General Discussion

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

110. Both versions are 79 pages (excepting the face page) and have 343 footnotes. How do they differ?

Tue Jan 5, 2016, 03:02 PM

Jan 2016

This is a posted academic paper presented at the American Political Science Association meeting in September, 2015. Such papers are read and may be cited by others. They are generally not peer-reviewed until they are published in an academic journal. But, that does not make this invalid. Indeed, if this paper was utter rubbish, it probably would already have been discredited as such.

Therefore, as the most exhaustive study of its type, read it and comment on the substance. Please desist from ad hominem attacks.

You are already shown to be factually in error. The two (substantially identical) versions:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2658245
http://tpo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine_APSA_Conference.pdf

(BTW: From all appearances, tpo.nl isn't an obscure blog. So, your characterization is wrong again).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Research concludes the Maidan Square snipers were anti-government militants. [View all] another_liberal Jan 2016 OP

Sputnik, lol Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #1

Far out man! Human101948 Jan 2016 #2

It's even funnier that you choose to post . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #3

What's to say? GGJohn Jan 2016 #4

If you have nothing to say . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #12

but there is nothing to learn from Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #14

That kind of a closed-minded attitude . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #62

You could have found a better researched "article" from counterpunch couldn't you? snooper2 Jan 2016 #75

Maybe, but I liked this one . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #106

Listen and learn? GGJohn Jan 2016 #18

We knew that from day one malaise Jan 2016 #5

The massacre in Odessa a few months after Maidan? another_liberal Jan 2016 #7

And you know this how? GGJohn Jan 2016 #9

you mean the investigation Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #17

Who "knew" from day 1? GGJohn Jan 2016 #8

Good you buy your propaganda malaise Jan 2016 #15

facts invented by Putin and only put out by his two government Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #19

Facts From sputnik news? GGJohn Jan 2016 #22

German TV came to the same conclusion over a year ago... MattSh Jan 2016 #84

Based on what? eom. GGJohn Jan 2016 #85

Facts? MattSh Jan 2016 #89

Here's Dr. Katchanovski's Bio. leveymg Jan 2016 #6

Sounds thoroughly quallified . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #10

His credentials don't mean squat, GGJohn Jan 2016 #11

Enough with the baseless character assassinations, GG . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #13

And you are......................? eom. GGJohn Jan 2016 #23

ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF SOMETHING? another_liberal Jan 2016 #36

When one posts nothing but Russian propaganda, using nothing but GGJohn Jan 2016 #40

ONE LAST TIME . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #47

I've made my position very clear about the sources you use, GGJohn Jan 2016 #49

I use the sources I find useful . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #56

Your purpose here is to push pro Russian propaganda via GGJohn Jan 2016 #63

ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR? another_liberal Jan 2016 #67

Take it however you want, but the evidence is clear GGJohn Jan 2016 #69

That is enough . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #71

Masters? LOL. GGJohn Jan 2016 #78

Bias of course, dictates one states as much if not actually believe it. LanternWaste Jan 2016 #102

OK. So you agree with the New York Post. Octafish Jan 2016 #98

You illustrate the point I made earlier about "attack the messenger" responses. leveymg Jan 2016 #20

Anything coming from Sputnik News, GGJohn Jan 2016 #24

It's often a choice between fallacies. Igel Jan 2016 #90

Logical fallacies are the Coin of the Realm. Both realms. All realms. leveymg Jan 2016 #92

Qualified, but not necessarily unbiased. But, who is? leveymg Jan 2016 #16

very true, thanks Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #21

Very well put, GGJohn Jan 2016 #25

"Research" proves lol whut? rjsquirrel Jan 2016 #26

Says Sputnik News... Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #27

The academic who led this investigation is employed by the University of Ottawa . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #31

From a liberal point of view, Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #34

Propaganda from all governments . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #39

The difference here that most western news sources aren't wholly created, owned and operated GGJohn Jan 2016 #43

They are mostly created, owned and operated by Western investers betterdemsonly Jan 2016 #50

Which is not the same as Sputnik News or RT, both of whom were created by the Kremlin GGJohn Jan 2016 #52

So nobody pays Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly betterdemsonly Jan 2016 #59

