Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Comment from Cadwallader [partially redacted by other user per NOTFORUM]

Acceptable sources for this story are subject to the [Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy|Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources].

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Cadwallader (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I deleted an unsourced paragraph that claimed that "propaganda" was being produced by "both sides", that Ukraine was being fought over by Russia and the USA, and that opinions as to what happened were being made prematurely. All of that is POV. We can add some Russian views, but those views only appear to have traction inside the Russian Federation, and they should be presented as such (ie, not on equal terms). The Chinese are not commenting, and the rest of the world seems to be saying that Russian-trained separatists shot it down with a Buk missile. If we find out this is wrong later, we'll just change it. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would submit this to WP:arbcom if you would like to make an official statement stick, it would help if you could point out what sources you disagree with rather than give a warning in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GeoGene is a brand new editor (March 2014) who just reverted my paragraph without talking about it FIRST. I will revert his/her changes manually. Cadwallader (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Being a bit aggressive, aren't you? Geogene (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that you must talk about changes on the talk page before just deleting someone else's edit. So, Geogene is the aggressive one here.Cadwallader (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not require users to get permission from others before making any specific edit, nor are new users subject to any probationary period. Furthermore and most importantly, the material which you added (and which Geogene properly removed) was manifestly inappropriate unsourced editorializing. Please don't add it again. I have also partly redacted your comments here, as the Talk page is not a place for editors to spread homebrew conspiracy theories. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this whole procedure. We do not remove others' comments. Cadwallader only tried to focus on objectivity... Geogene's attitude was not neutral. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not say Geogene needed to "get permission". I said that Wikipedia editorial policy is to TALK, ie, give reasons, in the talk section BEFORE deleting or reverting edits. And I agree with Fakirbakir, you do not have permission or authority to redact other editors comments on the TALK page. Furthermore, Geogene removed the material within minutes before I could add references. It would have been better to ask me to remove it, or source it - you know the little tags we insert to point out where sources are needed. As for "homebrew" conspiracy theories - I simply reported on claims made by the Russian Deputy Minister and reported in mainstream media outlets in both the USA and Russia, without commenting on the accuracy or veracity of the claims. [another redaction, NOTFORUM] Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC) ---- This page SHOULD be objectively reporting both sides of the story as printed in their respective news organs without taking sides. If we can't agree to move this page to [Neutral Point of View|NPOV] I will file a complaint through the arbitration procedure. NPOV is one of the most important tenets of Wikipedia editorship. Cadwallader (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This comment is a textbook case of assuming bad faith.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the opening section of the article - it reports Ukraine's assertion that Russians shot down the aircraft, while failing to report Russia's assertions that a Ukrainian BUK battery stationed near Donetsk shot down the aircraft. The article is heavily biased in favor of assertions by Ukraine/USA, while not telling the other side of the controversy. So, I am not assuming bad faith, I am weighing biased non-NPOV editorial content. Cadwallader (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Putin didn't do it. It might be much simpler if he had. But isn't it Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if Putin personally rode the missile on the way up to intercept the plane. The point is to publish and NPOV article about an international incident. This crap currently looks like it was written by the US State Department - a neutral source if ever there was one.Cadwallader (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe sources which support the US State Department's view are just easier to find? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not US State Department - more like: a conclusions accepted world-wide with exception of Russian and pro-Russian media. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A NPOV way to introduce this subject would be like this:

Both Russia and Ukraine have blamed the other for firing a BUK missile that is believed to have destroyed the aircraft. No objective investigation with access to the crash scene has yet concluded which party shot down the flight.Cadwallader (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be unsourced editorializing. No. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because there are two opinions on something doesn't mean each should be given equal prominence or weight. The evidence available to date points to this incident occurring as a result of actions taken by the rebels (possibly aided by Russia). This article should be bold enough to point that out. To give equal weight to unfounded allegations that this was caused by something else is inappropriate, at least until more information emerges. -- anonymous user

There is no evidence, because there has been no collection of it on the ground, no examination of the plane black boxes, no non-neutral investigation commity having put together results. A compilation of statements from ukrainian and american officials is not "available evidence". As per today the article is a pile of crap. Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're saying that the article is prone to contain a lot of speculation, claim and counter-claim before the crash site is properly examined and the black box data analysed. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As for today this article is the best and most objective knowledge we can gather. Unless you want Wikipedia to become nothing more than another Kremlin propaganda tube - accept it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea why not put all of the propaganda into one article and call it Russian media portrayl versus Russian media portrayal. The article here should really focus on the crash and not the media pointing fingers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Cadwallader & User:Factchecker_atyourservice: I see that the issue here is "unsourced editorializing". What if there were sources that somehow presented Russia's account of the incident? I'm unqualified and insufficiently informed to make a personal decision on whether Russia or Ukraine (or nobody, as a few claim) were at fault for the downing of the flight (although I have a tendency to hold a raised eyebrow towards Russia, to be completely frank). Despite my quasi-anti-Russian opinion in this instance, there is a plurality of viewpoints and I am pretty sure that respecting them by adding a section called "Russian view of the incident" wouldn't be the end of the world. All the best! Meşteşugarul (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bias in Referring to Russian News Outlets

It is well known that the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News loyally follow Washington's lead when reporting on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to ramping up for war. Yet we do not refer to them as "Washington-backed news outlet".

This article refers to Russia Times (rt.com) and Itar-Tass as "Kremlin-backed outlet". To refer to Russian mainstream media as "Kremlin-backed" but not to say the same about American media, or UK media is bias. I suggest such bias be removed from the article.Cadwallader (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

RT is widely viewed as a government propaganda outlet, American media outlets generally are not and the specific publications mentioned are quite highly regarded. So your suggested course of action would not be appropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What a pointless, POV discussion. We have two posts. One says "It is well known that..." The other says "...is widely viewed as..." That's not good enough folks. Sources, please! Not just opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't article space. Check out the Russia Today article if you wish to read the extensive notable opinions regarding RT as Kremlin propaganda. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Even with reliable sources documenting or claiming the biases of other reliable sources, I don't see the point of including these as adjectives in front of all the reliable sources we use. The system of Western mainstream media biases is well-documented, and it looks like RT's very strong links to the Russian government are well-documented (I haven't checked in depth, but it's highly credible). But I don't see the point of overriding the consensus in the WP:LEAD of the articles about those journals. The WP:NPOV approach, given Radio Today and Washington Post could be, e.g.

• "according to the international multilingual Russian-based television network Radio Today ..."
• "according to the widely circulated United States daily newspaper The Washington Post ..."

where we take just the first few adjectives considered most important by the Wikipedians editing those articles. (The lack of mention that the Washington Post represent the US military–industrial complex POV in the lead there is presumably related to WP:BIAS, but the place to NPOV that is in that article or justify modification of the RT article lead, not here.) But aren't these descriptions distracting the reader from the main issue? All sources have biases (e.g. Wikipedia is biased towards reliable sources, NPOV, no original research, and structured content), but giving a source should enable the reader to search for more info or make a judgment based on his/her previous judgments of the source.

Another way of saying it: if the reader wants to know what biases to expect from RT or the Washington Post, the MH17 article should let the reader go to those articles to decide for him/herself, rather than imitating biases from reliable sources. The policy on WP:RS is about using the factual type of information from the sources, not the sources' style of hinting to the reader what to think.

Boud (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You neglect most obvious line of reasoning here: RT, ITAR-TASS, et al are owned by the Russian government. The examples given of the American press are not. --Simfan34 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In any event, NPOV essentially requires us not to lend equal weight to Russian media claims, precisely due to their lack of credibility. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have nothing but your mainstream American POV to tell you that Russian media are any less reliable than mainstream Anglophone media. This has been gone over and over. Many more examples can be given of the NY Times having to retract stories with major foreign policy implications than Russian media have ever had to retract after the breakup of the USSR. That means that when it comes to the Ukraine, Russian media are significantly more reliable than Western media. – Herzen (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite; we've got out mainstream American POV telling us that Russian media are less reliable than Western media, but there's also the crushing weight of world opinion; an oft-underestimated force of nature.

What "crushing weight of world opinion" -- who is the supposed authority of measuring and interpreting "world opinion"???? Or have you been appointed that job? Robheus (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's not the media's job to be neutral - that's our job. Assuming that American, British and Russian sources are biased, there's still plenty of sources out there in English we could use. including Al Jazeera, The Times of India and the Straits Times to name but three. It's just a question of finding the and using them. Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

" RT, ITAR-TASS, et al are owned by the Russian government." And the BBC is owned by the British government, and ABC is owned by the Australian, etc., yet I don't recall ever seeing anything like "the British government-owned BBC News reported..." printed on this article. Russian sources should not be singled out this way. --Tocino 06:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

BBS already replied your concerns in the past: "Although the BBC is funded by the UK government... a fundamental principle of its constitution and its regulatory regime is that it is editorially independent of the UK government.". RT meanwhile became famous for having journalists quit their job over propaganda lies pumped by the television. I hope you see the difference now.

LOL. BBC reports they may be funded by the government but they are editorially independent. Ha ha. I'm sure the Russian Times has an equally rosy view of their own neutrality.

For the record, I have no doubt that Russian mainstream media are just as much in the pocket of their government as the America, British and Ukrainian media are in the pockets of their respective governments. My point was that prefixing "Kremlin-backed" prior to the Russian media outlets is a deliberate device to sow distrust in the mind of the Western reader, and thus fails NPOV. Cadwallader (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That is another biased conclusion, because other stations (like Al Jazeera) also had journalists quit their job. How is a journalist decission to quit her/his job a sign that a certain news station should be treated differently? Western media outlets (CNN, BBC, etc.) should be treated on equal footings as the russian media outlets, I don't think that factually speaking their reports are any less dependent and objective as those of for instance RT. Let's not be doing childish games here and pretend western media outlets are on a higher footing and standing as russian news agencies. Of course RT has a certain bias, but that does not differentiate it from western news sources that also have a certain bias, wether they admit it or not, wether they have written constitutions or not. So I agree with the statement that we should not make such differentation towards Russian news agencies. Robheus (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between just quitting the job and quitting the job because of propaganda. And it's not just individual case but rather multiple cases. There is a difference between "certain bias" as you call it and straight on propaganda that's aimed at nothing more than repeating official government line and doing everything possible to either discredit more objective sources or forbid them any access to the public down to straight on re-writing history (famous case of ITAR TASS removing news about "rebels" getting Buk launchers). What you are propose is putting government propaganda on an equal footing with other media. Total nonsense that is against everything that Wikipedia stands for. I'm fine with providing official Kremlin version of the events like it's already done in Media coverage but it should should not be taken into account when establishing objective facts. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera journalists have quit the job because of propaganda, right. There are no objective media outlets (what authority would deciode on that then?). The only way to be able to have a "more-or-less" objective worldview, is to consults different media, and draw one's own conclusions! And I think it is not up to Wikipedia to label media outlets such as RT as merely "kremlin propaganda" (such a statement, by the way, is itself a propaganda statement), I think people can make judgements on that themselves! One should never fully trust one source, that holds for RT but any other media outlet as well. Further, I think russians get more objective news from the world then here in the west, so the whole picture people are describing as if somehow russians are being brainwashed is just bogus! The only people being brainwashed are those that label sources that conflict with their own opinions as "propaganda", and then close their eyes on different interpretations of global events. I think that is what is happening, we have been lead into a war with russia for couple of years now, and this incident with flight MH17 is some decisive stage in that, but it has been prepared for years! (note all the specific anti-russian campaigns last couple of years, like the campaing about pussy riot, about laws on homosexuals, in the case of the different standpoint of russia on Syria, etc. etc. They all serve the same purpose: brainwash people into thinking that russia is the enemy, and to enable the western power, which are in a deep economic crisis, to wage a war against russia).

Novorossiya is now a country, and Girkin's their national spokesman

Really? 173.228.54.18 (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But Girkin being the national spokesman would in my view happen to be incorrect. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be fixed as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest adding a footnote next to 'Novorossiya', stating that 'Novorossiya is a state with limited recognition that has declared independence from Ukraine' in order to prevent confusion. EDIT: I take this back as I realise that instead of clarifying that Novorossiya is not a country, it would likely have the opposite effect on readers. OakleighPark 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Woa!! Oppose. Novorossiya is absolutely not a 'country'. It is a part of the Ukraine over which an illegal and, so far, completely internationally unrecognized claim has been made by the rebels. Or do you propose that Wikipedia be the first to give them credibility? Ex nihil ^(talk) 08:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is recognized by Russia, and so far as I remember, Russia has recognized Nagorno-Karabakh, Ingushetia and South Ossetia, all of which are now distinct countries. If Novorossiya is not a country, then why would people be dying for nothing? Stupid claim. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any source which states that Novorossja is country recognized by Russia? My understanding is that only other "Non Countries" as South Ossetia or Abkhazia have recognized Novorossja. Furthermore Ingushetia is part of Russia - Russia has neither recognized Chechnya nor Dagestan nor Ingushetia as countries and is fighting in this region for decades in order to prevent independence. 46.7.56.247 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)M.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the article should recognise Novorossiya as a country; in fact I was trying to suggest that it be clarified that Novorossiya is in fact not a country. OakleighPark 10:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we should definitely either removed "Novorossiya" or move it to the very end and place it under unrecognised entities.Jeppiz (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Novorossiya is not a country. Arnoutf (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Novorossiya deserves to be listed, somehow, since they are a direct player in this crash (they control the territory), regardless of their disputed legal status. Maybe Novorossiya should not be listed under "countries" with the rest of the UN member states, but rather under a new category, such as "disputed entities". See the Response section of the Shelling of Donetsk, Russia article as an example for the correct way to treat Novorossiya. --Tocino 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Or as a sub section of Ukrainian response? Arnoutf (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Novorossiya" does not exist, and thus should not be listed in any way, shape for form alongside legitimate nations. What should be done is create another section for the non-nation opinions deemed relevant. There you can list NATO, the UN, the ICAO, alongside the statement of the terrorist/separatist/whatever group. Tarc (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether we should separate them, Tarc has a key point here which seems to have been missed in this discussion. Novorossiya is listed alongside NATO, UN, ICAO and the EU in the "by country section", and the last 4 are definitely not countries. I believe it's been like this for a while since I recall seeing it about a day ago. I considered fixing it at the time but was lazy and thought someone else would, it seems it's still the same now. Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Edit: (The Novorossiya thing is new, IIRC when I saw it at the time the rebel response was under the Ukraine one.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the rebel response in the first place, so maybe to indicate that it is not an actual country, could you list them like this? –

• Ukraine – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko vowed support for a Dutch probe into the crash, which he called an act of terrorism. He offered condolences for the air disaster in a telephone conversation with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Ukrainian citizens brought flowers to the Dutch and Malaysian embassies in Kiev in support.
  • Novorossiya – Pro-Russian rebel commander Igor Girkin was quoted as stating that "a significant number of the bodies weren't fresh", although he stated that he could not confirm the information. He followed up by saying "Ukrainian authorities are capable of any baseness"; Girkin also said that blood serum and medications were found in the plane's remnants in large quantities.

Dustin (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't even think you should link New Russia in this case. It makes more sense to link Donetsk People's Republic, or perhaps Donbass People's Militia. The existence of Novorossiya on the ground is almost nil. It is more like a concept, then a reality. The DPR and the LPR continue to operate independently, Girkin has no involvement with the LPR that I can see. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So like this maybe?

• Ukraine – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko vowed support for a Dutch probe into the crash, which he called an act of terrorism. He offered condolences for the air disaster in a telephone conversation with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Ukrainian citizens brought flowers to the Dutch and Malaysian embassies in Kiev in support.
  •  Donetsk People's Republic – Pro-Russian rebel commander Igor Girkin was quoted as stating that "a significant number of the bodies weren't fresh", although he stated that he could not confirm the information. He followed up by saying "Ukrainian authorities are capable of any baseness"; Girkin also said that blood serum and medications were found in the plane's remnants in large quantities.

Dustin (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to tell. There has been a lot of inter-insurgent conflict lately. Girkin's forces, after having retreated from Sloviansk, fought armed battles against the existing DPR leadership in Donetsk city. Supposedly, the DPR is now under Girkin's control. Fundamentally, though, his position is that of Supreme Commander of the Donbass People's Militia. I recommend using the Donbass People's Militia flag, just to be safe. RGloucester — ☎ 15:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ukraine had financial incentive to keep air space open" - Industry insider

Arnoutf - relinked from paper to IATA main page:

PLS, Add to the main article following:

Tony Tyler, the chief executive of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), says Ukraine bears responsibility for keeping its airspace open to flights like the doomed MH17. “Airlines depend on governments and air traffic control authorities to advise which air space is available for flight, and they plan within those limits” he said. Vavilevskii (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

References

________ ______

Interesting quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, July 20:

"However, an industry source said in this case, the “road” was more like a toll road, as the cash-strapped Ukrainian government was receiving overflight fees for each commercial flight above its territory and therefore had a financial incentive to keep the airspace open as long as possible."

