Continuation - Ukraine erupts in riots and general strikes

[dudalb]

I see the "Useful Idiots" are still in their pitching, though.

 

[caveman1917]

Western reporters are working for several different employers

So are Russian ones.

Good ones are aware of their own biases, and try to account for them. I admit that I only know a retired foreign correspondent socially, and not very well, but his professional attitude was certainly along those lines.

Bought journalism

There is plenty of evidence of the Russian denials being untrue.

Irrelevant, we are not discussing what Russia says but whether Western media are reliable on the Ukrainian conflict.

The Guardian and BBC have also reported on the less savoury aspects of the Ukrainian side.

They've also, during this conflict, praised neo-nazis, practiced censorship and are generally biased as hell.

Russia has zero credibility in this.

Who cares? Stick to the point, which is the reliability of Western media.

Ukrainian sources have slightly more, but independent journalists when they corroborate each others stories and provide evidence are credible.

Do you have any sort of evidence for this? There's plenty of it to the contrary:

I do realise that at least one of the people proclaiming the Russian narrative has proclaimed their belief in conspiracy theories* so this is probably a waste from their point of view.

Both irrelevant and ad hominem, stick to the point.

 

[caveman1917]

I see the "Useful Idiots" are still in their pitching, though.

Now they are, yes.

 

[jimbob]

"The point" of this thread is not "the bias of the western media" it is the situation in Ukraine. This involves assessing whether Russia (admitted to lying about the invasion of Crimea) or independent western journalists are more reliable.

If you want to discuss that - why not start a thread: "The bias of the western media in reporting Ukraine and the utter truth of the Russian side"?



If someone proclaims their analytical skills yet falls for the idea that 9/11 was anything more than a conspiracy by Al Quaeda, then it is fair to doubt their analysis on related subjects - plausibility of sources, for example.

 

[jimbob]

The Guardian and BBC have also reported on the less savoury aspects of the Ukrainian side.

They've also, during this conflict, praised neo-nazis, practiced censorship and are generally biased as hell.

Like this from the Guardian?

Showing that they are covering the issue

Ukrainian protesters must make a decisive break with the far right

Ukraine has ignored the far right for too long – it must wake up to the danger

Kiev's protesters: Ukraine uprising was no neo-Nazi power-grab


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-view-ukraine-election-farewell-old-politics

True, the president is an oligarch, but he seems, on his record so far, to be a reformed one. The vote also demonstrated that the far-right elements around which Moscow weaves its dark tales of resurgent fascism remain relatively minor actors on the political stage. Although support for President Petro Poroshenko’s bloc was matched by that for Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s group, which could bring strains and divisions, the possibility now opens up that Ukraine can decisively repudiate both the Communist past and the murky era that followed, and transform itself into a healthy democracy.

Incidentally they have also reported on the far right supporting Russia.

 

[caveman1917]

Like this from the Guardian?

No like this

 

[caveman1917]

This involves assessing whether Russia (admitted to lying about the invasion of Crimea) or independent western journalists are more reliable.

Something you seem quite bent on not discussing, yet at the same time making claims about.

If you want to discuss that - why not start a thread: "The bias of the western media in reporting Ukraine and the utter truth of the Russian side"?

A common tactic. Attaching a claim to the opponent's argument that he did not make (just a couple of posts ago I specifically said both were unreliable). At least it's better than ProBonoShill's tactic of simply replacing a completely unrelated claim with "Russian media tells the truth" and then pretending his opponent was defending that instead. No wonder he has to work pro bono

If someone proclaims their analytical skills yet falls for the idea that 9/11 was anything more than a conspiracy by Al Quaeda, then it is fair to doubt their analysis on related subjects - plausibility of sources, for example.

More irrelevant ad hominem. Not that I ever even claimed anything of the sort.

 

[Childlike Empress]

More irrelevant ad hominem.

One of his little fallback positions. He's also excellent (well, let's say eager) at pretending that I only post "state-sponsored" sources while ignoring the flood of first hand videos subtitled by amateurs. Like the latest ones from the guy who calls himself "Texas" and doesn't seem like a Putin puppet, corroborating the everyday situation in the suburbs of Donetsk and Gorlovka etc.

Russia Insider (also not "state-sponsored") has written a very true little piece about that latest video: If This Video Doesn't End the War in Ukraine, Nothing Will

But who cares when your real enemy is your own unwillingness to accept that your sources are extremely selective, which is the issue with this guy who was told often enough that we have gone enough rounds around.

 

[magellan]

This is actually a pretty good example to view conspiracies. Russia is trying to hide its involvement, and there is plenty of hard evidence that it is involved.

And saddam hussein is trying to hide his support to al queida and his WMD programs.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Something you seem quite bent on not discussing, yet at the same time making claims about.