The American govt created and run Rush and Bill? GGJohn Jan 2016 #66

The government isn't the only source of propaganda betterdemsonly Jan 2016 #70

If you from Russia, you might think so Duckhunter935 Jan 2016 #77

Propaganda from all governments. Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #48

Not sure the identity of the snipers has been otherwise established. Links? leveymg Jan 2016 #88

The study proved what its author has been preaching for months. How convenient. pampango Jan 2016 #28

This otherwise unimpeachable investigation refutes what you choose to believe . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #29

What makes you think, this is an "unimpeachable investigation"??? DetlefK Jan 2016 #32

Because I have yet to see anything remotely like actual criticism of this study . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #42

You do obviously not understand how publishing in science works. DetlefK Jan 2016 #46

Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association leveymg Jan 2016 #99

It does not 'refute' what I believe; it 'proves' what the author chooses to believe. pampango Jan 2016 #37

Just an example why you should be careful when a russian news-source quotes someone: DetlefK Jan 2016 #30

This OP is not about your topic . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #33

I am merely warning against taking state-sponsored russian news at face-value. DetlefK Jan 2016 #35

Don't take any news reporting "at face value" . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #44

You would do well to take your own advice, GGJohn Jan 2016 #45

Blog.FanFiktion? Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #38

It's really bad, but not in the way you think. DetlefK Jan 2016 #53

Self-publication in any sort of research is generally a negative thing. Dr Hobbitstein Jan 2016 #55

Not-self published. Presented at a major conference, and posted by The Netherlands Post Online. leveymg Jan 2016 #100

The paper is not all that impressive karynnj Jan 2016 #97

It's the most thorough study of its kind that I have seen. If there's something better, please link leveymg Jan 2016 #101

True, but the very paper disputes the claims of the OP and his Russian source karynnj Jan 2016 #111

I don't see any such internal contradictions. leveymg Jan 2016 #114

SPUTNIK!!!!!!!!!!! MohRokTah Jan 2016 #41

Drink deep, drink often. randome Jan 2016 #51

Who were the peers reviewing this study? OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #54

That is beyond the scope of this chat board discussion . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #57

Your response indicates you already know Codeine Jan 2016 #60

In your imagination, perhaps . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #73

This is the only report of the study, and it's a summary. OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #61

LOL. GGJohn Jan 2016 #68

The scope of this discussion includes the credibility of the study. DetlefK Jan 2016 #72

As I said . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #74

As I said... DetlefK Jan 2016 #79

Your interlocutor just did. Kudos to him/her. OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #82

Both versions are 79 pages (excepting the face page) and have 343 footnotes. How do they differ? leveymg Jan 2016 #110

I see. I had read the 2014-versions the 2015-version mentions on its title-page. DetlefK Jan 2016 #113

You are free to do what you want. But, I think you have fundamentally misread it. leveymg Jan 2016 #115

It's long past time ... Trajan Jan 2016 #58

Agreed. randome Jan 2016 #64

Somewhere out west? (n/t) OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #65

That's your opinion . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #76

I certainly don't want you sent packing, GGJohn Jan 2016 #80

SputnikNews edhopper Jan 2016 #81

Here's a link to his study: Bradical79 Jan 2016 #83

Thank you . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #86

The question still stands, GGJohn Jan 2016 #87

Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association leveymg Jan 2016 #94

Thank you . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #105

Trolls gotta troll, troll, troll . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #103

Is it beyond the scope of this conversation, or is it not? OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #91

I am not about to get into an argument about "peer review" and such . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #104

And there you have it: OilemFirchen Jan 2016 #107

"Massive failure" is only in the eyes of the beholder . . . another_liberal Jan 2016 #108

You can get the article direct as a pdf without registration here: leveymg Jan 2016 #93

Downloading a pdf off an unknown website? Great idea. LeftyMom Jan 2016 #95

tpo.nl domain is The Netherlands Post Online. leveymg Jan 2016 #96

Limiting data and analysis selection to publication which inherently validate your own conclusions LanternWaste Jan 2016 #109

Sputnik didn't publish this. It's merely picking up (3 mos. late) on an academic paper posted by a leveymg Jan 2016 #112