The head of the IATA, Tony Tyler, also says that Ukraine is responsible for the decision to keep the airspace over a war-zone open to commercial traffic.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/ukraine-responsible-for-airspace-safety-iata-20140720-zuzmp.html#ixzz388H87JsB

Link - Ukraine responsible for airspace safety: IATA - Sydney Morning Herald, July 20

I believe that this should be incorporated into the article somehow. --Tocino 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems far too trivial for this article - perhaps in a spinoff. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

well its sourced and related to the subject at hand, and we already have several sections dealing with the overflight decisions of various airlines, and overflight restrictions made by the FAA... I'm going to add it72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Intercepted separatist talks confirmed authentic

Militia phone call intercepts is fake. “Experts have proved that they are a montage of several separate cuttings done much before the airliner was shot down...” - UN 21/07/2014 russian ambassador [1], [2] 194.186.5.202 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations..." -- US Embassy in Kyiv United States Assessment of the Downing of Flight MH17 and its Aftermath -- Nazar (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest adding this to the description of the intercepted calls. It's important in light of doubts about their authenticity. -- Nazar (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How can it be authentic, when the official video cited by everyone, on the official channel on Youtube, has the encoding date of 16 July 2014 in its metadata? I admit that the date set on the computer encoding this was wrong by 1 day, but how plausible is THAT explanation? The security service did not comment this in any way. Also, this is conflicting with the other data. The alleged conversation states that the missile was launched from a location situated 40km from the crash site. Then the US Embassy writes that the launch was from near the crash site because someone shot a video of a transport said to carry missiles (though I failed to identify any missiles).Capilleary (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Igor Bezler also confirmed their authenticity. [3] Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the encoding date is one day back -- [4] -- Nazar (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  WP: Original research ? --220 of ^Borg 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Stick to the official statements of the US embassy. These are the notable facts... -- Nazar (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha... You are joking mr. Nazar! Truth and US govt. are 2 separate things! The US embasy has no monopoly on 'truth' - we know the US govt. has put forwards lies that were later recognized as untruthfull.. Robheus (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to make the point that "conforming authenticity" and "telling the truth" are 2 different things, since it has also been noted that one audio track in fact consists of 3 separate tracks, and which means that even when the original recordings were authentic, the information of that tape may still be misleading or out of context (for example: some phone calls or comments may in fact refer to downing of other airplanes and unrelated to the incident of flight MH17). Presenting it as "evidence" of seperatists being culpit of downing flight MH17 is therefore disengenious. Official statements made by seperatists concerning these audio tapes should also be included in the text.

(and I still have the opinion that this whole incident has some stinking smell, and that the wikipedia article is not very neutral on this issue...) Robheus (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

I've never seen the need for "reactions": they're words, that's all, and this is an encyclopedia. However, responses in particular by Germany, Ireland, Indonesia, Australia, Romania, and South Africa are particularly meaningless from an encyclopedic point of view, and I suggest removal. Same actually goes for NATO. Unless some responding entity is involved with the investigation or the disaster in some important way, their reaction is not important. And if a country loses one or a few citizens, that doesn't make their reaction important per se; from that rationale, responses by the Dutch, for instance, do have relevance. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay if I say that I disagree? (I may give reasoning in just a short while) Dustin (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I agree, but everyone seems to freak out when you remove them. For some reason, editors find something of value from the platitudes, which are quite predictable. In this case, there may be some worth while because of the nature of the "accident", but most aren't that informative. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people saying they're shocked adds nothing, but on what planet would it ever be considered remotely unimportant that NATO said "It is important that a full international investigation should be launched immediately, without any hindrance, to establish the facts and that those who may be responsible are swiftly brought to justice"? Since NATO has absolutely no role to play in aircrash investigations or indeed international justice, but has a large role to play in any potential military conflict in Eastern Europe that might arise from this incident, I think a reaction like this is of eminent importance.

• The issue I see right now with reactions is that they are very fluent and can quickly become outdated. When you have a current event like this, the responses have a tendency to change on a daily basis. There is also the issue of who do we include, when everyone is issuing statements on a daily basis. Having said that, it's obvious that the international community is reacting to this incident, so I believe there should be some sort of limited inclusion of international responses to reflect what is being reported by the sourcing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I say remove anything that states "deepest condolences", because, obviously, we're dealing with a tragedy. However, Malaysia, Netherlands, Ukraine and Russia (and Novorossiya) should remain no matter what, and always be kept on top. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest remove everything from this section except Ukraine, Russia and "Novorossiya". My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know who added "on what planet is it unimportant etc.", but, well, on this planet. What NATO says is not of any kind of substance at all; NATO isn't even involved nor, according to Rutte (on the live blog of de Volkskrant, should they be involved. We should not include a NATO platitude on the off-chance that in the future they may be involved in a future potential military conflict that results from this. Cutting everything but the three suggested by "My very best wishes" seems a bit drastic to me. Obviously the Dutch are playing a main role in the recuperation of the bodies, and Malaysia is involved directly as an affected country. One could argue the same for Australia, with its large body count. So the list drawn up by "Spaceinvaders" seems fair to me. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Canada is imposing further sanctions against Russia. Foreign minister Baird said “The Kremlin may not have pulled the trigger, but it certainly loaded the gun and put it in the murderer’s hand.” - perhaps this should be added to reactions. See this CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-canada-to-sanction-russia-1.2713132
• The Netherlands’ Public Prosecution Service has launched an official investigation (suspicion of war crimes, murder and intentional shooting down of a civil airplane).. (As I don't know what the sanctions warnings are about and the sanctions are discretionary, I am reluctant to add the info to the page and decided to add it to the talk instead.) As arnoutf already indicated below, the Dutch are also in charge of international coordination as of 20 July; priority is recovery and repatriation of the remains.

References

• Angelina Souren (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WP Lead

As of Sunday night, the lead section of this article is highly POV toward the Urkainian/American side of the controversy, without mentioning the Russian side at all. Since no objective on-site investigation and review has yet assigned blame I propose to re-write the LEAD as follows in order to satisfy WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. I am not a troll, or a Kremlin agent, in fact I'm an American citizen. I just want the article to be balanced and not take one side, which is completely in line with the Wikipedia editorial policies cited above. Here is my rewrite of the third paragraph which I plan to post unless heavily objected to:

A Ukrainian Interior Ministry official, Anton Gerashchenko, said a Buk missile hit the aircraft at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft).[11] All forces in the theater use similar Russian-made equipment, leading to confusion over which faction actually fired the deadly shot. Both Ukraine and Russia have accused the other of responsibility for firing the missile that is believed to have downed the aircraft. The United States has backed Ukraine's accusations by claiming to have "credible evidence" that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk; while Russia has claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time.

Cadwallader (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the code for the section that I replaced. I think the details of the accusations and counter-accusations are better included further down in the article.Cadwallader (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A Ukrainian Interior Ministry official, Anton Gerashchenko, said a Buk missile hit the aircraft at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft).[1] On 19 July, Vitaly Nayda, the chief of the Counter Intelligence Department of the SBU, told a news conference: "We have compelling evidence that this terrorist act was committed with the help of the Russian Federation. We know clearly that the crew of this system were Russian citizens."[2][3][4][5] He cited intercepted conversations in which separatists allegedly express satisfaction to Russian intelligence agents that they brought down an airplane.[6] The separatists denied the recorded talks were related to the crash of MH17.[7] U.S. President Barack Obama, citing U.S. intelligence officials, said the plane was shot down by a missile and that there was "credible evidence" it was fired from a location held by pro-Russian rebels.[8][9][10]

• No, you can not make huge unilateral changes like that without discussion and WP:Consensus. I reverted this per WP:BRD. Please explain why exactly this is POV, and let's wait what other contributors have to tell about this. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It was not a "huge unilateral" change. Reasons given above as to why it was NPOV. Nothing in my revised paragraph is controversial - both sides have accused the other, and both sides have claimed to have evidence implicating the other side. Please see WP:Lead for guidance on the level of detail appropriate in the lead section of an article. As I stated above, your detailed citations were preserved to be inserted lower down in the article where they are more appropriate. I will give it until morning. Unless you bring in a pile of other editors who think my edit is somehow evil, I'm doing it come daybreak. Cadwallader (talk)

By the way, shouldn't you be following WP:BPD? My revision of the paragraph was done in good faith. If you had followed BPD you would have discussed it here prior to reverting. Instead you just reverted it, and now claim BPD for yourself. Cadwallader (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• By making this edit you: (a) started WP:Edit war and (b) removed a lot of referenced and relevant materials. The references and info you removed does not belong to any "side" (Russian or Ukrainian). It belongs to reliable sources per policy. But whatever. I also made links to relevant policies on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cad, your proposed rewrite was real bad. Unsourced editorializing, POV-pushing. And BRD is but a gentle suggestion to others that becomes meaningless when policy doesn't allow (much less support) your edits. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How exactly was my edit "editorializing or POV-pushing"??? It is above. Please point out exactly which sentence or phrase is editorializing. Futhermore, I said in the original edit that the material was not REMOVED, it was PRESERVED to be inserted lower down in the article. Don't accuse me of an edit war. You started it. Cadwallader (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Working on getting this to where "consensus" can agree it is a good 3rd paragraph summary of the situation. If you don't like it, then improve it, please:

All forces in the theater use similar Russian-made equipment, leading to confusion over which faction actually fired the deadly shot. Both Ukraine and Russia have accused the other of responsibility for firing the missile that is believed to have downed the aircraft. The United States has backed Ukraine's accusations by claiming to have "credible evidence" that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk; while Russia has claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. No independent investigation with access to the crash site has yet released a finding of responsibility.

Sorry, what are you proposing, exactly? That text is inappropriate from top to bottom and I'm not touching it. At best, the various implausible claims by the separatists deserve a few summary words in the lead. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you wish to achieve consensus, please self-revert and follow WP:BRD. Since your changes are objected, please wait at least 24 hours to allow responses by others.My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support, at least in terms of spirit the changes made to the lead by Cad. I do remember a few days ago the accusations by the Russians / separatists were not mentioned in the lead, that violates NPOV and doesn't tell the whole story either. The Russian / separatist response should be mentioned even if the Ukranian version of events turns out to be true. If you read the BBC's report on 'what we know', you'll see that it provides two POVs as well. starship.paint ~ regal 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Using similar equipment is irrelevant if the equipment is not identical and the small differences in the model of missile have implications for who may have fired it. So either "similar equipment" should be removed as irrelevant or a cite given for why the equipment is identical to the point of not being possible to differentiate. Where, exactly, did Russia accuse Ukraine of firing the missile in so many words? They say there was a Ukrainian missile system in the area. So? That's an insinuation, not a claim that Ukraine fired the missile. Where is the assurance that if it were proven the Ukrainians did not fire, the Russians would not say "well we never said they did fire. We just said they were in a position to do so"? It is also not true that the U.S. has backed all of Ukraine's accusations. What the U.S. has backed up is quite specific, and should be enumerated.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points, Brian. However, we need a paragraph or two that summarize the situation and the positions. You can't bury the reader in details in the Lead. My point was never to remove the information but to put it further down in the detailed part of the article. Cadwallader (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking your feedback, here is the third try (will add refs after we get the wording agreed upon):

Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. However, they recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at 30,000 feet. Ukraine has accused Russia of providing the BUK missile launcher, crew and training to the separatists , and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire. Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible. The United States has claimed to have "credible evidence" that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk; while Russia has claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. All forces in the theater have the same BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. No independent investigation with access to the crash site has yet released a finding of responsibility.

For starters, like most of the world outside the US, they use metric measurements, and so would not have said "30,000 feet". HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not forget always sign your comments. Here is the problem with your versions. You place incredible claims by rebels and Russian state-controlled propaganda ("news") organizations on the same footing as claims by majority of WP:RS. According to majority view (and we are talking about majority of sources/publications), the missile was shot by rebels. Intro must reflect this.My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

When did Ukraine claim that they had a BUK taken from them? All that I am aware of is boasts from the rebel side that they'd captured them, boasts that could very well be a cover story for missiles actually obtained from Russia. If you are going to lay out the Russian claims, then you should also lay out the U.S. claims, namely,
- Last weekend Russia sent a convoy of military equipment with up to 150 vehicles including tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, and multiple rocket launchers to the separatists
- Russia is providing training on air defense systems
- the social media activity
- U.S. satellites detected a launch from a separatist controlled area
- Ukraine never fired a anti-air missile during the conflict
- "Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations between known separatist leaders, based on comparing the Ukraine-released internet audio to recordings of known separatists"
The evidence on both sides here is not equal, and presenting the matter as if it is equal is not consistent with the neutral point of view. "No independent investigation..." should not accordingly not be included because it misleads the reader to believe there is little evidence incriminating anyone to date.-Brian Dell (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not lead the reader to believe there is little evidence. It just cited evidence from Ukraine and the USA. Next revision follows: Cadwallader (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. However, they recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that elevation. Ukraine, however, has accused Russia of providing the BUK missile launcher and crew to the separatists , and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire . The United States has claimed to have "credible evidence" that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk. Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible, and claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. All forces in the theater have the same BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. No independent investigation with access to the crash site has yet released a finding of responsibility.

Brian, your commentary above confuses weighing the evidence with reporting on what the major parties are saying about each other. Ukraine and the USA have made credible accusations against Russian and the separatists and claim to have evidence to back it up. Russia has responded with counterclaims, that are, admittedly weaker. No independent investigative team has made a ruling. This is a classic public controversy case where you have claim, counterclaim, and wait for ruling from the court. To be NPOV you have to report what both sides are saying about it, even if it is obvious that one side is lying. Cadwallader (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is basically a murder trial at the international level. In every murder trial, the reporters say prosecutors allege that Bob killed Alice. Bob's attorney says he didn't. The case will be heard by a court on X date. In our reporting, prior to a public finding of responsibility, we should follow the same template. Ukraine + USA says X. Separatists say Y. Russia says Z. Investigators are on the ground collecting evidence now... Cadwallader (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And you are rigging it by declining to have the article reflect the fact that X is vastly larger than Z. Your revision does not include the X points I pointed out above with dashes. Instead you've got "credible evidence" in scare quotes like the reader should consider it a joke. How about replacing that with the last dash point? This is not, in fact, a court case. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say as opposed to playing judge and jury. Our job is to assess how reliable the various sources are and on that point there are credibility problems on one side in particular that should be pointed out to the reader. By the way, where is the citation indicating that there cannot be any BUK M2 systems in the area?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is true to a point, but considering that pretty much every reliable source (including some of the independent Russian media) is treating the Russian claims about this as being particularly fanciful, this should be reflected in our weighting; to do otherwise would be a massively deliberate reinterpretation of mainstream sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I also object to these proposed changes. In fact the lede was the one part of the article that was actually pretty good before full protection was placed on the article. Hence it's probably the *last* part that needs to be changed, except for updating with new information. What you are calling "pro-Ukrainian/American" side (first, the "Ukrainian side" and the "American side" are not the same thing, despite the nonsense that Kremlin propaganda spouts out) is really just the reflection of what reliable sources have said about this topic. As they say, sometimes reality has a "pro-Ukrainian" bias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite interesting that none of you are offering a compromise way to summarize the article and fairly represent both sides. It's just no, no, no. I continue to work on a compromise. Brian your five points are good, but too much detail to go into the LEAD summary as per WP:Lead. As I have said all along, that info belongs further down in the article. The line with "credible evidence" was a direct quote from the New York Post article cited, but I've removed the quotes to make you happy. 5th revision:

Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. They later recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude. Ukraine, however, has provided video evidence they say shows Russia provided the BUK missile launcher and crew to the separatists , and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire . The United States has claimed to have credible evidence that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk. Prime Minister Najib Razak said that Malaysia was unable to verify the cause and demanded that the perpetrators be punished. Australian President Tony Abbot said the aircraft was downed in a deliberate criminal act by Russian-backed separatists, while Britain has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. In response, Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible, and claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. All forces in the theater have the same BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. The UN security council is considering a draft resolution to condemn the "shooting down" of a Malaysian passenger plane in Ukraine, demand access to the crash site and call on states in the region to co-operate with an international investigation. Cadwallader (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The above paragraph has been created in response to criticism from other editors, incorporating their concerns in an effort to create an NPOV summary of the situation for the Lead, that tells both sides, but reflects the weight of the majority position, and also follows the WP policy on biographies of living persons. I have asked for feedback from other editors, and suggested edits, and done the best I can with what feedback was provided to satisfy the concerns of all. However, no-one has suggested alternate wording. Given that the situation is rapidly unfolding and changing, and I've been soliciting feedback on this for the past 14 hours, I propose updating the Lead this afternoon in order to keep the article up to date (UTC).Cadwallader (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If we must talk "sides" - how are the real underdogs here; the Malaysian, Dutch and Australian sides represented? These countries lost most people and in the case of Malaysia will probably see their national airliner go into bankruptcy (unless of course one of your sides coughs up enough money to compensate for the lost plane, compensation to victims, costs made in investigation and loss of reputation - that would add up to well over 100 million dollars).

Two things about your suggestion. It is too high up in the list of topics to attract relevant comments and you have been fiercely defending it only marginally incorporating comments of others, so you cannot interpret lack of written comments as a sign of agreement, only as a sign of people not seen, or given up on it. Also the second line of your proposal uses the word "however", there is, however, no contradiction with the first line, making for irrelevant use of the word) Arnoutf (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for input Arnoutf. Have incorporated your suggested changes, except for the Dutch. If you can find a good official comment from the Netherlands regarding the responsibility for the crash, will include it.