A common tactic. Attaching a claim to the opponent's argument that he did not make (just a couple of posts ago I specifically said both were unreliable). At least it's better than ProBonoShill's tactic of simply replacing a completely unrelated claim with "Russian media tells the truth" and then pretending his opponent was defending that instead. No wonder he has to work pro bono



More irrelevant ad hominem. Not that I ever even claimed anything of the sort.

How embarrassing. You were called out on your false equivalency in the other thread and here you are doing it again. Will you run away this time too?

Oh and have you found that link to Russian media yet? Too difficult?
Maybe give Vladimir a call, I'm sure he'll have someone help you out.

 

[uke2se]

Yes it is, in exactly the same way as the one above. Again, the photographer himself described doing this (taking multiple transformations of his picture and then combining these to a final image).

That is not what Krawetz accused him of doing, as I showed with a quote from Krawetz's blog.

So you have no response. Quod erat expectandum. A "blogger" who is still writing textbooks on the subject, should be noted.

Not when he's demonstrably wrong.

Krawetz was correct, as the photographer indicated. Just because the jury considers some specific transformations of pictures to combine (not the translation, rotation and scaling I did above) as acceptable does not mean that it's not a composite.

Krawetz was wrong, as his own blog demonstrates.

Can you please identify this purported "Pro-Russian troll" that you claim to have been doing this? The edit history completely disagrees with you. The only troll in the edit war easily identified is "Volunteer Marek" who started it.

I can't identify the troll because he's unsigned and only the IP is showing.

 

[uke2se]

It's a bit like the old 'supporting of dictators' adage "but at least he's our bastard", only this time it's "but at least he's our Alex Jones". The part about jumping into the middle of a discussion of Higgins and then claiming not to be part of it is also funny enough.

Still lying about that, huh? I suppose, when you have nothing else...

 

[caveman1917]

How embarrassing.

For you, yes.

You were called out on your false equivalency in the other thread and here you are doing it again.

A blatant lie. Keep trying though, I'm sure if you train hard enough some day you may not have to work pro bono anymore.

Oh and have you found that link to Russian media yet? Too difficult?

As anyone can determine, the few times I've actually discussed Russian media I considered it a propaganda machine. As anyone can also determine the claim I was defending had nothing to do with Russian media. Bit's signature comes to mind about the pigeon playing chess.

 

[caveman1917]

That is not what Krawetz accused him of doing, as I showed with a quote from Krawetz's blog.

You don't seem to understand the words "likely", "possibly", and so forth.

Not when he's demonstrably wrong.

Then you should demonstrate that. He claimed that the metadata showed the picture to be a composite and gave a likely scenario consistent with those observations. The result is that the picture is indeed a composite and this was indeed correctly shown by the metadata but it occurred by a different scenario.

Note specifically that you are to demonstrate that, given those observations, the given scenario is not likely. That's different from wrong btw.

Krawetz was wrong, as his own blog demonstrates.

What the photographer did was transform his picture a couple of times and combined them back together in order to simulate HDR.

You know what, this doesn't actually matter all that much anyway. I'll concede that the guy was wrong about that as I'm not willing to stray further into this tangent of a tangent.

More to the point that I was making, do you agree that:
expertise(Kriese & Krawetz) >> expertise(Higgins/Bellingcat)?

I can't identify the troll because he's unsigned and only the IP is showing.

So your identification as a "Pro-Russian troll" can only have been based on the content, which you call "questionable material". I believe the relevant "questionable material" (ie the "criticism" section) was added somewhere in february. Could you show the specific edit and related content, how exactly it is questionable material, and specifically how you derive from that the conclusion that the IP making that edit it must have been a "Pro-Russian troll".

It would seem much easier to make these determinations of "Pro-Russian troll" or "Pro-Western troll" if the edits are signed and one can look at the history of the user. Especially when, as in this case, piles of documentation exist of the user doing exactly that.

 

[caveman1917]

Still lying about that, huh? I suppose, when you have nothing else...

 

[uke2se]

You don't seem to understand the words "likely", "possibly", and so forth.

I do. Do you? Krawetz asserted that multiple images where involved in his original blog. He later changed his mind when he was called on it. Krawetz was wrong.

Then you should demonstrate that. He claimed that the metadata showed the picture to be a composite and gave a likely scenario consistent with those observations. The result is that the picture is indeed a composite and this was indeed correctly shown by the metadata but it occurred by a different scenario.

I have demonstrated it.

Note specifically that you are to demonstrate that, given those observations, the given scenario is not likely. That's different from wrong btw.

I don't have to demonstrate that, no. All I have to demonstrate is that Krawetz's accusation was wrong. I have.

What the photographer did was transform his picture a couple of times and combined them back together in order to simulate HDR.

