Wikipedia is definitely credible trust me bro they’re listening to unbiased UKRAINIAN propaganda instead of conniving Russian propaganda
I used to get pissed off at college professors who used to tell us not to use wikipedia, you're right profs, I see why.
teacher: aNyOnE cAn eDiT it!
me, naive: sure, but why would anyone just go on the internet and tell lies?
anyone: :fedposting:
Had a prof who loved wikipedia.
But he was a science prof so that makes more sense. I think people who actually do legit research in those fields do the bulk of the article writing in those domains, and then the petty editors get in to fight over formatting.
Yeah I had a prof explain how the Royal Society of Chemistry actually went through and wrote most of the related articles on Wikipedia so he'd actually accept it as a source
The bullshit neoliberal politics barely ever touch the science side of the site. Still, fat L for them taking "ham sandwich" off the Energy Density page.
EDIT: Oh that's funny, they actually went back and explained their reasoning for taking it off:
This also explains some apparent anomalies, such as the energy density of a sandwich appearing to be higher than that of a stick of dynamite.
That's right, you can't blow up a building with a ham sandwich, therefore the energy density is lower.
Counter point: I had a professor at a UC school who used wikipedia as a source in his textbook. The course was transnational gangs and the professor was a retired orange county cop. Edit: the book
Wikipedia is for FINDING sources, not being cited as one
Pure :cope: lol
I haven't been to :reddit-logo: yet but I hear its pure american\ Ukrainian propaganda just like this. According to :reddit-logo: Ukraine is on the verge of winning
I saw a blue check on Twitter unironically saying that NATO should be prepared go exploit the situation if Ukraine causes the collapse of the Russian military.
the front page is a sight to behold and we should probably be taking screenshots every 6 hours
"We have been winning a glorious string of unbroken victories, each closer to our capital than the last"
In an unusual maneuver, Ukrainian forces have routed the Russians towards Kiev
To see how propagandistic Wikipedia can be, check out how their "concensus-drive" list of reliability of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources
The Economist and Radio Free Asia are greeen. TeleSur, RT, PressTV, Electronic Intifada, any Chinese media outlet, etc. are all red.
lol that even Wikipedia says Victims of Communism is red-baiting bullshit
80 tanks, 516 armored vehicles
lol get the fuck outta here, these NATO shills always tip their hand with the most ridiculous exaggerations
I'm so curious about that Il-76. The carrying capacity I've seen quoted on those is like 120 paratroopers.
Here's the thing about massive planes like that: they leave a shitton of wreckage that's burning and easily captured on photo or video.
Yet for being such a large and easily identifiable plane, there hasn't been any photos confirming the destruction of said plane
https://twitter.com/search?q=il-76&src=typed_query
You seem to be right so far. There's one photo of a crashed Il-76 but it's from 2014. Another video of a crashed aircraft is featured but it's an AN-26 from Ukraine. The US was willing to go on the record saying two Il-76s were shot down but that's about as close as I've found to confirmation.
did the state dept mention where those IL-76s went down? maybe somewhere near iraq's WMD storage facilities? :bean-think:
See that's the thing. If it were a vague report I'd discount it entirely but they seemed to have a pretty precise understanding of where they went down: Bila Tserkva, 50mi south of Kyiv / Vasylkiv, 25mi south of Kyiv
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMfu4JEXsAIfYUx?format=jpg&name=900x900
Searching those locations doesn't give any photos either, but Vasylkiv does seem to have an active air war over it: https://twitter.com/i/status/1497523635703238656
I wonder if they really did get them then, but it sure seems like there would be at least some photos of massive wreckage from at least one of them
The liveuamap.com map doesn't seem to indicate whether that area is held by Russia or not. There's an airbase nearby so it would be a priority target at least. I did find video of an Su-25 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1497659200666845186) and Mi-24 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1497650174935642116) getting bonked north of Crimea though. Wouldn't want to be in those fuckers.
Just observers I think. There was a flight radar tracking one of the Global Hawk drones watching Russia's fleet in the Black Sea. Presumably they've got the same setup over Ukraine, if not by drone then at least geostationary satellites.
They were up simultaneously over the Black Sea, Romania and Poland. The RAF also had a C135 up over Hungary but I don't know where that is now.
Also on record saying Sadam had WMDs so their word is worth less than the air they waste uttering it
It would be the easiest thing in the world for a couple of Ukrainians to take pictures of a massive crashed Il-76. It would be a big propaganda victory. Yet there are no pictures after a full day?
They crashed into putins bunker in the kremlim and got sensored by 1984 Russia
I wonder they're using "shot down" instead of a less-impressive "forced to land" in this instance?
The two are synonymous if you didn't know. Damaging an aircraft to the point of forcing it to leave is a shoot down.
I think being forced to make a controlled landing is a bit different than crashing in a blazing fireball.
Not in practical operational terms. Planes take a long time to repair, if repairs are even possible. Damaging an aircraft and forcing a landing takes it out of action for so long it's just as good as turning it into a flaming fireball. It achieves the same result.
Sadly, they are as disposable as missiles and bombs in this context. It's why war in general is fucked.
This time, a twist: "my Slavic horde can beat up your Slavic horde!"
I mean the attackers will always sustain more losses unless it's extremely asymmetrical. But yeah this is probably a result of propaganda to boost moral.
I liked the single Ukrainian jet that shot down six Russian aircraft.
Just comically unbelievable but people eat that shit up with a spoon. There's going to be a movie about the Brave Ukrainian Resistance Fighters produced by Mel Gibson with an Oscar nomination by next year.