The only thing that I have defended not changing is the formula of "X,Y and Z say Russia caused it. Russia response with counter-theory. UN is putting together a probe to determine what happened." Cadwallader (talk)

Revision 6: Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. They later recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude. Ukraine, however, has provided video evidence they say shows Russia provided the BUK missile launcher and crew to the separatists , and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire . The United States has claimed to have credible evidence that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk. While the Dutch have been primarily concerned with treatment of the bodies and access to the crash site, Malaysia's Prime Minister said they were unable to verify the cause and demanded that the perpetrators be punished. Australian PM Tony Abbot said the aircraft was downed in a deliberate criminal act by Russian-backed separatists, while Britain has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. In response, Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible, and claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. China's state-owned Xinhua news agency described the reaction by Australia and the US as "rash", and warned Western nations against rushing to implicate Russia, while saying the top priority now is to co-operate to find out the culprits. All forces in the theater have access to BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. The UN security council is considering a draft resolution to condemn the "shooting down" of a Malaysian passenger plane in Ukraine, demand access to the crash site and call on states in the region to co-operate with an international investigation. Cadwallader (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Stickee just unilaterally changed the lead deleting most of the information discussed here, while adding new information that was not discussed here at all. If he had reverted it back to how it was before - that would be one thing. But he didn't. He reverted one line, and basically composed a new lead, unilaterally with no feedback or input. I've been making an effort here to create an NPOV lead that takes into account the feedback of other editors, however critical they may have been. Cadwallader (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am officially opening a Request for Comment on this revised LEAD as posted below. I have attempted to create a well-rounded NPOV summary of the situation that covers the positions of all the parties with a major stake in the disaster. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENT ON HOW TO IMPROVE IT, rather than just being vaguely critical. Thank you. Cadwallader (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Cadwallader: "If he had reverted it back to how it was before - that would be one thing. But he didn't." Incorrect. My reversion here reverted to diff 617818274, which was in place before your new lead. Compare the 2 versions here. As you can see there are no changes in the lead; only changes by other editors to the rest of the article in the few hours in between. Stickee (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. They later recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude. Ukraine, however, has provided video evidence they say shows Russia provided the BUK missile launcher and crew to the separatists , and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire . The United States has claimed to have credible evidence that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk. While the Dutch have been primarily concerned with treatment of the bodies and access to the crash site, Malaysia's Prime Minister said they were unable to verify the cause and demanded that the perpetrators be punished. Australian PM Tony Abbot said the aircraft was downed in a deliberate criminal act by Russian-backed separatists, while Britain has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. In response, Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible, and claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. China's state-owned Xinhua news agency described the reaction by Australia and the US as "rash", and warned Western nations against rushing to implicate Russia, while saying the top priority now is to co-operate to find out the culprits. All forces in the theater have access to BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. The UN security council is considering a draft resolution to condemn the "shooting down" of a Malaysian passenger plane in Ukraine, demand access to the crash site and call on states in the region to co-operate with an international investigation.

• No, this version is terrible. It describes bickering by various "sides". The introduction must briefly summarize content of the page. But the current version of introduction is also highly problematic. It tells: The two sides in Ukraine ongoing civil conflict (the Ukrainian government and the pro-Russian separatists) accused each other of shooting down the plane with a missile. No. The Ukrainian government, USA, some EU countries and multiple published sources accused Russian government of providing the missiles, funding and military personnel to hit the plane. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

References

• You are trying to change too much text at once (and Arnoutf makes some good points as well.) My suggestion would be to make any non-controversial improvements, then propose other changes separately. For example, just adding something like "All forces in the theater have access to BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot." The source says nothing like the second part: this is original research. Your ref [5] actually says: "As international investigators get to work, the question of blame will hopefully soon be answered." So you're synthesizing the opposite of what the ref says, actually. (And there are other issues I don't have time to comment in bulk on, thus my first suggestion.) 9kat (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the lead gives undue WP:WEIGHT to various WP:FRINGE theories being promoted by Russia to distract attention from the very embarrassing fact that rebels it armed and trained just blew a planeload of EU civilians out of the sky. Conspicuous by its absence from the introduction are the images reported by US and Ukraine of a Buk SA-11 launcher with one missile gone heading east across the Russian border after this terror, as well as the intercepted telephone messages in which rebels claim to have shot down a Ukrainian aircraft. The intro is one-sided to Putin's version of events, which is supported by no one outside Russia itself. Given the publicity that has been drawn to this article by recent newspaper coverage of Russian government edits to Wikipedia, we cannot afford to violate WP:NEUTRAL in this manner because using this article as a WP:SOAPBOX for Moscow's propaganda draws the public credibility of the entire project into question. If we get light bulb joke wrong, nobody cares, but this article needs to be up front about the Russian-armed rebels. K7L (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You should first start with scaling down your pro-Ukrainian propaganda. Using words like "terror" is clear propaganda considering that there are no credible claims that a civilian jet was deliberately targeted. The Western point of view (which I tend to believe at the moment) boils down to that this was an accident, and that the plane was mistaken for an Ukrainian military plane. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Vkontakte

Is there any reason why the story brought up by the Christian Science Monitor about Girkens alleged Vkontakte post stating that the rebels had downed a Ukrainian military airraft in the area is no longer mentioned in the article. Has this been debunked or is it not considered RS--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the source of all the reports. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0717/Web-evidence-points-to-pro-Russia-rebels-in-downing-of-MH17-video --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a big discussion about the "Cause" section, first with a lot more info added. But then they decided to dynamite it and start over or rather, hold off on writing the causes section until more definitive information is known from an independent investigation team.

It is quite clear that the separatists thought their guys had shot down an AN-26 and took credit for it in several venues before realizing it was an airliner. What is not clear is whether their taking credit for it was due to any specific knowledge of an AA battery firing from their side. There is a video of even a 4 year old boy seeing the plane falling from the sky and saying "look our soldiers shot down a fascist plane".

So the article you cited is interesting and relevant, but does not belong under the "cause" section, because it isn't does not prove that the separatists fired the missile.Cadwallader (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why were the social media posts deleted then if they aren't evidence of anything? I'll add that if it "is quite clear that the separatists thought their guys had shot down an AN-26 and took credit for it in several venues" why can't the article say that? You want a finger to continue to point at Ukraine until it is established whether the rebels shot down the airliner by accident or on purpose?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That one was a bold claim. There is no 'evidence', only 'speculation' about whether or not the rebels thought that. Maybe they were simply afraid of being chased down internationally after the incident, which may or may not even be their fault. This is all under investigation and still unclear. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to ask @Nyttend why he removed this after locking down the page despite the fact the U.S. government repeatedly refers to the social media posts as evidence.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because this article isn't about the US government. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Who said that it is? You don't think that NPOV means calling attention to what the U.S. calls attention to instead of solely calling attention to what the Kremlin calls attention to? Where is the problem in presenting both sides here as both sides want their cases presented? I will add that it isn't just the U.S. government, since many media outlets Wikipedians have deemed reliable sources call attention to many of the same things.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "both sides"? Russia is obviously directly and significantly involved. The US involvement should logically be small - only one fatality, etc. If there ARE other, more directly involved bodies making claims in this area, clearly attributed quotes may be appropriate, but they need to be discussed here first. This is NOT about the US. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, so the US government have used these social media posts as their sources for claiming that the rebels shot down the plane. That the State Dept. is even outright saying that it was the rebels (or separatists) is significant, and that they used Strelkovs posts as their evidence is also significant. I feel this should be included. Note, I am not saying that I know who shot down the plane myself, nor do I know that these social media posts are authentic. But they are being treated as so by the American govt. to justify their claim that the separatists are responsible. --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• No. Brian Dell, above, claims that this here basically says that the US bases its claim on social media--a ridiculous and prima facie false summary of a much more complicated account. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So... can someone summarize to me exactly why this isn't being mentioned at all in the article when its being reported/repeated in a lot of mainstream media? As long as its properly attributed to the sources, of which there are now quite a few? A google for "MH17 girkin airspace" (airspace being the trigger for the alleged VK quote/post) gets you a thousand plus hits for news sites alone. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The reference to the Vkontact site has been re-added in the revised lead, including the link to the CS Monitor article. See WP Lead discussion above. Cadwallader (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops. User:Stickee reverted the new lead, and chopped it out again. You can take it up with him. I've got to get back to my real life now... Cadwallader (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That information is well regarded amongst those in the media covering this incident. Sanitizing discredits this article and it is clear it is in the realm of what powers want to keep out relevant information. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the previous posts about what the US uses as sources....this is wikipedia, not the US Government. Wikipedia has its own rules about what constitutes a reliable source.12.11.127.253 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is got nothing to do with the US Government since the information was provided by independant media sources in different locations are the world. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

re-name article

The name of the article at present in and of itself is A) not sufficient to convey the true substance of the situation and story and issue, and B) is somewhat misleading in a way. This article is NOT really about "Malaysia" per se, nor about a "Malaysian airplane" or "flight" primarily. But about a mistaken shoot-down of a civilian commercial aircraft, in general, over Ukraine, presumably probably by pro-Russia rebels and separatists. The emphasis arguably should be on THAT, in the article name and wording. Nothing in the article name even mentions the word "crash" or "shoot-down" or anything. Just a generic un-informing "airlines flight 17". It should be changed or modified, IMO. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose – You propose that we change to use inconsistent formatting, which I consider to be unhelpful. Also, this is the actual name of the plane. The plane was owned by Malaysia Airlines, and the specific plane was "Flight 17". Dustin (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Maybe I didn't make myself totally clear. But I never said that the name of the airplane by Malaysia should not be mentioned at all. But merely that the name of the article LACKS what the actual situation is about. It's not primarily about Malaysia, nor its airplane, per se. That is (to be frank) just happenstance. It's that it was a commercial civilian airplane in general, and that it was a shoot-down, by pro-Russia rebels (presumably). And since that's what the topic is definitely primarily about, why is that not conveyed anywhere in the article name? Gabby Merger (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose – This is the standard formatting. Every single aircraft wreck has the same title format of operator and flight number. Even the September 11th flights have individual articles, though the date on the template page links to the overall event. I think you simply don't understand the format or that Malaysia Airlines is a company, not a country. 108.94.106.53 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. What you and the other editor don't seem to be getting is that this wasn't simply a "wreck" in some generic sense, like other plane crashes, going to the point of your "standard formatting" argument. It misses the point that this issue (that you hear constantly in the news) is about the WAR in Ukraine, and because of that war and fighting, this "shoot-down" took place. It's the context of warring that's been going on. And that's the main issue in the news. The "standard formatting" for airplane crashes argument misses that (for some reason) and is not all that relevant to the overall gist of this subject matter. This is not some run-of-the-mill "plane wreck". Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gabby Merger: This article is about the plane crash, and as such is named after the flight on which it occurred, as is the convention on Wikipedia: see List of airliner shootdown incidents and List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities for more examples. There are separate articles for 2014 insurgency in Donbass and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, both of which are linked from this article. —sroc 💬 09:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose – Gabby Merger, information pertinent to the context you are discussing is to be found in the relevant articles which do deal with the conflict. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. —sroc 💬 09:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment There's a bit of a point here, since articles about people are titled like "Death of ...", if that person isn't notable past the death. However, we do have precedent specifically for aviation incidents just to use the flight number. If this does somehow turn into a larger event, then maybe "Shootdown of Flight 17" could be considered, but I think we're a long way from needing to do that. 9kat (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment we only use the the flight number, witness American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93 (the four aircraft in the Sept 11th attacks), Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (shot down by the Soviet Union Air Force), Iran Air Flight 655 (shot down by the United States Navy), and Pan Am Flight 103 (blown up by Libyan agents). We only use alternative names if the flight didn't have a number, such as 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash etc. You are, however, free to create redirects from any reasonable title. CS Miller (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per rationale given by CS Miller and others. Community consensus on this point couldn't be any clearer. Mandruss (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – Like others, I don't see why this should be different from other articles. United States Man (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Countries included in the Reactions - Countries section

As start - apologies i'm not good at linking to things. I'm still a bit new and don't have all the shortcuts figured out.

In the : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Countries section, I reverted the following edit: 02:58, 21 July 2014‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (88,707 bytes) (-2,689)‎ . . (→‎Countries: trim predictable responses from uninvolved countries) don't see it being helpful to curb the countries included in the 'response' section. If people have problems with the substance of what's included in the 'response' write-up for a specific country, then i think that's fine.

But I don't think it's reasonable, in the context of this site, to draw a black line on what countries should be included in that section....and if there is a 'blackline' re the inclusion/exclusion of certain countries - that should be clarified in the heading. Otherwise - it's the content of the information that should be reviewed - not the inclusion of any specific country.

Again - sorry if my inclusion on this page isn't totally clean (feel free to leave me a msg giving me tips on how to write better). I hope I expressed my opinion enough that people get what I mean.

• There has already been discussion on this, earlier on this page ("Reactions"). We don't need to clarify in any heading: we need to make a judicious judgment as editors. What you're suggesting is that basically every response by every single entity should be allowed; in my edit summaries I have indicated why certain responses could be deemed relevant. As for content: all those responses say "it's a tragedy and we should do everything to help solve the situation". So I'm going to revert this edit, since clearly South Africa, India, and Switzerland have nothing to do in any material or political sense with the aftermath of the tragedy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. Then the heading should be changed. I don't understand your reference to 'every single entity' - the topic line specifies 'countries'. If the subject doesn't include responses to all countries (subject to appropriate edits) then the subject line should be changed. Given the topic heading, it's not appropriate for you to exclude things as you have. If you don't think the content of the 'countries' qualifies, that's one thing - but it's not appropriate for you to unilaterally delete response from countries.

On this basis, I've reverted your edit.

This discussion should be elevated. My position is as follows

1. The topic/subtopic is "Reactions - 'countries'" 2. There is no clarification re what 'countries' qualify as being included in the heading 3. There are concerns about 'reactions' being posted for various 'countries' that editors don't perceive as being germane to the topic 4. The response to this is by deleting the 'country' response as though it was never added 5. ^^ is not appropriate.

You need to sign your posts. You can do that by typing four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ (no spaces) or in the alternative you can simply click on the signature icon in the editing area and it will be automatically generated for you. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of this section is really boring and not saying anything really, I would list only responses that are either saying something different than "how sad we are that this has happened" or from countries deeply involved ie The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't like these "Reactions" sections as a rule, as they're not very encyclopedic. But if we're gonna have such a section then it makes sense to stick just to the countries directly involved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I 100% agree with the problems with these sections and all else being said. But I still don't agree with the i idea that the section is being presented as 'countries' if people think that there are countries who should be curbed out (subject to the content of 'country' comment being inconsistent with what's appropriate on wikipedia).

For those of you who feel that the section should represent the countries directly involved - then why not change the heading from 'countries' to 'countries direction involved'?

Going back to my original problem - it's not that i'm so insistent that every country get must have a flag with a voice - my problem is if there are 'curbs' on the countries involved (such as 'they must be directly involved' then why would anyone shy away from that clarification?)

we should go one way or the other. if people's opinions are that the only countries that should be included are those who are directly involved, i'm willing to get behind that - so long as the subject heading makes clear those are the countries being included. if your own opinion is that only the countries directly involved warrant inclusion - why would you have a problem with that being specified in the subject heading?

if you want to leave the subject heading as 'countries' - then i think people have to be more open minded re country involvement (subject to the content being in line with wiki standards).

...my point remains - either clarify the heading to make clear inclusion or leave as is and accept the widened net.

I have to agree with VM. Public commiserations are going to be pouring in, the majority keeping a careful political distance from stating that those who are responsible are really naughty and ought to be punished. Does this mean it is in any way constructive to end up with 100+ 'official' expressions of sadness at how awful this was? Keep it down to countries directly involved, or where the country is taking a definitive position with real world political ramifications. If readers are interested to know what countries are taking some form of action or absolute position, they shouldn't need to scroll through a couple of megabytes of flag icons and unremarkable responses. Ergo, this should be interpreted as supporting the idea of redacting the content there and providing an apt subsection title accommodating exclusion of non-significant reactions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If 'countries' responding carries with it a minimizing factor, why not clarify that up front?

I, personally, don't have a theoretical problem with 'minimizing'/'editing' whatsoever - and in fact agree it might be necessary - just as long as the subheading doesn't cause any confusion.

That's my big issue - it's not the editing, it's the subtitle. i just don't like the subtitle with the editing going on. i can deal with the editing as long as it's a better subtitle

• I also agree that some of the memorial quotes need to go. At this point, I think the only ones that should remain are those directly involved and like IH suggested the ones who are "taking a definitive position with real world ramifications". I don't care about the subsection title one way or the other, it looks fine to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetised again.... Really?

This whole section turns out to be a nightmare. Everybody wants their country in. Some people want some kind of logical order (e.g. the countries that matter/were stricken hardest somewhere near the top of the list) while others think the alphabet is the best way to organize this (resulting in readers to have to dredge through response of Ireland - 1 dual nationality victim before finding Ukrainian, Malaysian or Dutch response). An alphabetizer has changed the order overnight without any more justification than saying it is now alphabetized (but no explanation why).

In my opinion we have more or less three options now. Either (1) we decide to throw the whole section out, or (2) limit the list to only a few (many fewer than 10) countries - and rigorously stick to that(!); or (3) we go the other way and construct a table with each and every country in the world with their response. We can even make that sortable on alphabet and number of casualties. The current in between compromise has been a POV fork from the start of the whole incident and we need to do something about that.

In case we go for deletion I have been starting to integrate some of the more relevant information into other sections (e.g. half mast in Netherlands and Malaysia to aftermath). This will help to clean up the section later on in any case. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I trimmed out Ireland and slimmed down some of the worst quoting. --John (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ireland was of course an example, the same would go for Romania, South Africa (each 1 dual nationality), Canada (1 casualty) and to a lesser extend Germany (4 casualties). The loss of these individuals is of course as appalling as all other losses; but I doubt whether readability is served with all those responses. Arnoutf (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it so interesting that none of you question the legitimacy of the United States being included - when they themselves only had '1 dual nationality'. Of course, it's not interesting at all - it's very keeping with the American mentality their views are paramount.

• Please sign your name. The US response is important since, for better or for worse, the US is a main player in geopolitics (duh). The same cannot be said for Ireland or South Africa--I had removed South Africa earlier, but someone stuck it back in. The UK, Romania, Germany--those are predictable reactions from countries that aren't directly involved. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• I didn't know how to sign my name before. Someone had to tell me. If someone else stuck South Africa back in, then maybe you should take the hint there are others who find it relevant and just leave well enough alone. Phil Kessel (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with MH370?