You know what, this doesn't actually matter all that much anyway. I'll concede that the guy was wrong about that as I'm not willing to stray further into this tangent of a tangent.

Ok.

More to the point that I was making, do you agree that:
expertise(Kriese & Krawetz) >> expertise(Higgins/Bellingcat)?

No idea. Probably.

So your identification as a "Pro-Russian troll" can only have been based on the content, which you call "questionable material". I believe the relevant "questionable material" (ie the "criticism" section) was added somewhere in february. Could you show the specific edit and related content, how exactly it is questionable material, and specifically how you derive from that the conclusion that the IP making that edit it must have be a "Pro-Russian troll".

It would seem much easier to make these determinations of "Pro-Russian troll" or "Pro-Western troll" if the edits are signed and one can look at the history of the user. Especially when, as in this case, piles of documentation exist of the user doing exactly that.

I base my identification of a pro-russian troll on the fact that an edit war was started on a wiki page with material sensitive to Russia by unsigned users using apparently biased sources (going by what signed editors are saying), and knowing that Russian internet propaganda has targeted Wikipedia in the past.

 

[caveman1917]

No idea. Probably.

Selective skepticism much?

I base my identification of a pro-russian troll on the fact that an edit war was started on a wiki page with material sensitive to Russia by unsigned users

False, the edit history is clear on who started the edit war. This is verifiable information. It is also verifiable information that the edit that added the criticism section wasn't made by an IP.

using apparently biased sources (going by what signed editors are saying)

I'll ask again, can you show the edit and the content it added? So that you can easily find it: it was on 21 february 2015. Could you show how this is biased, specifically with respect to the standards employed by the article, such as using Higgins himself as a source on his expertise?

Also what do you mean by "signed editors", the one who started the edit war? What are the "unsigned editors" saying and what do their edits constitute of exactly?

and knowing that Russian internet propaganda has targeted Wikipedia in the past.

Can you give an example?

We already have one clear example of Western internet propaganda targeting wikipedia (by the exact same user who started the edit war even).

 

[uke2se]

Selective skepticism much?

Wut?

False, the edit history is clear on who started the edit war. This is verifiable information. It is also verifiable information that the edit that added the criticism section wasn't made by an IP.

Obviously the removed section was crap. The war started when anonymous trolls invaded to restore the removed section.

I'll ask again, can you show the edit and the content it added? So that you can easily find it: it was on 21 february 2015. Could you show how this is biased, specifically with respect to the standards employed by the article, such as using Higgins himself as a source on his expertise?

There were two sources. One is our dear Krawetz, whom few people appear to believe in this case, probably because he failed to present any kind of analysis for his claims. The second is an off-the-cuff quote, basically an ad-hominem attack with no evidence presented. This is disallowed in a Wikipedia Biographies of Living Person articles.

Also what do you mean by "signed editors", the one who started the edit war? What are the "unsigned editors" saying and what do their edits constitute of exactly?

The signed editors remove the contentious section. Unsigned editors put it back. Fairly simple.

Can you give an example?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=2

We already have one clear example of Western internet propaganda targeting wikipedia (by the exact same user who started the edit war even).

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

 

[dudalb]

GOd, it seems as though one poster is so dominating this thread he is driving other posters away. But maybe that is his purpose.

 

[caveman1917]

Obviously the removed section was crap.

Can you show the removed section?

The war started when anonymous trolls invaded to restore the removed section.

Again, this is false. Show the consecutive edits and their dates.

There were two sources. One is our dear Krawetz, whom few people appear to believe in this case, probably because he failed to present any kind of analysis for his claims. The second is an off-the-cuff quote, basically an ad-hominem attack with no evidence presented. This is disallowed in a Wikipedia Biographies of Living Person articles.

These are both completely false. Krawetz wasn't quoted in the removed section. Furthermore, where he was quoted (on the talk page), an analysis was indeed presented for his claim that Higgins doesn't know what he's talking about. The second, by Postol, wasn't off-the-cuff at all - reaching the same conclusion, though in another field that Higgins claims to be an expert in.

The signed editors remove the contentious section. Unsigned editors put it back. Fairly simple.

Again, false. Show the consecutive edits, dates and changes that were made. Specifically this one and this one. As anyone can see, these edits did not "put back a contentious section" but put the standard tag on the page that its neutrality is in dispute.

So, start an edit war and then remove anything showing that a dispute even exists. I'm wondering if you're even looking at this or just making up some good-sounding answer out of nothing.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=2

You were to provide an example of one targeting wikipedia.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Also false, plenty of documentation has been provided. I don't think you quite understand the word "substantiated". Here is some of the documentation again.

Can you show any independent expert at all in the fields that Higgins dabbles in who corroborates his expertise?