][4] 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

  1. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19409419.2021.1893212
  2. ^ https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783839446508-011/html
  3. ^ https://mythdetector.ge/en/who-disseminates-disinformation-about-the-2014-fire-at-the-odesa-trade-unions-house/
  4. ^ https://www.svoboda.org/a/25374946.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_portrayal_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War/Archive_1&oldid=1223144532"