Do we need the hatnote "Not to be confused with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370"? I don't think someone is going to confuse the number 17 with 370. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you personally - because I know about these things, as do you (and many others). With that said, keep in mind that there are people not so knowledgeable. Bad (but true) example - after this flight when down I was outside and heard my neighbours talking - and one of them asked whether the flight that went down was the same one that disappeared a few months ago - as if MH370 had been flying around the planet the last 5 months and was suddenly shot down. The point being i totally agree with your 'starting point' mentally - but would say just leave well enough alone on the tag - b/c there are people out there who suffer from confusion (and there is no harm for leaving well enough alone imo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Kessel (talk • contribs)

• I agree with Lcmortensen and disagree with Phil Kessel for four reasons: (1) it is immediately clear from the first sentence ("...that crashed on 17 July 2014") that this is a different flight from that in March; (2) the lead already refers to MH 370 ("...after the 8 March disappearance of Flight 370 en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur"); (3) readers would need to be living under a rock not to be aware of the recent crash in order to assume that this article would be about a crash from four months ago; and (4) in general, "Not to be confused" hatnotes should only be used when a term is inherently ambiguous or confusing, not to cater to people who have no sense of current events. The hatnote should be removed. —sroc 💬 10:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the hatnote; I hope there are no objections. Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 11:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was far too short for you to reasonably argue that there was consensus. I disagree, but unless others are willing to respond as well, there is no gain in voicing my reasoning. Dustin (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in hearing your reasoning. I also agree with you that the discussion was too short. Phil Kessel (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• No hatnote, per sroc and WP:NAMB. 9kat (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Causes

Am I the only one who thinks that 3 sentences for such a high-interest section is not enough? I agree that the gigantic section with all the aggressive suggestions/declarations was a bit much, but I do thin that readers coming here are curious at least of a summary of what do the Ukrainians or the Russians accuse each other of, or how do the explain the events. Nergaal (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view no section can be larger than the facts. So far there are hardly any facts, so expanding the section would be speculation in my view. It will be filled in once more definitive facts come to the table, but since the cause of this specific aircrash is fairly simple it may remain somewhat short; unless of course we want to integrate the whole Ukrainian insurgance as direct cause for this crash. It is not always that larger is better in such cases. Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want to turn this into a section where the claims of every player in the conflict are aired. That would add nothing to the article apart from POV bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, a reader of this article would most likely WANT to know, at least briefly, what does each side claim. This is not a forum, but an event where actual international players are expressing their opinions, be they blatant PC crap or not. Nergaal (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree the reader may want to know claims made by players. But as far as I know claims are not (direct) causes of a plane crash; so these should not be in this specific section. Arnoutf (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, these international players are arguing about the cause, so isn't that where their arguments go? It doesn't seem to bother anyone to have the US-Ukrainian claim about the cause of crash in the Cause section. If you agree that the views of the international players should be posted somewhere, then why not move the Russian viewpoint to that place, rather than just deleting it? Letting only one side have their say is going to give the article a disputed neutrality, isn't it? How about a section for the Russian standpoint. The 2nd paragraph of the article is devoted largely to the Ukrainian view. It is mentioned that the pro Russian rebels deny shooting it down, but the sources given (BBC and AP) lack any of the information that you deleted from my post. The BBC devotes most of its space to the US-Ukraine-BUK POV and only notes a denial by militia with no evidence, and the third source there is headlined "Malaysian plane was shot down by rebels, intercepted phone calls prove, Ukraine’s president says" so this is more of the same US-Ukraine view.

So I could put the Russian POV right after the US-Ukrainian case. The reason I posted air-to-air missile under Cause is that this is where it belongs, alongside the surface to air theory. Here I also put Ukraine's accusation of a Russian MIG shooting down their plane by an air to air missile the day before, which indicates the air to air missile theory can be used by either side.

You said to me the facts are 100 to 1 on the US Ukraine side, but to another person you said "So far there are hardly any facts," and the latter statement was true. All we had from the Americans and Kiev were assertions, which filled up the media with that 100 to 1 ratio. What I posted was more factual - the Politikus.ru article has a photo showing damage typical of an air to air missile.

Today, the Russian defense ministry also produced evidence, and challenged the Americans to show theirs. at http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/ So we finally have some facts to work with, and they don't bode well for the US-Ukraine POV. JPLeonard (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request for air-to-air missile theory

I can't figure out why this edit was deleted in the Cause section. It cites published media sources. May I put it back, and can it be protected from being taken down again? Thank you, JP Leonard

/* Cause */ Russian sources, air to air missile possibility

The Russian news agency ITAR-TASS [6] reported that Ukraine moved a BUK system to the Donetsk area on July 16.

The air-to-air missile possibility has received less attention, although the day before the disaster, Kiev claimed a Russian MiG 29 shot down one of its fighters.[7] The Russian journal Politikus.ru[8] concluded the MH17 was downed by an air-to-air fragmented rod warhead [9]. Russia Today/RT posted an eyewitness report of a "Ukrainian air force plane that followed the Malaysian Boeing 777,"[10] and gave rise to speculation that the actual target could have been President Putin's jet, which was in the general area at the time, on its return trip from Brazil.[rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/]

JPLeonard (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving trucks is not the cause of the crash - so no the first line does not fit.

The same goes to the MIG story by the BBC - the shooting down of a Ukrainian fighter is not the cause of this planes crash.

I do not know who in Politikus.ru concluded this, but to my knowledge no-one of any authority anywhere came up with a definitive conclusion although the SAM theory is supported by the vast majority of sources (including Ukrainian and Russian sources). Simply put, the evidence as is now is about 100:1 for SAM over AAM, so our reporting should reflect that. So no that cannot go in. (btw the howstuffworks references does not give anything specific on this case so that is an irrelevant reference).

Finally the old Putin's plane conspiracy theory is back. Well, it was never closer than about a 1000 km to the shootdown site, so that would be some confusion indeed. If we go there we can as well suggest Air Force 1 was the original target (also in the general area - ie Northern Hemisphere at the time).

So no do NOT put this mess in. Your request for immediate protection is also way out of line as that sounds like claiming ownership of part of the article , and some kind of sanctioned pushing of a specific point of view. Arnoutf (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

On July 21 Russian Defense Ministry reported, that Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash. “A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday. “The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.” [11] Vavilevskii (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, what can you say to the evidence brought out by the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman in the above link from RT? With Russia as the accused here, do you subscribe to the principle that accused persons have a right to defend themselves? BTW theR-60_(missile) is a fragmentation rod weapon -- as predicted in the analysis I cited from Politikus.ru, which they based on a photo of damage to the plane. JPLeonard (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence, I cannot read such photos. Please recall that similar photos were used to provide definitive evidence the Saddam Hussein was deploying chemical weapons (by the US in that case and proven false or at best misinterpreted since). Note that the cause of a SAM is phrased cautiously (likely) and not definitive. The Russian spokesperson does not even say that an AAM was fired, only implied it by suggesting a plane was near. We really need to wait for more definitive mainstream consensus what happened (if not all evidence has been destroyed by now). Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf these photos are from a projector screen, DM briefing was held in the open mode and press uploaded only video, but all materials promised would be provided to international organizations soon (radar data).— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

?? Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the above two posts which were in the wrong section --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We are very sorry! What a terrible shame!

"Russian citizens brought flowers to the Dutch embassy in Moscow. Among the flowers was a note in English that read: "We are very sorry! What a terrible shame!" - Is this worth to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Looks like an anonymous person that happened to be in Moscow (that's all we know) wanted to turn all the blame for the plane crash to Russia and its people and luckily got quoted on Wikipedia. This cannot be referred as a general stance of ordinary Russians on the issue. There is even no proof that the note was written by a Russian. Wikipedia has become a propaganda machine. That's sad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Even if it were signed by a Russian that still makes it a rather trivial issue; there may always be people who feel responsible but that does not make it sufficiently relevant to mention. I removed that fragment. The fact that Russian citizens showed their sympathy by brining flowers is relevant as far as I am concerned. Arnoutf (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Arnoutf's point on triviality and the general point on the irrelevance of a single comment, I would note that the comment "We are very sorry! What a terrible shame!" doesn't in any way imply the person feels any responsibility for the crash. It easily the sort of thing a person will say in general as an expression of sympathy. It's hardly surprising if many Russians feel that way even if they feel that the Russian government has no responsibility and it's completely the fault of the Ukranian government. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

British or American English?

Are we to use British or American spellings in this article (e.g. organise versus organize)? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

American (i.e. International) variant is usually preferred. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass: According to WP:ISE, there are three 'international' standards, one of which is British spellings with 'ise'. I think editors need to come to a consensus about which of the three to use. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, then why are you asking the question? The consensus touches everything, not just one article in particular. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is generally reached on an article-by-article basis. Anyway, see my comment below. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For European centred articles like this, British spelling is usually preferred. Arnoutf (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a brief look in the article and it seems to use Oxford spellings (WP:IZE) so I guess it's best to stick to that. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you British guys write "organization" but "organise"?.. That's kinda weird. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Most people in the UK would use "organisation" and "organise". Oxford spelling uses stuff like "colour", "labour", etc. but uses "organization" and "organize". That's the style currently employed in most of this article, and it's used by many international organisations. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are two types of British spelling, standard, and Oxford. Standard uses "ise". Oxford uses "ize". RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Per WP:ENGVAR, whichever national variety was first recognizably used when the article was created should be kept. Is the spelling in the article currently inconsistent? If yes, try to find out which spelling was there first, and then regularize towards that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fut.Perf. in following WP:ENGVAR and using the convention used when created. Bahooka (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It's been in British English since created, and is templated as such. --John (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, there's {{EngvarB}}, but that's non-specific. It looks like Oxford spellings are in usage, anyway. — Pingumeister^(talk) 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is Malaysian-Russian-Ukrainian related. It's not specifically American or British. Per MOS:RETAIN, I guess British English can be used at default since creation? --George Ho (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can establish one form of English considering the variation within this article. Dustin (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, things such as "dd-month-yyyy" have been established, but not usage in ways such as RGloucester suggests. Dustin (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I only made the change because of this discussion, and the template. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion does not yet have many contributors, but I can say that "organization" with a "z" appears to be the most common usage. Also, I believe that there is a Wikipedia guideline somewhere which prefers an international variant of a word rather than a specific variant. Dustin (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As has been seen above, British English very often uses Oxford spelling (ize). The international variant for the term I was changing is refrigerated van, which is the term used by the International Union of Railways. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first date format in the article was Month-Day-Year [12] in the infobox, but some other editor changes it. I will say more in a moment. Dustin (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No way in hell are we changing all 170 references back to that, surely? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the string "organization" exists in the article. Feel free to correct me. --John (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify on what you are saying? Dustin (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the section titled 'Organizations'? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. I corrected it. I don't know how I didn't see that. The article was written in British (not Oxford) English, and as been discussed should remain that way unless there is a compelling reason to change it. --John (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You do not have the right to single-handedly make that judgment and should be reverted. It's an international standard. Dustin (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No indeed. We use WP:RETAIN as explained just above. --John (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

...and the existing variety looked a lot more like Oxford than British to me. The only reason it looks British is that you changed prior to reaching any sort of reasonable consensus. Dustin (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It was definitely Oxford English. Note the usage of 'organiz-' throughout. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is some variation because of military positions and publications, e.g. defence and defense. But I had certainly assumed it was generally British spelling. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, every occurrence used the "z" spelling prior to that change. I do not wish to revert, however, as I do not want to take on an appearance of edit warring. Dustin (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've put it back to Oxford spelling, per WP:ENGVAR. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, that is unfortunate. Here is an early version which clearly uses British English. Per RETAIN, that is how it should stay. Reversion really isn't very clever; you do know this article is under sanctions, right? —John (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to threaten, dear fellow. I'm well aware. However, WP:RETAIN says not to purposely change the style if it isn't necessary. It wasn't necessary to wholesale convert to "ise" spelling, when "ize" spelling was more predominant. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

John, that version didn't use "organize" or "organise" anywhere. How are you making that judgment? Dustin (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus of usage here. Also, I am sensing upcoming inconsistent uses of various English types. Per RETAIN, the English variety used in one of non-stub revisions should be used. However, I cannot tell which one is the first non-stub. The first version wasn't tagged as stub when created. --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't about British vs American English any more. It's clear we're using British English, but now we're talking about whether to use Oxford spellings. The revision you pointed at doesn't have any words that are relevant to this discussion. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 17:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We can establish consistent usage now. The article was essentially British with Oxford-style prior to the tinkering, with some minor mixed-usage, as many posters above have noted. It makes most sense to retain that per WP:RETAIN, rather than trying to figure out the impossible. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

At the time when I tagged the article as using British English on the 17th, there were no Oxford spellings in it. The fact that some were subsequently introduced does not invalidate that. RETAIN says leave the first spelling variant in place. The first spelling variant was not Oxford. --John (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

...because there was nothing to judge by! Without relevant words, Oxford and British look the same. Dustin (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The first spelling variant was neither Oxford nor "ISE", as no words were used that involved spelling a word that would use either variant style. What matters is what was subsequently introduced from a consistent standpoint. That was clearly Oxford spelling. RETAIN does not say to wholesale revert the style. It says to retain the existing variety. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care a huge amount about the dialect, but with the use of "organization" and "organize", standard British English is no longer an option the way I see it. There are certain guidelines which may require us to go back in the page history at some point and judge this sort of thing, but personally, I don't see the point of choosing this sort of thing until the "current aviation disaster" tag has been removed. Those are just my thoughts. Dustin (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How to keep useless editors busy for hours? I actually thought this section was a joke. And then realized it was. Juan Riley (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia is the English speaking country most impacted by this event. It's "organisation" there. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We established the "z" for the article a good while ago. Dustin (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding everything else, I don't really know how to compare Aus-English to other dialects. Dustin (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to. It is done. It is established as British with Oxford spelling. Let it be, and let this discussion die as it should. RGloucester — ☎ 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because you got your way, among a tiny group of editors, over a seven hour period, without any involvement from the English speaking country most impacted by this event? That's not consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am not accepting the flagrant rudeness and breach of policy here. But the article has other problems. We can fix up the spelling in a week or so. --John (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Press conference of representatives of the Defense Ministry of Russia for the collapse of Boeing-777

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo free copy (a translation) http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 An official copy (a translation)

According to representatives of the United States, they have pictures from space, confirming that the launch in the direction of a Malaysian aircraft made ​​militias. But these pictures no one has seen

Original article: http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 # ixzz387B6CaK2

Russia will transfer operational control data for disaster Boeing international experts

Original article: http://russian.rt.com/article/41844 # ixzz387BDV7uB

References in an article talk page

Is there a way to get a handle on this? There's now 45 references cluttering up the bottom of the page from various sections above where editors are either suggesting new text or complaining about why text was removed. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The ref and /ref tags need to be removed from the relevant section to stop them appearing here at the end of the page. WWGB (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Was hoping there was an easier way. I'd thought that refs didn't display unless there was a corresponding {{reflist}} tag below, but I must be behind the times. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: I'm pretty sure it's a recent development - at least, I've only started noticing it on the new pages patrol recently. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up for now using a combination of reflist and bare URLs. WWGB (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Will this continue to happen or is there a perm fix?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer, Isaidnoway, Tarc, and WWGB: There is no permanent fix in the offing. So long as people add <ref>...</ref> at any point after the last {{reflist}} or <references />, an automatic reflist will appear after the last thread on the page. When this happens, the thing to do is to add a {{reflist}} to each section that doesn't already have one, and where there is at least one <ref>...</ref>. However, it must not be the last thing in the thread, because that will prevent the archive bots from seeing the last timestamp in the thread, so won't archive it. I generally put the reflist after the post that includes the ref, like this. BTW I'm not watching this page, so if you reply to me, please make sure that you include {{replyto|Redrose64}} so that I get a notification. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere else I encountered this template {{reflist-talk}}. Didn't know it before, but perhaps of use here? Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}} is essentially a normal {{reflist}} wrapped in code that puts it in a box with a white background and a dashed border, plus the word "References" in boldface. You can see it in action at Talk:Concrete#Worldwide CO2 emissions and global change where there are two. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Section

Why does the article state that Russia Today is Kremlin backed when it isn't, why does the article repeatedly attack a media outlet based on hearsay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.148.24 (talk)

poor Russia Today, - [13] - just because it is a fake news channel doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously or its various truths about the plane crash - putins plane was the target! Ukrainian jets hit the Malaysian plane! the rebels haven't got the means ! - btw -is it true putin has praised Goebbels saying 'After all, Goebbels had said, “The more improbable the lie, the faster people believe it.” And it worked out; he was a talented man.'putin praises joseph Goebbels - or is that hearsay - RT is propaganda crap and Wikipedia is plagued with editors pushing its fantastical propaganda and it risks infecting loads of articles imo. Sayerslle (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arhh, where's good old solid journalism when you need it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

the news o't' screws versus RT - Murdoch/Putin - all the same to me. Sayerslle (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You folks don't know something. In Russia, many journalists are seen negatively because the media impact is ridiculous. They constantly screw up all their stories, like at the time of the recent Moscow metro derailment, they were saying that it has occurred at a completely different location and were seen interviewing a guy who was actually traveling in the opposite tunnel towards the opposite station, but for some reason, thought that his train was the target. Just like the metro construction workers who used chewing gum to block the switch, the journalists are very unprofessional.