Ace claims have always been bullshit. Pretty common for one side to claim more kills in an engagement than opposing records say were even present in that engagement.
Off the top of my head there are several bullshit things Ace claims used to do. They're more for WWII stuff but probably still fudged.
-
Squadron kills were all attributed to one member to boost his personal number.
-
Kills are just when a plane makes another plane permanently leave that fight. No destruction needed.
-
One engine = one kill. Take down a bomber and that's 2/4/6 kills.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
Check out the source
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60517447?pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:6feb197c-9473-44eb-a42f-088d9c12d6ee
Absolutely hilarious
They lost over 100 tanks, but once the edibles wore off they remembered where they had parked them.
they have both Russian and Ukrainian claims there now. Also the invasion does seem to be going... not well, but it's hard to say with a complete lack of data on Ukrainian casualties.
Also the invasion does seem to be going… not well
They surrounded Kiev inside two days. How badly could it possibly be going?
I agree Russia is very likely to win - they haven't committed very many of their available forces - but TBF Kiev is pretty close to the border, and they seem to have driven a spear into it
Also the invasion does seem to be going… not well
I think you might be overestimating how quickly even a very successful military operation of this scale is able to go.
The US took twice as many soldiers into Iraq, a country that is smaller, less populated, and completed isolated compared to Ukraine, and it took them a month to subdue the country.
Russia is taking half as many soldiers in as the US into a bigger country that is receiving constant Intel and weapons from NATO and has made significant territorial gains in the first 3 days.
The real question is whether this pace is sustainable for the Russians and whether Ukrainian resistance will stiffen or crumble in the coming weeks.
Is this place unironically pro-Russia? Like just because America and Russia don't like each other, doesn't mean you have to suck off Russia to satisfy your hate for your own country.
Russia started an unnecessary war that will not contribute to anything. If they had just sent troops to secure Dontesk and Luhansk, fine, but this whole invasion off the country is way past the line off reasonable.
Edit: The 40+ value is only for the first day off fighting and haven't been updated since. So people are throwing a fit over old info that is not valid anymore
this is actually fucking propaganda though. this doesn't conform to reality. you don't need to love russia to point out misinformation
Russia isn't releasing any stats for deaths, so what exactly would they put up? The "expert" opinions off people on here?
given the choice between posting nothing and posting hilarious propaganda, the obvious responsible choice is to post nothing
The fog of war means no one knows what is actually happening. Plus who would decide what is "propaganda"? You? It says according to Ukrainian claims above the stats, so anyone with any critical thinking should know there is some bias
2800 killed vs 40 killed. Some Bias. Wild.
Please tell us more of your amazing wisdom, you're doing so very well so far!
Check the source and those are stats from the first day and haven't been updated since. So are people just upset that up to date stats aren't being posted if no one is reporting?
Are you shook? I ask because you replied the same fucking thing to me three times.
These stats were obviously false on day 1 as well so I don't see how you are making a good argument.
Shook, hot and bothered. Also the first day was mostly just air strikes on Ukrainian ports and airports, where the aim was to just damage the infrastructure, so believeable
doesn't matter, under no reasonable circumstances should that data have been allowed to stay up there uncritically for as long as it did if wikipedia cared one semblance about factuality. If there's no verifiable information, you should put up no information.
The “source” is the BBC reporting on a Facebook post which they then explicitly state the figures are not verifiable. Fucking moron.
Yes, exactly. A hilarious, utterly-disconected-from-reality level of bias that renders any info from that source completely farcical. I'm glad you see the problem.
literally just add "unconfirmed" if it needs to be there. it's against their own policy, though they def don't care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves #2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion #1
Every claim about a war could be labeled as "unconfirmed". Everything about WW2 and any major war could be labeled as that. You seem to just be petty about this type off things.
ww2 is one of the most heavily documented events in history. this is an ongoing event where information is king. these are not comparable, i'd suggest you shut the fuck up before you umm actually your way into denying the holocaust as a hypothetical given your ww2 comparison.
Is it gonna be necessary to add a mandatory "fuck Russia" section to any posts criticising or making fun of Ukraine now like this is :reddit-logo:?
inb4 mods putting hasan's spinning "vladimir putin bad" cube next to the logo because people have zero object permanence :michael-laugh:
No.... but the discourse seems to be that Russia is justified in this unnecessary war because "Fuck America"? The world isn't some binary between good and evil like people on here like to image.
Chill the fuck out with "Oh you're fellating Russias hairy balls" shit then if you're concerned about nuance.
Edit: oh wait lol hour old account, nice
Ehhh, used to be here years ago, left and decided to check it out again. Sorry if that's a problem.
Ya the original sub was banned in June 2020, thought it was longer. Time flies. Anyway what are you trying to get at?
The world isn’t some binary between good and evil like people on here like to image.
Yeah, we need more nuance, like uncritically believing some of the Ukrainian propaganda instead of none of it. Give lies a chance!
Yea it's pro Russia to point out that this is a clear falsehood. We are all personally sucking Putin's dick in here and it's really hard to get a spot so anyone not on it at any given second posts pro Russia propaganda here.
Ya but the poster also conviently left out the other sections that say "Claims according to Russia"
Doesn't matter. These stats are utter garbage, everyone knows it.
Quite frankly if this amateur hour garbage is their idea of propaganda, I do think Russia is winning.
Weird to be making this statement on a post criticizing propaganda that is so insulting to one's intelligence that it boggles the mind they'd even bother making it up. Apparently not tolerating such misinformation is now fellating Russia.