Now the reason why this is so outrageous is simply because RT is the only Russia-based station to broadcast worldwide, with the same level of negligence. But that does certainly NOT mean that Putin backs them up. This is stupid. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So what you say is that they are just unreliable because of incompetence, not non-neutral spokespeople for the Russian government? In either case we cannot use them Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree, however if they're documenting somebody's speech (not a current event itself), then I don't see the harm. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

RT (TV network) says "RT has often been accused of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government." with four rather sturdy sources in support? Are they all wrong? If so, case that article needs a bit of correcting. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to explain when you don't know the Russian mentality. Russians are very culturally diverse, in fact, it is nearly impossible to make out what "general direction" Russia is taking. It's not like Europe or America, where you might have some counterculture, but roughly 70% of the population are in favor of something. So when you take RT from a Western POV, it does look like it reflects most if not all of Putin's statements, and seems to bypass "the people". But in reality, it simply cannot make any point by itself, there isn't much opposition of divergence beside Putin, not because of Putin, but because this is how the Russians are. A non-caring mentality. And same goes for the medias, who simply do a half-assed job of delivering any information they can find, often contradict themselves, and instead of sourcing rephrase most of what the Kremlin is saying. Either they're being paid in rubles, or they simply care too much about their own ego, IMO. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely the "Kremlin backed" statement refers to the fact it is funded by them [14] Eckerslike (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Briefing of the Ministry of Defense of Russia

Is it possible to publish this article?

Materials published on the website of the Ministry of Defense of Russia:
Russian Ministry of Defense a special briefing on the disaster in the sky flight MH17 Ukraine
Objective control materials
These objective Unified control of air traffic related accident flight MH17
In English 213.87.132.87 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian stories are represented are they not? RS should be easy to find that present the case of the Ministry of dEfence of Russia -their ideas about Ukrainian jets are already attracting responses [15] - apparently the Russian Wikipedia page for these jets was changed to aid the kremlin story - bit desperate - - I don't think wp should just lay out endless reams of putin propaganda like you do thoughSayerslle (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bit surprised they haven't yet suggested GoldenEye satellites. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Data from of social networks objective performance objective control systems? OK. 213.87.132.87 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Social networks are generally not reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Removal of the Su-25 of "Boeing-777" was from 3 to 5 km. According to its characteristics of the Su-25 is able to briefly reach a height of 10,000 meters in the composition of its standard weapons included rocket class "air-air" R-60, capable of capturing and hit a target at a distance up to 12 km, and is guaranteed at a distance of 5 km." -- 213.87.132.87 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok so Russian medias use the allegation that a Su-25 was present near the airliner at the time of the crash. Nobody has the right to dispute this claim as nobody can confirm it. It's just another version of events. Please, drop the "Putin propaganda" and other insults here. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, this is all a part of conspiracy by US to provoke WWIII. BTW, did not you know that "MH17 is actually MH370, that Malaysia Airlines flight that disappeared into the Indian Ocean ... the plane didn’t disappear at all, it was taken to an American military base, Diego-Garcia.” - see here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass, very strange... I saw a video, where the paved road lay a girl that fell out of the plane of blood around her not at all, some separatists claim that the bodies comes putrid smell, blue color, passport passengers in stop achku stacked and packed, some passport already redeemed and invalid, on board nebilo products that usually are stored in tons of heavy-duty containers. Board intends to differ by a single letter, and have identical coloring Boeings... Strange, but it seems to me that this is nonsense. 213.87.132.87 (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We need proof to back it all up. Without proof, this is as good as that McCain's statement and doesn't belong here. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to editors (and archive request)

This TP page is getting pretty long, probably time part of it was archived?

Secondly - editors - PLEASE - do not copy/paste the entire references section from an article to the Talk Page - it is disruptive to read thru - and takes up far too much space - use links and brief summaries instead - anyone can go to the article to get the detailed un-congealed mess if need be. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is being archived - by lowercase sigmabot III. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My point is, this active TP page is getting long - perhaps the parameters of the bot need tightening.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know it is set at 10 hours non activity so that is pretty tight. The traffic is just huge here. Arnoutf (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That, and the fact that the archiving bots don't run constantly. This page is set to be archived by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which patrols once a day looking for threads ready for archiving. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought lowercase sigmabot III only had daily runs at around 0000 UTC, so how does this "ten-hourly" thing work? Dustin (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

When the bot gets here sometime between 0000 and 0200 (UTC) it will archive threads that have been inactive for the previous ten hours up to that point (~1500 UTC). United States Man (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does indeed start running at midnight, so when it reaches this page about an hour later, it'll archive off anything that was last posted to more than ten hours earlier than that - approximately 15:00 UTC today. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying we have to deal with this massive page for over four more hours? It takes way too long to make a comment on this talk page currently in my opinion. That is too bad, I guess. Dustin (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It didn't come by here last night for some reason, so it is massive today. I, being the one who initially set it to 10 hours when I first set it up, will now cut it down to 8 hours to see if it gets rid of anymore threads. I'll then move it out a good bit after tonight. United States Man (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I just found and fixed two HTML comments that were improperly closed. They may have caused the bot to cough. BTW it's five more hours, not four: the bot starts in four hours time, but it takes at least an hour to get through all the other talk pages before it gets to this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I have seen this added to all kinds of articles here (And some cases made into articles of their own) on Wikipedia and while I understand no-body wants to talk about it are there any notable conspiracy theories floating around about the crash? I can see the one about there being dead bodies in the plane pre-crash as being one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not relevant per WP:FRINGE. But feel free to start an article; but please not here. Don't forget to add the Putin's plane was the original target conspiracy theory. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No there is no way any of the information could go in here but right now in Russia things such as the one I have said above are being treated as fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case: Don't forget that related to the non-fresh bodies theory there is of course the theory this is MH370 which was hi-jacked and stored somewhere for just this purpose (where the real MH17 went is never mentioned). Of course there is the CIA did this to incite WWIII theory (for what reason is not very clear though, but apparently the charter of the CIA demands them starting world wars). These seems to be most persistent ones so far.

This is outrageously ridiculous. Over 100 identified bodies are of Dutch passengers. The MH370 had only 1 Dutch passenger on board. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is outrageous and ridiculous - aren't all conspiracy theories? Just repeating what has been suggested on this page before though - don't belief in any of it myself. Arnoutf (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for aliens, Elvis or North Korea to be blamed. I would also like to see CIA owning up to having GoldenEye satellites (as in James Bond) and of course it may have been some kind of radioactive Godzilla type monster (Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant being also in Ukraine). Conspiracy people are taking it easy this time around it seems. Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:FRINGE is more about who advocates a position rather than the oddness of it. The plane-full-of-dead-bodies conspiracy theory was championed by the leader of the militia that controls the crash site, so it is notable no matter how ridiculous it is. Internet conspiracy theories not attributed to stakeholders in the investigation should continue to be disregarded. Geogene (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, the conspiracy theories have been getting media attention. But I haven't yet seen a reliable source which is devoted to the conspiracy theories as a topic. I'd wait until such appears or until someone finds one. It might even be a good idea to not include the info here but write a split off article, if and when such sources are available.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Russians are apparently being deceived/confused by the conspiracy theories [16]. That part may be notable for mention somewhere in the article. (Especially the associated political implications.) 9kat (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Article too biased on western/ukranian intelligence sources -- update request to add russian intelligence sources too

The current state of the article (21st july 2014) shows some significant bias towards an Ukranian/US/Europe view on how this tragic incident, the shootdown of a civilian airliner above Ukranian airspace. The exact causes (what kind of missile, air-to-air and/or surface-to-air, launched by whom) and other important circumstances that can shed light on to what the exact series of events were that directly led to this shootdown of a civilian airplane, are not known yet known (besides the non-controversial facts) and are heavily disputed.

We only get much speculation from both sides. Ukrain blames it on the seperatists, that would have shot it with a BUK missile, with military support from Russia. Russia denies involvement and blames the Ukrain military. Also russian defense ministry today released some military intelligence information, that shows an Ukranian SU-25 was real close in the neigbourhood of flight MH17 (3-5 km distance) only minutes before the plane was shot down. This is important information. Also satelite information from russian ministry of defense show pictures of ukranian military air defense locations and acc. to this source, Ukranian military mobile airdefense systems have been moved into seperatists held areas shortly before the catastrophe. Source: RT [17]

Now, I don't want to go into speculations about the way the series of events unfolded, and/or which side is to be regarded as responsible for this tragic shootdown, but I think it can be clear that different scenarios are possible based on this information. At least it means the article should not (unless some objective investigation has taken place) write a one-sided story about what was the cause of this incident. Or stated differently: even when we do have good evidence for the location from where the surface-to-air missile was launched, one can not jump to the conclusion that the seperatists were the one launching that missile. That is some other part of the puzzle which needs seperate evidence.

In the article however, the only way to read this at this moment is that the Ukranian side of the story is put here as if that side of the story is true. We don't know that yet! There are still some missing pieces of the puzzle! For example: what did the Ukranian military plane do there so close to flight MH17 for instance? The released audio tapes of the Ukranian ministry of cell phone calls by seperatists, who allegedly talk about the shooting of flight MH17 is controversial information, since it is not one audio tape, but assembled from 3 seperate audio tracks. So even when the conversations themselves are genuine, they might be taken out of context (for example: it could have been assembled from unrelated military operations that went on earlier, the shooting of military planes), and should therefore not be used (as is done too prominently in the article) as some "evidence" of what happened, perhaps only as a footnote, but with the comment that the source is unreliable. Seperatists themselves have made statetements regarding this tape, to this effect.

I repeat: WHAT DID OR DID NOT HAPPEN TO FLIGHT MH17 WHICH CAUSED IT TO CRASH WE DO NOT YET KNOW IN DETAIL! No conclusion as of yet is possible given the information we have. We should leave room for international investigation to make such conclusions, and till then should be very considerate to not blame one side of this conflict or the other. Since the cause of the incident is disputed and both sides have presented evidence to their point of view, the article can not suggest one version of how the incident unfolded above the other, or regard them as fact, when they may not be facts. So till more conclusive information is established, the nature of that information is that either sides make allegations, and provides sources of information as evidence. Only the part of the story which is not controversial, and can be put in the article as fact.

Update request:

The link provided (RT/information from Russian Defense Ministry about Malaysia plane MH17) should be referenced in the text (have it a seperate section, where competing evidence of different entities involed in the conflict are presented, and split from sections which contain non-controversial facts). Currently only US and/or Ukranian intelligence souces are referenced with satelite and other intelligence information. And they are mixed into the text, and therefore regarded as factual, which they might not be, or only partial.

It should contain:

1. The evidence of Russian radar an Ukranian SU-25 was in close proximity to flight MH17 mintues before the crash.

2. The statement by Russian defense ministry that Ukranian mobile air defense units (BUK system) were placed into seperatist controlled area before the incident took place, accompanied with the satelite images

and cite the source for this information.

Further:

can we add some section in which new information regarding the causes of the incident, intelligence reports etc. can be placed together (so the part that contains the controversial information). That part must be seperated from the rest of the text which contain un-controversial parts of the story, and undisputed facts. Robheus (talk)

I agree with you, I added a sentence about Russian version a few minutes before your editLpele (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Robheus you contradict yourself. First you claim we do not yet know what exactly happened to MH17 so we should be careful in speculating about causes (I fully agree) then you suggest to fill out the causes sections with implications and speculations from the Russians which is the opposite of what you propose in this same post. Arnoutf (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf - No I clearly do not. My main point is that only western intelligence sources are put in and some controversial/disputed, as for instance the edited tape which is an effort to "put the blame on seperatists-Putin" and even when it is made from "authentic" source material, might still misprepresent the facts. It can go as a footnote, but does not belong into the article body!! And another example: we have now a section 'Causes' in the article - it only mentions western intelligence sources, none russian!!! Why is that? And apart from that, the causes are controversial and is heavily disputed, but as the article is structured now, controversial information is shattered throughout the text (and therefore are seen as 'facts'). I would propose editing that stuff our of the body, and put that in a section (or sections) containing all the controversial stuff, and by applying 'eutraility' it should list all the major entities intelligence sources, not just one side!!!!! Robheus (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that the Russian sources that discuss the Russian intelligence are more-or-less under the direct control of Putin&co. On the other hand, US intelligence is under the control of Obama&co, but BBC.com [which presents the US/Western intelligence] is not. Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with the gist of nergaal's statement..but...ahem..BBC is like RT a state owned enterprise. Ask say an Irishman about BBC objectivity. Just to say...think before you let your knee jerk Nergaal. Juan Riley (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason the article gives emphasis where it does is based on the number of reliable sources that are available. Most of them follow the Western line, so the article should also. We should include Russian sources, but we should not lose our focus on the sources from the rest of the world. There is no need to ignore what is adequately reflected by RS on the possibility that it might need revision later. There is no need to pretend like both "sides" should have equal coverage, in fact policy is against it. Everything else that seems to be floating around here, such as our responsibility toward world peace, etc., is WP:BEANS. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What Geogene says. As far as BBC and RT, it's been pointed out time and time again that actually whether a source is funded by a government is irrelevant to its reliability. You'll find nothing in WP:RS about that. There are government funded sources which are reliable (BBC). There are government funded sources which are not reliable (RT). There are non-government funded sources which are reliable (scholarly journals). There are non-government funded sources which are not reliable (wacky conspiracy websites). What matters is whether a source has standards for fact-checking and accuracy (which doesn't mean 100% track record, but at least a good one). BBC does have such a reputation, for better or worse, RT, Lifenews, Voice of Russia, etc don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree Marek...was just warning Nergaal about using BBC as a sole counter example..and that there are times when any media organization (oops american or oxford english here) should not be trusted. Don't make blanket statements about them.Juan Riley (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the reliability of a particular source does depend on the context (usually, some sources of course are never reliable). So in my above statement I was implicitly referring to the reliability of these sources in *this* particular context. There may very well be different topics where RT could be reliable (they're Science stories appear interesting) and there could be different topics where BBC is not reliable (maybe The Troubles, I don't know). But these are not the contexts under discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly be informed, that now in russian Medias an informational war began to blame Ukrainian government in this incident (I know what i am talking about). Be very carefull using russian Media sources and especially citing russian militaries. Dont forget how proffesional are Russian medias in propaganda. M.Karelin (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don´t see the relevance of your information as in respect to this Wikipedia article, since Wikipedia is not the arbiter of wether or not some statement in some media is true or not, but is only considering wether the source referred to was cited correctly. So your statement ads suspicion to 'russian sources' (and therefore jusitifies them not being cited) because you have some bias against them. If we cite a western newspaper that cites Obama making statement X, it is of no concern wether X is in accordance with the fact, but only if the source rightly attributes statement X to Obama. Same for russian sources. If some military spokesmen or Putin states Y, it is not up to wikipedia to judge wether Y is in accordance with fact, but only that that media source correctly represents statement Y attributed to that spokesmen. Do you understand? I think you just a looking for an argument to not give reference to russian sources, and eliminate them from the article. I don't think that is correct. RT also correctly attributes statements to non-russian leaders or spokesmen. Robheus (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I only started watching RT because of this event, and what I have seen is certainly enlightening, and not in a good way for the reputation of its journalism. It is obviously a propaganda mouthpiece. Personally I have no problem using it as a source for Russian official view (since that is its purpose, we can assume that it would reliably report official Russian position), but for everything else, no way can it be considered reliable. Hzh (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian version of cause

• Comment: it should not be "russian version of cause" but about "russian inteligence sources about the cause" -- I don't know a 'seperate' version of the incident by Russia, they only added some pieces of intelligence information, and further, as Putin has made clear, they go for a thorough and objective international investigation of the cause. So I don't think that Russia has any intend of manufacturing a seperate version of the incident at all... Robheus (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I added Russian version of the crash "Russian officials said crash was due to a R-60 air-to-air missile fired by a SU-25 fighter, 5 km away from the MH-17 flight the post online 21 july 2014". It is worth considering because there were shrapnels on top of the cockpit (look at this picture) which is a bit odd if crash is due to a surface to air missile ! Lpele (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why should it be odd? SAM explosion near the front part of the plane -> shrapnel around the cockpit. No contradiction at all. 178.12.141.71 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you 178.121.141.71. Been thinking the same, also the plane fell for 10km through a cloud of debris (among which structural metal bits of the plane itself) which may have a similar effect as shrapnel. Arnoutf (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Because shrapnel don't cross the whole plane, missile explode before reaching the target. As you can see in this article experts remind that such Buk SAM missile is big and explode 20 meters before target and whole plane would ignite ("The SA-11 missile - known as a Grizzly - that hit the doomed Malaysian Airlines flight is designed to pulverize aircraft on impact. It will have perforated the plane at various points, ignited the fuel, and taken out the engines and the wings within a split second - meaning the people aboard will have been unconscious almost instantly" . in this article, expert found odd that plane only exploded when it crashed ground. R-60 missile is much smaller and attacks target horizontally.

It has been removed. An encyclopedia is not a venue for propaganda or nutbar conspiracy theory, sorry. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right. But my edit was not propaganda but Russian version as reported by secondary source. Wikipedia respect Neutrality of point of view. I'm surprised that you pretend knowing the truth as investigation was not started yet ! Lpele (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The russian sources that mention the proximity of Ukrainian military plane, does not make explicit statement that the plane crashed due to shooting by the Ukranian SU-25 figher (as far as I understand, but maybe you have a different source?), it only raises question as to what that fighther did there so close to flight MH17 (one way of interpreting this is that this might have causes the BUK radar to having mistaken flight MH17 for a military plane). Robheus (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that several sources explicitly state that it is most likely a BUK missile, while the Russian versions claims a plane carrying R-60 was in the neighborhood. The actual use of an R-60 is implied but in no report I have seen so far explicitly suggested by a relevant expert. Arnoutf (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What "russian version" -- In my understanding, russia does not have an official "version" -- it only DOES blame Ukraine govt. for this incident in the broad sense, because the Ukraine govt. caused the seperatist fighting against the illegal removal of the former president, and the military actions of the Ukrain army set the stage for this incident to happen. Further then that, I did not hear of any official russian story on how flight MH17 was downed -- they only added different inteligence information into the story (and all kinds of conspiracy theories -- already dead bodies, etc. -- we should not consider here of course) Robheus (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on whether or not their version is propaganda or conspiracy, but considering that the rest some of the world is basically alleging that Russia were co-conspirators in the murder of innocent civilians, I think at the very least a version of their events should be considered for inclusion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment on ´´'rest of the world´´' -- You are dead wrong there. This is not "russia against the rest of the world" -- russia has strong allies and is part of BRICS -- these countries represent 3 billion people!!!! You are a bit western-centered!!! (as if all countries outside of russia would have the same point of view on this incident!!!) Robheus (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Revised to "some" of the world, didn't mean to offend anyone, sorry if I did.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't a trial, both "sides" don't get to have their day in court in a Wikipedia article. At some point when more is uncovered and confirmed regarding this incident, we'll probably have to spinout to something akin to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories. That's where the fringe "maybe they were shooting at Putin's plane!", "maybe the Ukrainians did it!", "maybe it was an air-to-air missile!" can go. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting that anyone be put on trial in this article. But from the sourcing I have seen and read, Russia has been assigned a huge role in this incident, therefore it stands to reason that their version of events (regardless of what you or I think about them) should be considered for inclusion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with explicit statements by relevant Russian authorities. However much of what the Russian authorities have said so far consists for the larger part out of implications rather than explicit claims/statements. Also note that the cause paragraph does not blame anyone. Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

certainly a Russian version of events is part of the story - perhaps examination of wreckage could determine more about ground to air or air to air or whatever caused the crash ( so why are the Russian proxies so hostile to outsders going to examine the wreckage?)-what is still true is that 'the main theory is that a Buk missile system shot MH17 out of the sky. The separatist at one point admitted that they had a Buk, though that tweet has since been deleted. - to the north and to the south there are three towns where the Buk system may have shot down MH17. They are as follows: Torez- Located near Snezhnoye, a geolocated picture placed the Buk in the town. nezhnoye - A video showing a Buk has been geolocated to the town. Two AP journalists and a Ukrainian journalist reported seeing a Buk in Snezhnoye on July 17th, the day that MH17 was shot down. This is conclusive evidence that at least one Buk traveled in the Torez/Snezhnoye area on the day that the airliner was shot down. [18] -(interpretermag) Sayerslle (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Conclusive proof huh? I didn't realize that an accusation posted to a live blog was 'conclusive proof'. The only source given in the live blog is an AP article which mentions neither Buk missiles nor Snezhnoye. In fact, I can find no evidence of any AP journalist reporting a Buk system in Snezhnoye except second hand reports. Please provide the original source... I would like to know which AP journalists supposedly made this claim. 74.96.209.189 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian authorities doesn't blame explicitly Ukraine see the independent for example : "Lieutenant-General Andrei Kartopolov said the Defence Ministry would like to know “why the military jet was flying along [the same civil aviation lines] at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane.” "The SU-25 was, Mr Kartopolov says, gaining height and reached a distance of three to five kilometres from the Boeing 777." " the jets “can briefly climb up to 10,000metres [and are] regularly equipped with air-to-air missiles R-60 that can capture and destroy targets of a distance up to 12km and up to 5km as guaranteed.” "Russian officials say they have evidence of the jet’s presence following images taken by the Rostov monitoring centre, and has urged the US to release satellite images taken at the time of the crash" “Ukrainian officials reported that on the day of the Boeing 777 crash there were no military aircraft available in the region, so as you can see, this doesn’t appear to be true.” "He said that Ukraine had self-propelled, anti-aircraft BUK missile launchers 8km north-western from Lugansk, close to the territory controlled by the rebels and that images show it was present on 14 July, but absent on 17 July."Lpele (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

From the very start of the Ukraine vs Russia dispute, it's been portrayed in the western world as the rest of the world vs Russia. Russia has been portrayed by most of the world's media, especially the English language media, as the evil empire. That has continued in the reporting of this incident, and here on Wikipedia. It's not healthy. It's possible that Russia will turn out to be 100% to blame. We would report that when and if it's confirmed. Right now nothing is confirmed, and Wikipedia is being used as a massive propaganda tool by those who simply believe, or want the rest of the world to believe, that Russia is evil. It's sad. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No. It's been portrayed as "western world vs. Russia" in *Russian media*. Both media and politicians in the "western world", at least up until recently when the evidence just kept piling up, have actually been very very muted in assigning the blame to Russia. Ukraine of course is a different story, but that's not "western world". Western world leaders and media outlets have been very wary of saying that either the Russians or the rebels did it, although of course they do report on the evidence that's become available. What you - and some others - are actually complaining about is that the *evidence* suggests Russian/rebel involvement and responsibility, that the "western world" has reported on this evidence and that "Russian versions of the story" (i.e. wacky conspiracy theories) have only received passing attention.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I ll repeat it here too:kindly be informed, that now in russian Medias an informational war began to blame Ukrainian government in this incident (I know what i am talking about). Be very carefull using russian Media sources and especially citing russian militaries. Dont forget how proffesional are Russian medias in propaganda. M.Karelin (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we be careful with ANY media reporting on this. I'm in Australia, where sadly, our Prime Minister and his henchmen (and women) have been rabidly blaming the Russians right from the start, before virtually anything was known. The compliant media (Rupert Murdoch, to name the biggest) have been playing the same game. Our ABC has, as usual, been a lot better, but most media reporting has been more speculation than facts. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• And for your information: the "information war against russia" has started in the west about 3 years ago (if not earlier): Take the western campaigns of "pussy riot" and "homosexual laws" (as if russia is the only country that puts some restrictions on that kind of behaviour) and the issue of the war in Syria, where Russia was a ally of the Assad govt. in his fight against jihadist, and western govt. and SA and Qatar helping the terrorists groups, in all that cases, Russia was presented as an enemy here in the west..... You all know there is some 'hidden' western agenda to this, having the west clash into russia.... people following the international news media know what I'm talking about, and know how international politics work. From that perspective it should be no surprise that sooner or later the west would clash into russia, and why they are mixing in internal affairs of sovereign countries.... It's the western countries that clash with the rest of the world, not russia!!! See the devestation that western countries (with aid of Saudi arabia and Qatar) are causing and have caused in countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria (to name a few), and how many thousands of people have died because of such conflicts.... All the western world does is mourning about 300 people that died in a (perhaps mistaken) attack on a civilian plane, but western govts. don't mourn over all the other hundred thousands of civilian casualties in conflicts that were caused by or helped by western interventionists policies.... But ok, that's some different story here... Robheus (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX. I'm tempted to remove your rant from the talk page as inappropriate, but I'll leave it here just in case the question of credibility comes up at some point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

-why is it good if Iran and Hezbollah and Russia interfere in Syria anyhow/ would you be so pro-Russian if you were barrel bombed or gassed ? oh - I forgot - it wasn't assad who used sarin it was the rebels with Turkish or Saudi supplied sarin. of course. understanding the whole of human politics must be easy with putin glasses on - and you never have to think againSayerslle (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Answer: Iran and Hezbollah don't interfere in Syrian politics, the west and Qatar and Saudi arabia do by supporting extremist fighters there; they are very 'democratic' - if you don't follow their sectarian religion, they chop your head off. Robheus (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't get drawn into off topic discussions. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

some of the talk was off topic, but after this talk, russian version was added in the article by another contributor, which fits me. So this talk wasn't useless.Lpele (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The article in russian wikipeida

• Comment on this section: I hold it that this whole section is only an EXCUSE for heavy censoring on this Wikipedia article, which does not even allow a russian intelligence source to be added, which add important pieces of information to how this whole drama unfolded..... It is not about adding a "different version" (as to my knowledge, russia does not have a "different version" towards this attack, it only blames the Kiev fascists for the war going on in Ukrain and therefore also blames this whole incident "which would not have happened if there was peace in Ukrain" (Putin) on Kiev. Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, just for information: you dont even imagine what is going on in the same article in Russia wikipedia. It is just absolutely closed article (no one can edit it exept administrators), and only 2 of administrators (with very pro-Putin viewpoints) editing it. Its just terrible, all neutral information deleted. If Jimmy Wales would know about that. Typical informational war. I guess it must be written here about it. 46.71.6.46 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this one was fully protected until a short while ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a pro-Putin viewpoint, though. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ough! Here we go again! Those bad russians again! If I look at this Wikipedia article, it has itself also some closed mindedness (in some respect at least).... Only western intelligence information is referred to, leaving out russian inteligence (which leaves out important clues on how this tragedy could have unfolded....) Robheus (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Robheus, you fundamentally misunderstand what's going on here, which is why I deleted that mile-long rant of yours in the first place. "Only western intelligence information is referred to" is nonsense: it is simply not true. "Russian intelligence" is not left out either. What you seem to object to is that Russian sources aren't cited as much as you'd like--we don't cite "intelligence", we cite reliable sources. Well, here are some indications of what Russian "media" have to offer, so sorry if we take them with a grain of salt. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(not as much as I like) make that (no reference to russian intelligence sources AT ALL), only the Kiev fascist regime can put their 'credible' intelligence information in AND the american 'credible' intelligence information (remember Tonkin? Iraq WMD? Al Ghoula chemical attack) -- you know what I mean.Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Gee that is all OR and synthesis and some other WP newspeak. What we need is more Stalin newspeak. Juan Riley (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(JuanRiley) It was Orwelian newspeak isn't it? Big Brother Obama hears what you say... (NSA) Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Could we see some examples of sourced Russian intelligence being left out? Geogene (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Robheus, I guess you dont even see what is russian informational war. Come to Russia and see it: 24 hours per day only the same thing - pro-Russian separatist did NOt do it, it s all Ukrainian government. And unfortunatell, same in russian Wikipedia. 46.71.6.46 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• I know what information war is - I am old enough to have witnessed the cold war! This is just a different version of it. Robheus (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its true that 'we don't even imagine what is going on in the same article in Russian Wikipedia ' - we can imagine what corruption and lies Russian fascism is capable of games putin plays - Sayerslle (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey I just saw Russian Wikipedia on CNN, this is a propaganda war. Seeing that this is making news and isn't likely to go away maybe we should make another article covering the media war? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why one can't add a section to Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article. RGloucester — ☎ 02:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, what does Jimbo Wales have to do with perfectly respective of guidelines editing of an article that any good sir or madam can come and stick their stuff in there? Look at their article and look at ours. THREE times I was removing NATO reporting name of the Buk missile from there (NO, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT FOR GOD'S SAKE!), and THREE times I removed pictures of Obama and such from the Reactions section. Tomorrow morning, betcha anything they'll be there again... Just... What's the point... Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:COOL please, you don't have to place things in caps to get your point across. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass: Are you the one who was removing images when there was still plenty of room? Dustin (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sourced Material Repeatedly Removed

user:Fakirbakir has deleted the following sourced information from the article twice in last hour: [19]. Keep or delete? Geogene (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What? I deleted it only once.....Fakirbakir (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[20], [21]. Although the Ukrainians' claimed wiretap is unproven, the allegation appears to be well sourced. 23:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted then moved it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it should go to the "cause" subsection. These unverified allegations do not belong to the lead...I tried to move it but Volunteer Marek did not like the idea...Fakirbakir (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it looked like it disappeared, but there's a lot of editing going on. I think we can move the Ukrainians "wiretaps" to the "cause" subsection, along with the Ukrainian fighter jet. Agree, disagree? Geogene (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved the content in order to shorten the lead. I think it's important and well-sourced, but I think the leads should be short. Others with better understanding of policy may disagree but can always move it back. Geogene (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian military source

"Russian military sources state that a Ukrainian Su-25 jet was flying along with the passenger plane.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash-ukrainian-military-jet-was-flying-close-to-passenger-plane-before-it-was-shot-down-says-russian-officer-9619143.html|title=Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer |first=Natasha |last=Culzac |work=[[The Independent]] |date=21 July 2014 |accessdate=21 July 2014}}</ref>"

[rant redacted]

User:Volunteer Marek, why is it POV pushing? I dared to cite a British newspaper? Fakirbakir (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The source referred to in this section is: Culzac, Natasha (21 July 2014). "Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer". The Independent. Retrieved 21 July 2014. [22]. Because of this talk page's formatting is now hovering at the bottom of the page. Geogene (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. I think my response to Fakirbakir got edit-conflicted out. Basically that claim is just insinuation. IF and WHEN the Russian government explicitly claims - not insinuated, suggests, spreads rumors about, hints, wink winks - that the MH17 was shot down by the Su-25 jet, THEN you can put that, as a claim by the Russian government, in the lede.

And your question, "(because) I dared to cite a British newspaper?" is obviously made in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[rant redacted]

According to others I was right, read the lead. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in trying to remove the well sourced info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith of other editors..Fakirbakir (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please try to *act* in good faith. You did try to remove the info. Then you said "according to others I was right". The "others" actually reverted you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you should have gone to Specsavers. The Su-25 jet is still in the lead, and the unverified allegations (they were first deleted then moved) are in the "Cause" subsection.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)We heard this sort of song and dance once before. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Accident vs. incident

In numerous places in the article, this fatal event is described as an "incident". There appears to be some confusion about the terminology. As per the FAA, NTSB, ICAO and EASA definitions the terms accident and incidence have very clear and distinct meanings in air safety investigation field:

• An accident is an occurrence where an aircraft sustains serious major damage or there are serious injuries or fatalities
• An incident is an occurrence where, other than an accident, that affects the aircraft's safety of flight (i.e. no fatalities or major damage)

As per the internationally accepted air safety investigation terminology, this event should be described as an "accident", which is the term being used by the investigating authorities for MH17. The two terms have distinct meanings and should not be confused. Please change descriptions of incident to accident. I'd also note that this mix-up of terminology appears to be carried over to several other air accident articles --DigitalRevolution (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In standard speech, however, an "accident" implies it was unintentional, which it was certainly not. KonveyorBelt 00:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes an intentional act is referred to an accident in common usage in certain contexts, because it may have intentional by the perpetrator but not by the victim. "Accident" is the correct aviation term, and is not incorrect in connection with criminal acts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that? These chuckleheads probably thought they were shooting down a military plane, and now they are in a sh$tstorm of trouble. --Malerooster (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no implication of intentionality in "accident", as when describing an auto accident in common speech. Besides which, accident is the term being used by most media outlets and it is the term used by all air safety investigation agencies for this type of occurrence. Describing it as "deadly air incident" is a complete misnomer, since an incident that involves fatalities is, by definition, an accident. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Road authorities in my part of the world explicitly avoid using the word "accident" to describe most car crashes these days, because most crashes, according to normal English usage, are not accidents. This approach has been followed by the media here. We should be using normal English language here rather than an artificial form used within the aviation industry that doesn't match common and common sense usage. This was no accident. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A criminal act is an accident with respect to the victim. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

An intentional act is by definition not an accident, regardless of how ICAO etc chose to misuse common English - Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers, not to conform with misleading jargon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we see verse and chapter on that grumpy? Or is it just your current curmudgeonly opinion? Juan Riley (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You need 'chapter and verse' that the English Wikipedia is written in English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, a criminal act is considered an accident from the standpoint of the victim. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Where? Everywhere? Are you sure? HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't argue with admins McClenon...then you are a troll and end with another barnstar of infamy on your talk page. Juan Riley (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So Abraham Lincoln was accidently shot in Ford's Theater? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to disregard the widely accepted international definition of accident for an air safety investigation accident, that's your prerogative. But the term incident shouldn't be used in that case, as incident has a clear (and legally defined) meaning, which this event does not fit. You can call it a "fatal event", "occurrence" or "air crash", but it is not an incident. Using the term incident downplays the severity of this event. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring..else I would have posted something snarky like "The last response/rebuttal to grumpy was incidentally/accidentally archived." Juan Riley (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the term 'accident' is misleading, regardless of industry jargon (which has little to do with law anyway). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

DigitalRevolution - I use the word "incident" quite frequently in normal English. For example, as a teacher, I write Incident Reports on misbehaving students. When I, and most of the rest of the world's English speakers use the word, it has no legal implications. This is Wikipedia, written in mainstream English. It's not an aviation industry manual written in that industry's jargon. Using the word "accident" in mainstream English is simply wrong for this event. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It should say "disaster", as is in both Russian and Ukrainian WPs. That would cover both terms pretty much. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That I would agree with. And it would remain consistent with the Iran Air 655 shootdown page, in which the word "disaster" is preferred. "Incident" is the incorrect terminology for this event, as it implies an occurrence of minor severity.--DigitalRevolution (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Disaster" can be ambiguous in some cases. "Incident" is the best term here. United States Man (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Incident. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump — clarity to laypeople supersedes technical jargon accuracy. So much the better if an alternative word can be found, though "disaster" seems POV. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Recovery of causalities

This section has the following three sentences in it:

1. 247 out of 298 bodies had been found as of 20 July.

2. On 21 July, pro-Russian rebels allowed Dutch investigators to examine the bodies. By this time, 272 bodies had been recovered.

3. It was reported on 21 July that with 282 bodies and 87 body fragments found, there were still 16 bodies left unrecovered.

Which is it - 247 or 272 or 282? Or are we keeping all of them?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If they're all reliably sourced, we can keep all of them - they show the progression of bodies found over time. Ansh666 03:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If we decide to keep them as a history, then let's reformat it into a more historical-list structure. At this point it looks as though editors have just been appending dates and numbers to the article. I had to read to the end to figure out what the current body count was. Let's put the list in a descending-date order?- dminnaar (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is actually standard for current event articles on Wikipedia. With information and, more importantly, sources being released continuously by news and government agencies and such, information is added, day by day. After the media furor and corresponding editing furor die down, we go back and fix up the article, eliminate contradictions, that sort of thing. For the convenience of readers in the future (of which there will presumably be far more than current readers), we keep it in ascending order. I'd like to believe that most readers are smart enough to skip to the bottom for the "current picture" - not saying that you aren't, of course, body count-type info should ideally be included higher up. Ansh666 13:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I noticed that there were 2 different figures documented for the same date (21 July), which is obviously just a timing issue. I assume this is a result of the furor you're talking about.- dminnaar (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, conflicting and out-of-date information is also standard for current events, not only on Wikipedia, but between and even within major news agencies as well, especially in incidents like this where information is scarce and investigation is obstructed. There's nothing we can do about that except either reporting what the most reliable ones say or, if a single number is absolutely needed (which I don't think is really ever the case), probably finding a most common figure between reports. Ansh666 15:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Countries, again

Well, it's time to get bold and trim that section some. I cut Germany ("sympathy, full investigation"), Turkey (ditto), Indonesia (ditto), and a rather meaningless sentence from Canada. Really, additions need to have content beyond the expected, and should come from a country that's actually actively involved in the aftermath one way or another. That a country has said something in response is not relevant--they all have. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Phil Kessel, don't just revert. Discuss it here. Present an argument: you haven't yet. You're new to this project, I understand, but one of the ground rules is that we don't just stick every single little factoid into an article just because there's a link to a newspaper report. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just monitoring your edits there and saw that you were reverted. I feel that that was unhelpful and agree in getting rid of some of these "ordinary" responses. United States Man (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Well, they just did it again: 95 edits here and they know how to write an article. I'm giving up--don't want to enter an edit war with this editor; it's like the Waco Kid being shot in the ass. Thanks, 03:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

--I understand this site completely. I'm a little surprised that someone as experienced as you are not aware that it's not appropriate to continually delete the work of others over and over until you get your way but rather to raise as part of "talk". Perhaps review the 'edit warring' page rather than repeatedly deleting. It's very arrogant of you to assume that just because you personally disagree with my edit it's because I believe that I should "stick every single little factoid into an article just because there's a link to a newspaper report." Phil Kessel (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, apparently I'm not the only one who wishes to see these boilerplate responses removed; as you may recall, there has already been discussion on this. I note also that you reverted twice, and were reverted by Tarc, before you saw fit to come here (I posted here immediately after my first edit). And you still have no argument for including these cliches, except for "someone wrote it", which isn't an argument at all. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Phil Kessel: Talking to an administrator in that manor is not helping matters. There is consensus to remove that text, so please don't revert again. United States Man (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• You're very convenient about what boiler plate responses you're willing to tolerate. I also did check here after the the first revision but didn't notice the section. The reason for the two statements was because together they formed what the Canadian government's response was. It was no grand plan on my part to add a sentence because I was bored and felt like it. Of course, rather than appreciating I might have had a reason for my edit, you insulted me instead. A Canadian died in the crash - there is nothing wrong with including the Canadian government's response - and in fact it had been up there for more than day before you decided it didn't warrant inclusion. Phil Kessel (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Chances are that government and other people from over 200 countries have made platitudinous comments about this event. We cannot include them all. The only sensible approach is to include only those from countries impacted in a major way, and those whose statements actually had some impact outside the political and tabloid media world in their own countries. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree as well, they do need to be trimmed. Canada, Romania and South Africa all need to go too.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. I'll be bold and remove them now. United States Man (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That looks good, let's see how long it lasts. There's probably a couple in the Organizations section that could be trimmed too. They looked like condolences/sympathy/support comments.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I removed one from that section. The others were either involved and/or have released notable comments. United States Man (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a couple more could go as well. They only contain condolences and the other info is stale, like the EU which says: The EU officials also said that Ukraine has first claim on the plane's black boxes. The black boxes were turned over to the Malaysians already, so who cares what they said 4 or 5 days ago, things have changed since they said that. I don't consider it notable that they demanded a thorough investigation and offered an opinion on "first claim". The OSCE is the same, condolences and it also says: He also stated that "the OSCE stands ready to support Ukraine in this difficult rescue operation in every possible way." That's stale as well, in fact, they are already there and are mentioned in the first paragraph in the Investigation section as to what they are actually doing as opposed to announcing what they intended to do here in the Reactions section. I would also question the other one from ICAO, they are only announcing their intentions as well, "declaring that it was sending a team of experts to assist", so what, did they? Are they on the scene there doing something notable, if so, lets include that rather than their declaration. If no one complains, I'll remove them, or not.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good work Drmies, those were embarrassing. Once we get rid of all the empty platitudes the next step is to get rid of the stupid flags and write the section as a paragraph rather than bullet points. An invisible comment might be a good idea too. I've done that. I think it looks much better now. I wonder how long it will last? --John (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: 'Credible evidence' quote misattribution

The article currently states 'U.S. President Barack Obama, citing U.S. intelligence officials, said the plane was shot down by a missile and that there was "credible evidence" it was fired from a location held by pro-Russian rebels'. One given source is the New York Times story U.S. Sees Evidence of Russian Links to Jet’s Downing. The article itself says 'He sent his United Nations ambassador, Samantha Power, to the Security Council to describe what she called “credible evidence” that the separatists were responsible.”' Ms. Power said this, not Barack Obama. Can we at least get the quotes marks taken off this please? - Crosbie 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I adjusted to make it a little better, although it may have not been exactly what you meant. United States Man (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Covered by Daily Show

This article (specifically, certain edits to it) was mentioned on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on July 21, 2014. {{press}} doesn't seem well suited to TV coverage so I'll leave that to others. EEng (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Glad to see you're not wasting your time watching TV programes about MH17, EEng. lol) But what did it say? Which edits did it mention? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

SU-25 Specs Changed

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201407211855-0023944

I suppose I'm adding jetfuel to the fire.

I know that we all talked about how government employees or IP addresses should be flagged, I know we did. Allen750 (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has changed drastically since I posted it. My first link (to a Tweet, found out that Twitter's IPs are "eternally banned") was a picture of the SU-25's edit history on Wikipedia and how the specs were changed. Sorry for the mixup. Allen750 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in that article about the SU-25, and yes, we all know that Russian govt employees have edited pages, Jimbo even tweeted about it. Nothing new. Ansh666 03:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing? Look closely at the last paragraph under "Causes". Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the page linked by Allen above (which renders the section header irrelevant). I know the allegations regarding the Ukrainian SU-25 following MH17. Ansh666 07:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Another issue with Su-25 "specs"

Sorry to threadjack, if thats what i am doing here, but I have had to change several mentions throughout the article, of the su-25 being a "fighter." In another section it is referred to (correctly) as a close-air-support aircraft... the term i used in my edits, was "ground-attack aircraft," because that is more general and more approachable to a non-military audience. Either way, it is not a fighter, in the sense of: an aircraft designed for air-to-air combat. The wp page for Su-25 quite clearly backs this up, as does common wisdom. There is a small case to be made, that ALL one/two seat aircraft of a certain configuration are colloquially considered "fighters," as opposed to say, cargo planes or airliners... however in the larger (and more accurate) sense of there being numerous acknowledged types of small military jets (ie: fighters, fighter-bombers, trainers, close air support, attack aircraft, wild weasel, etc)... I think we need to avoid the use of a very general and perhaps misleading term (fighter), for aircraft that don't operate in that role. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree we should be consistent. Personally I would not object to the colloquial use to lump your list of small military planes under the supercategory fighter as that will bring a more immediate idea to the mind of many readers than the technically more correct terms close-air-support or attack aircraft. But no strong preference. Arnoutf (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

i think one of the issues being, it will bring both a more immediate and more wrong idea to the mind of readers. Considering one of the essential facts under debate in this situation, is the method of attack upon mh17... i will redouble my desire for clarity. I think either the most generic term, like "military aircraft" could be used, or the more specific ones... but misidentifying the type doesn't really do any service even to the uninitiated reader 72.35.149.153 (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't notice that it was called a "fighter", which is incorrect - true, it is capable of carrying air-air missiles, but like the A-10 Warthog, they're intended for self-defense. I think "ground-attack aircraft" makes the most sense here too. Ansh666 09:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Some other section I don't even know what to title (split off from previous)

What is wrong with allowing Russian, US etc governments to allow edits and create by them 'they official' POV , given it will be marked as such ? I propose to create sections or separate articles called somehow like Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by gov of USA , Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by gov of Russia ... Malasia, Ukraine, Germany ... and also organization like UN, WTO, and even if they will be reluctant to write they 'official desiformation' by grups like CIA, Mossad, KGB, MI, etc. I like to give them equal chance since sum of assigned POV's is (imo) the only neutral point of view. This will give the reader the best way to make his own point of view. Do we want the reader make his own point of view? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a strict policy here called WP:NPOV. It would not be in our best interest to violate that. United States Man (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I afride you didnt read carefuley (or willingly understand, project) what i did write just above. Where is a contradiction to NPOV - imo there is not. The proposal is a pragmatic enchancement to NPOV in case of conflicting information, war or infowar, where thruth is obvius casulty. The link you provided (to NPOV tree) do not prohibit but encourage the exhaution of theme up to it neutral enlightment. Whithouth neutrality Wikipedia may be acused e.g. of genocide, if let see appears the info presented is biased by hysterized memory (human factor of stuff) from which any contiusness is not free, more personal bias is an esence of cotiusness. Only if the palyers ( gov orgs..) can present uncripled information the information may be transmited and used to form individual (personal-reader) point of view, which then the whole article(or group of articles*1 may be not biased and thus neutral. Certainly space for those pages do not cost much, menagment is not expensive -the grups will manage each own section/article space. Tahat will be realy funto see it happening. Also hiden agentural influences wont be so important as any agency will be clearly visible in action. Given this explanation do you still see the pragmatic solution to make info more sumarialy neutral is against WPLNPOV? 99.90.196.227 (talk)

add *1 to be neutral require to pinpoint contradicting viewpoints. This particular frase sentence of course will represent a kind of biased POV but by presenting POVS of two side (or mmulti-side) neutralpresentationmay be created. another factor is a language. Th same eg event may described by different words , so assuming the event is described fully, but only words differ, quite differrent impresion reader will build . Allowing as proposed govs to edit they (proposed) pages both data and werbal form may be exposed for sumarial npov.

Is someone finally going to report this guy? Please? Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't even understand them well enough to figure out if there's anything reportable, and assuming there is, what to even report them for. As long as they don't touch the article (which IPs can't right now, thankfully) and aren't disruptive (well, beyond posting walls of barely-comprehensible text here), I say just ignore. Ansh666 15:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This individual (whomever their sex is) has been constantly trolling the Talk page with irrelevant and useless comments, clearly aimed at provoking others into aggressive arguing. That kind of nonsense is not well tolerated on WP, even in Talk pages, and represents abusive behavior, whether or not the IP vandalizes the article itself. I'm going to wait for just one more absurdity, and then I'm warning it, because this definitely has to stop. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you want. I honestly don't understand a word of what they're trying to say! Ansh666 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Reading the above was a nightmare. United States Man (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The other IP was a lot worse in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Just about all of them have been bad it seems. United States Man (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of evidence is evidence of guilt.

¿Should not the article state that since ProRussian-Separatists destroy evidence, that is evidence of guilt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be original research. Dustin (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And more over: probably that statements is not even true. What is your source for that anyway? Biased reports have appeared about seperatists meddling with belongings (a photograph of a seperatist holding up a bear, for instance), which do not show the full reality. The RT report shows some more pictures and story, that shows they were not behaving disrespectfull. Some journalist however, did cross some line, when taking up passengers belongings during a media coverage. Why is Kiev not maintaining the cease-fire by the way (NOS/dutch state media report of military actions today in Donetsk).

Citations not refecting the data presented in Wiki article

On 14 July a Ukrainian military An-26 transport aircraft flying at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) was shot down using a Buk missile system.[54][55]

One citation refers to the An-26 'apparently' being shot down by a BUK and the other is in Russian. It is still under debate how low the AN-26 was flying and what missile system was used to target it. Strela-10 or SAM-6 missiles could have been used if flying at a lower altitide as suggested here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28309034

203.153.227.17 (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Ansh666 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy with the addition of 'allegedly'. Thank you Ansh 666.

203.153.227.17 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, always happy to help! Ansh666 07:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The map with all the dots

I like this map, it is helpful to see the various territories compared with the flight path and crash location. However, I can't seem to find the key for what all the dots mean. I'm assuming they are cities with the dots size-linked to population, BUT there is no way to know this for sure without someone adding them to the key. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI: At the very top of the article page, right hand corner, look for "Coordinates" and click on the little globe for an interactive map of the region. I don't know if it exactly corresponds to the little red dots you like, but it is the area of the crash site. If you click on the various titles there on that map, it will take you to a WP article about that subject matter. You could also copy and paste those coordinates into google or bing maps and get an overview of the area.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not the only one - see File talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site.png. Pinging User:Alex1961, the author, for clarification. Ansh666 07:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

well apparently they just got a 3rr block from editing this page... so not sure how soon (if ever) we'll get an update... anyone know the backstory there? 72.35.149.153 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, and I don't want to. Anyways, that was two or three days ago (not sure about time zones), pretty sure they weren't blocked when I pinged. Ansh666 09:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm curious whether the block had to do with the map or not, considering we are considering changes to it (but otherwise happy with it) 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the article may soon need a more localized map, as people are starting to geo-locate some of the evidential photos that have been in circulation. e.g. one of the photos showing a Buk launcher at a garage in Torez has been placed here 48.024460°N 38.615144°E / 48.024460; 38.615144, while another has been placed here 48.0169453°N 38.7556253°E / 48.0169453; 38.7556253 1.44.71.47 (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The map needs labels, especially for the more important dots. I can add them if someone can identify the places (if so, please leave a message on my Talk page). cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Unimportant content added to Media coverage section

Volunteer Marek has now twice added the following text to the Media coverage section, without explanation:

"Other conspiracy theories propagated by Russian media, which after a few days replaced the original story about a failed assassination attempt on Putin, include; an allegation that the Ukrainians shot down the plane in a botched attempt at a mass murder of Russian citizens, that Ukrainian air traffic controllers purposefully redirected the flight to fly over the war zone, and that the Ukrainian government organized the attack on the plane to make the rebels look bad."

It's sourced, but I think it's trivial. I don't plan to Edit war, but an explanation for the addition would have been nice. I don't think it's important enough to belong anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that all these kind of 'conspiracy theories' should shift to another page or so. Take for example how 9/11 instigated lots of 'conspiracy theories' too. Many of these theories have been debunked anyway. The different flight route was due to bad weather. Putin's plane did not fly over Ukranian territory for months. Etc. These kind of dis-info should not go into the main article, but on a seperate page or so (conspiracy theories). What do need to be on the page is the facts considering how this drama unfolded, and the different intelligence reports by the entities involved (US, Ukraine, Russia) should be cited of course. Robheus (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's "trivial" about it? There's plenty of other sources along the same lines: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. This is the "Media coverage" section so the info is perfectly appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, if there's one thing you certainly get right, it's sourcing, but you have to understand that being sourced is never enough justification for material to appear in an article. Hollywood romances and the subsequent babies are extensively sourced, but some of us work very hard to make sure that such trivia is minimised in Wikipedia. We simply do not include everything that's sourced. We always make judgements as whether content is significant enough to add to an article. One good measure is to ask oneself if something satisfies the ten year test. This stuff doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If this was not the "Media coverage" section you'd have a point. Or if this was about how the media of St. Lucia covered the story, you'd have a point. But it is the "Media coverage" section and this is about how Russian media covered the story. It's precisely what "Media coverage" section should contain.

I'm not so sure about your ten-year-test. You're doing a bit of crystal-ballin' there. My own guess is that when they write the history of this war in ten years or more, the propaganda war aspect of it will get its own chapter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

lets be clear here, the conspiracy references ARE sourced, ARE applicable, and ARE short enough that they don't really push much POV in my book. Frankly they might even meet the ten year test. However among the cadre of regular wp editors who handle these things, conspiracy references or any admission of alternate theories, are almost never allowed, due to the need some folks feel, to prove wp's mainstream legitimacy beyond all doubt. The explanation will always revolve around "trivia" or "undue weight" or "npov," or the like, however the real reason is simply that there is an unofficial gentlemen's agreement to avoid such topics in almost every case, and if the topic must be mentioned, to bury it in a subarticle. In short, you will add such info because it meets all encyclopedic standards, it will get deleted, you will add it again, and then be blocked for editing warring, and then you will stop using wp in a huff. This is all intentional. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

With proper research, we could even go further and add that Russian TV and government-sponsored Russian language media do not offer any other versions of the accident. They all claim the airplane was deliberately shot by the Ukrainian air forces.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And all Russians are evil! This is ridiculous. I now see what the goal here has been all along. To prove that the Russian media is just a bunch of mean, nasty liars. Just drop the POV pushing. Without the anti-Russian objective, the content is insignificant. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

nothing POV about it, and the content certainly IS significant, imho 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

and just to add a note here, this an earlier comment I made that looks like it got accidentally deleted by an admin using rollback to deal with some editor conflict... for what it's worth, similar stories are now being run on wire-service websites even in the US (or especially in the US?)- here's one from CNN being distributed on my local NBC affiliate website [[31]]... not that the article seems to have much usable facts, reads like more of an editorial, but it at least provides pretty compelling RS for the existence of this debate/situation. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can see both sides on the content issue. Can I remind folks that these are charged issues for some folks here and to be particularly careful with terms like "POV pushing" lest things get nasty and we lose good editors from this area? --John (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• And can I repeat that "the different intelligence reports by the entities involved (US, Ukraine, Russia) should be cited of course" is nonsense? We cite secondary sources, not (primary) intelligence reports. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags again

After I had spent some time and trouble getting the "reactions" section more into line with WP:PROSE, User:Knowledgekid87 came along and restored the tiny flags, citing this archived discussion. Quite apart from the fact that there was no clear consensus in that discussion that the flags added anything, I referred the user to the excellent essay WP:DRNC; simply reverting a change claiming "no consensus" is bone-headed in the extreme and unWikipedian behaviour. If there is any actual reason to restore the tiny flags, now would be the chance to discuss it. Failing that, I think WP:PROSE and WP:ICONDECORATION (as well as common sense) would indicate that "my" version was the better one. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I never have seen any purpose. Get rid of them. United States Man (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is also another excellent essay, the arguements presented the the former discussion mentioned WP:ICONDECORATION not applying as the flags serve the reader as a visual rather than them seeing a wall of text. Anyways I will have to reply more to this later I have to get back to work here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I liked your version better John, it was definitely an improvement and made that section readable as opposed to a giant wall of text with flag icons.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The results were not in prose though [32], much of the info was still kept in list format minus the flags. I would see WP:PROSE as being a compromise but as per the guideline it needs to flow well and not still look like a list of countries. There are two ways of presenting information one in stand alone list format and the other in prose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tedious now, if not disruptive. The issue was discussed; there was NO CONSENSUS for removal. Therefore, the flags stay. Some editors need to accept that they are in the minority, and move on. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Russia raises 10 more questions

An RT report has come out yesterday which raises 10 more question concerning the downing of MH17. The report can be read here. It also debunks some of the material put out by the Kiev govt. (a video that supposedly shows a BUK carrier on it's way to russia after the incident), while photographic evidence show that the video shot was taken somewhere else. Could a reference to this interesting news report be made in the section: causes in which intelligence reports of both sides are listed? (Something like an addition: Russia asks 10 more questions, and then a link to the footnote that links to the newsreport) Thanks. Robheus (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

maybe time for Russian answers robheus - the wp article isn't meant to be an adjunct to RT misinformation services you know - (have they 'debunked' all the BUK stories, or just selected ones) - apparently the U.S have located where the missile was launched from - [33] - have Russia debunked all the sightings of BUK missiles on the day? I doubt it. Brown Moses has also 'debunked' the red herring BUK carrier and 'it appears there’s a growing consensus of where the aircraft was hit, the front port side,' [34] Sayerslle (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle - I am NOT a supporter of the current American president, but racist remarks on the TP are strictly forbidden and I adjusted your post.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@HammerFilm Fan - I have no idea what racist remarks you are alluding to - lost in translation must be. Brown moses is the nom de plume of Eliot Higgins Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Answers to what questions? If some entity asks questions russia should answer, the news article that makes such a statement can be presented as well. And I don't answer your questions. These questions are adressed to the accusing party and might be considerd in an overall objective investigation. One of the questions is the release of satelite data from the US satelite. Is that information released yet? And the communication between Kiev and the airplane? And your whole contribution is just bias contra RT information. The RT newsrelease only reports findings the russian defense ministry has and the questions they raise. That is some neutral news.

One can try at least to be neutral towards that information, like similar press releases from other entitities are also presented here (while some/many have severe doubts about those findings as well, for example fro the Ukrainian side). Why should the information from the Kiev regime or the US (which we know have mislead the world in similar circumstances - Iraq remember?) be given more trust then Russian information? Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth in this matter, that should be the task of an international investigation team. Stop being biased. Robheus (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I want non biased articles robheus. a few lines to the Russian regime version, fine. rushing to add every last 'question' RT has for whomever- that's too much imo. Sayerslle (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Netherlands has been raising only one question to Putin: Why do you promise to do everything in your power to ensure international experts to access the crash (where 193 Dutch national died) but show no observable action in actually ensuring this. No answer has been forthcoming from Russia on that single question. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

here is an article looks at the ten questions [35] Sayerslle (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Netherlands under a separate tiny flag icon under "Reactions"

I just noticed that the responses of Malaysia and the Netherlands have been put in the same paragraph concerning the reactions to the accident/incident/disaster/[insert preference here]. However, in this article they are apparently shared under the Malaysian flag, which is unambiguously incorrect. (Because, you know, the Netherlands uses another flag than Malaysia.) I don't myself know how to place these tiny flags into an article, but I propose that either (1) the Dutch reaction gets its own separate paragraph with a separate flag, (2) the Malaysian and Dutch reactions continue to share the same paragraph but that paragraph is introduced with [Malaysian tiny flag]/[Dutch tiny flag], or (3) the tiny flags are completely omitted. Whatever action is chosen, the two nations should at least be separated flag-wise. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It was fixed a moment ago. There's been a bit of tussling between the "write it out in paragraphs" crowd and the "bullet list with pretty pictures" crowd, so as they revert each others' edits, things get jumbled. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(aside): has anyone at Village Pump tech ever suggested admins having the ability to fully protect individual sections or sub-sections? Perhaps this is possible already, but I've never seen it. It would seem to offer a lot more flexibility where there are specific topic-related disputes going on. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely very impossible. I'll spare you the technical details (which, frankly, I don't even know all too well), but many are likely to be the same as the inability to watchlist sections, which is in WP:Perennial proposals or something of the sort. Ansh666 15:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, just a thought. Surprising, though. Perhaps because the whole article is always available for editing as well as all the sections? Is "Edit conflict" always mechanised on the basis of the whole article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Russia and its versions/theories/media reports

I'd like to propose we leave everything the the Russian medias state alone. There is constant debate about whether or not it's propaganda, what is reliable and what isn't, etc. Look, if nobody trusts RT, then don't put up their references. Right now the Russian side of the story is very well covered, the reader knows that they consider there was an Ukrainian plane nearby seconds before the crash. That's it. Adding things up makes people constantly question that statement, and then the debate about whether or not this is true begins each and every time. Please, don't add more information until a non-Russian source confirms this, and don't create sections about the "Russian version", because that obviously serves to instigate the debate. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree here. This back and forth is helping nothing, especially with the lack of outside sources. United States Man (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What about information from the US government, or even worse the Ukrainian government, that has not been confirmed by outside sources? There is a lot of propaganda and lying happening from both sides. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you get that. There are plenty of outside sources. United States Man (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Example: US measurement and signature intelligence satellites of the Space-Based Infrared Systems Directorate and the Defence Support Progamme detected the infrared signature of the missile strike upon flight MH17. These satellites are also likely to have registered the heat signature of the launch of the missile, and the activation of the missile's radar system while in flight to the target (which emits a unique signal). Analysis of the launch plume and trajectory suggested the missile was fired from an area between Torez and Snizhne. How much of this section has been confirmed by outside sources? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were implying that nothing was covered by outside sources. If it isn't backed up, then dump it, no matter what country. United States Man (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

But, unless it is government or government-controlled, it needs to be kept. United States Man (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The information is government controlled. Independent media merely repeating government information do not make the information more credible. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• What needs to be done is a decent discussion on WP:RSN, for starters (I haven't checked their archives), with possibly a separate WP:RFC. We will find, no doubt, that RT for instance is reliable in some aspects but not in others, so a narrow question like "should they be trusted for information on topic X" would be most helpful. For now, this talk page is maybe not the place to do so--but as I'm typing this, I'm wondering. Maybe it is. But whatever we do, let's do it properly and quickly, so we can stop this constant back and forth yelling of "propaganda". Drmies (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I found a few archived discussions on RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168#RT_news_and_Crimean_status_referendum.2C_2014 is maybe not so helpful; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Can_RT_be_.22banned.22_on_principle_from_a_particular_article this is interesting since it addresses a specific topic, and I think I agree with the last two commenters; and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Russia_Today is a very recent and heated discussion, with a conclusion that's worth reading, if only because it has a conclusion I think is valid: "No consensus that RT is or is not reliable for general purposes. If someone has a specific claim RT is trying to make about a specific article, they are welcome to request a discussion again". Drmies (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is an adequate comparison, but I personally consider RT's role in this whole affair to be similar to CNN's role in MH370. Spout conspiracy theories, get ignored or ridiculed by mainstream (Western) media. Then again, CNN isn't funded by the Russian government. Ansh666 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I disagree. CNN was blatantly trying to tug at heartstrings, and they were doing an experiment on how low they could get Don Lemon to stoop in order to boost ratings. It was a disgusting spectacle, but if it was propaganda it was so only for the almighty dollar. RT's role is quite different here, IMO. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • In Europe publicly funded TV stations are normal, and they usually have higher quality reporting than private media. RT citing Russian government sources or CNN citing US government sources are equally (non)trustworthy. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • But the problem is when fringe theories are cited from government sources. Why would we have to repeat conspiracies? Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      The problem is RT just gets direct and clear instructions from the Kremlin. Whether you call it propaganda or not is not so much important. CNN may be horribly biased at times, but they never go to the White House for instructions.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      And Russian language sources for internal consumption (including all major TV stations) are typically outrageous. For instance, between March and May, when they were talking about Ukrainian Government they would either call it "Kiev Junta", or say "So called government which came to power after an illegal coup". Just all of them, at all programs.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      Look carefully for such language on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      Just like the complete Western media had the exact opposite view and considered the revolutionary side legitimate. Just all of them, at all programs. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution removed a president who had been elected in free and fair elections. Why is a EU-backed revolution against the president considered legitimate in the Western media, but a Russian-backed revolution to get separation from Ukraine is not? Or the other way round in Russian media? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      The Western media are debating whether it was legitimate (and indeed often come to a conclusion it was - but not always). In Russian mainstream media, there is no debate whatsoever. Like now, the Ukrainian army deliberately shot down the plane. Period. Not up to debate.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well said, the case in a nutshell. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that debating serves nothing, as long as any reasonable proof is found, don't you? If the West wants to debate (what we're doing, basically), have it. Russians don't like debating over things for nothing, they don't have time for that. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and "in the Soviet Union they did not have sex". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the joke aside... Russians, as in most Russians, do not know how to debate over nothing, which is an entirely different animal. They certainly do have the time, but if they were to debate, they most probably will end up in a fight (as Russian and Ukrainian politicians do on TV). ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us, how you know anything about Russia and the Russians? I strongly doubt you are from there, because otherwise you wouldn't as blatantly insult the nation. The Western mentality of constant complaining, making public statements, speaking out and expressing oneself is just another way of living, it is NOT canon for the world. There are a lot of people in the West who are fond of opening their mouths once so often only to keep them open. When you take Russian media figures, however, remember that most of them derive from other than pure Russian lineage, nations where it is customary to make oneself loud (Southern people, Semites, etc.). This is how they were raised and this is how they act. Standard Dyadya Styopa doesn't debate, and doesn't care about society or patriotism whatsoever. He just goes to work, hates it, and wishes he would steal something to live better. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I meant. People branding "non-mainstream" chain of reported events as "Russian version" and going to criticize it. Also, mainstream = Western? Whoa there! But anyway, just because this medium is backed by the Kremlin doesn't mean we should discuss the medium itself. Rather than that, the only question is whether or not RT is reliable or not. And frankly, I don't want that question being raised any so often. This is why I proposed we keep the "Russian side" short and clear, and based off sources that were confirmed by at least one outside media agency. Considering RT broadcasts in English, maybe there's a way to have another non-Russia affiliated news company reprise what RT says, and reference that in the article? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Secondary sources discussing Russian version of events: Wall Street Journal and CNN-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why it belongs there. Citing just RT would be insufficient, even in English. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Here is the question: should certain "news organizations" be treated as legitimate news, or they should be treated as a PSYOP organizations and operations. In fact, people who intentionally promote an outright disinformation, as described here, are no longer journalists. What they publish has very little to do with news. What they do is promoting confusion and hatred. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

exactly - and heres an article about RT pushing more false claims - this time about the location of a launcher - [36] Sayerslle (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS, "Claim", "Alleged"

As recommended in the MOS, I've been rewording points in the article where "claim", "alleged", and "supposedly" are used so that the article doesn't disparage the assertions of various parties. Instead I've tried attribute the purported facts to whoever is speaking. I doubt this will cause problems, but since I've been doing this for a few days now I wanted to mention it again here. Geogene (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user:MarsRover on not using "forensic conclusions" but disagree with the editor's re-addition of the word "claim", for the reasons given above. Geogene (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include RT then the use of the word "claim" is completely accurate. The text is vague claims with a lot of innuendo. All sourced to Kremlin officials. To call it anything else is actually inflating it more than even RT is stating. If you want to get rid of the word "claim" just delete the whole paragraph. --MarsRover (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In this instance it doesn't matter if we're using RT or citing Putin himself. The Russians have made some statements, we're passing along what they said without disclaimers. The things that the Russians have said have generally been ridiculous but that is aside from the point that we aren't supposed to editorialize them as such. In this case RT is probably a reliable source as it is reporting on the Kremlin's viewpoint, something a Kremlin mouthpiece would be particularly good for. Geogene (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem I saw in this regard that when writing about what RT said about what Russian officials said, the first sentence clearly attributed "According to so and so...". But subsequent sentences in a paragraph omitted the attribution and slipped into Wikipedia voice, relating various... claims, made by Russian government or media as fact. That's clearly inappropriate. In that case I agree with MarsRover, you do need some "claims" in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The same is also true for any reporting that is based on the statements of any government, including media just reporting on the White House's viewpoint or claims (see Iraq and weapons of mass destruction). It is important to tell who said what, not present any disputed claims as facts. 19:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to retain the attribution of facts. My concern is that it's probably better to do that with "said", "stated", or "wrote" than "claimed" or "alleged", words often used to manipulate a message. We can't actually come out and say that the Russians or US intelligence (pick one) are telling lies, unless we have reliable sources that say the same thing. So logically we shouldn't go out of our way to imply it either. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that it's grammatically and stylistically possible I agree with you. But we don't want a paragraph with a lot of "and then he said that blah blah blah. And then they said that moo moo moo. And then they said that boink boink boink.". "Claim" is an (imperfect) synonym for "said" so dropping it in once in awhile is fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Passengers and crew

Please, where is cited that were seven passengers from Netherlands with dual nationality? The list of Malyasia Airlines (19 July) cites only one with American citizenship.
Thanks, PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple references

Does Wikipedia have any policies relating to multiple references for the same fact? This article appears to have this quite often with good sources and I do feel they may be unnecessary excess for the article, but am loathe to remove reliable or notable sources. CSJJ104 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In general one reference per fact should be enough. In practice it is sometimes more subtle; so you need to be sure before pruning down. E.g. my own edits on combined Dutch Malaysian responses required two references as there was no single reference that list the half-mast protocols of both countries in a single source. So in that case we would need both references.

It is getting more tricky with editors who have little understanding of the why of referencing. Some editors seriously believe that more references makes a point more true (so 1+1=2[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] is more true than 1+1=2[1]).

And then we have the difficult problem that in political issues subtle differences in how sources word a comment can turn out to be all important so some duplication may be warranted.

To be honest I do not think this article is a major problem in this respect at this moment, I would wait out the storm and then we can always start pruning down truly redundant references. Arnoutf (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversial statements or statements which will likely be challenged require strong sourcing - not just sourcing. This is especially true of BLP statements, articles in controversial topic areas such as this, and articles that are controversial by themselves such as this.--v/r - TP 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple references are perfectly fine, so long as they are different reports on the same topic and not duplicate references — a case which occasionally arises when a few hundred newspapers pull the same story off the same newswire service and publish it verbatim. That both Sky News and Fox News are reporting that Associated Press says an aeroplane was shot down over eastern Ukraine counts as one source, not two, if they're running the same report from the same source. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:74F (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Although to note that a lot of references also set the bullshit alarm going, most facts dont need more than one reliable reference except as TParis states when it is controversial it might mean two or three but any more is a sign of hunting out references to make a point. That said any over referencing can be sorted out later. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Change:

''[[Snizhne]], a town in Donetsk Oblast that is approximately {{convert|16|km|m}} southeast of the crash site.''

to:

''[[Snizhne]], a town in Donetsk Oblast that is approximately {{convert|16|km|mi}} southeast of the crash site.''

Converting this to metres makes no sense and is clearly a propaganda attempt to make the distance look to be really far (oh, it's SIXTEEN THOUSAND away!!!) when really this is just ten miles. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:74F (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, I think that was just a typo to be fair. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"According to the WSJ"

For the benefit of CorrectKissinTime, in regard to this edit, no, citing a primary source is never better. Also, your italics are incorrect. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

80 children

"Eighty of the passengers were children."

- was removed with the edit summary "Removed, source seems unreliable. Says 23 US citizens where there was 1. Eighty is also unreliable as such." But I'm not so sure. I think it's a lot easier to confuse dual-nationals than it is to confuse ages. The "80 children" figure has been widely reported, e.g: [37], [38] and was actually quoted by Australian Foreign Minister Julia Bishop at the UN: [39]. So I think it should be returned. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think removing that was sort of silly. Go ahead and restore it. United States Man (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It has a little more impact if you realise that over a quarter of the people on board were children - 27%. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

References

• It has no impact whatsoever, and should be removed. Children are no different than anyone else. They are just people. Marking out that "children" were killed is just an attempt at sensationalism and an appeal to pathos. Let the number of dead speak for itself. Do not try and appeal to people's emotions about "children". We must remain neutral and encyclopaedic here. Wikipedia is not a memorial for dead children. RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not "trying to appeal to people's emotions about "children". I'm adding facts. But I'd disagree with you, that "Children are no different than anyone else. They are just people." I think that's a fundamentally wrong view, for all sorts of reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do people keep removing well-sourced and relevant material from the article?

Can anyone answer that question? Dustin (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What's relavent depends on perspective. There is too much pathos in this article as it stands. Wikipedia is not a memorial. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to examples of that sort, what I mean is for example, I believe the reactions section regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization involved more than just "my condolences"-type information. That is just one example; there are numerous others. Dustin (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In the news (Flight MH17’s Wikipedia page edited by Russian government)

Interesting read An IP address associated with Vladimir Putin’s office has made multiple edits to the Wikipedia page for the MH17 flight page