Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

The first results of the investigation MH-17. September 15 2014.

According to NATO sources, just before the crash has been fixed radars that automatically determined as S-3.

According to the Soviet category C-125 which consist only now armed Ukrainian army. Also near the plane was Ukrainian Su-25.

Audio recording and satellite imagery provided by the United States and Ukrainian media were fabricated, which were confirmed by independent experts.

  With statements Ukrainian army pro-Russian separatists shot down the plane by using S-11 "Beech" surface-to-air missile fired from whose territory they controlled.   However, images from the crash site and inspection OSCE representatives from the wreckage were traces presumably

from falling from aircraft machine gun and pointed to the nature of the debris hit the small missiles "air-to-air."

  We also learned that there is no pro-Russian separatists S-11 "Beech". That also corroborate the OSCE staff.

The Russian government has accused the Ukrainian government. The Government of Malaysia has asked for help in the investigation of the Russian side.

  Defense Minister of Malaysia compared downing Boing777 MH-17 from the downed passenger Tu-154 in 2001, when the Ukrainian army in error knocked airliner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aya ilya (talk • contribs) 19 sep 2014 11:31 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812

Why does this article contain 0 mention of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812? This incident was alluded to heavily in Russian language media following the incident. Not having any mention of it, in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of NPOV. How can we best integrate this incident into the article? (I was thinking the Russian media coverage section)

In the interim I have added it to the See Also Section

• Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 - an incident that Russian language media alluded to in order to discredit the Ukrainian government

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment immediately below your edit says "Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink". I believe there was a decision in the past somewhere on this talk not to include any similar incidents. If it was to be included, I agree "Russian media coverage" would be the most appropriate section. Stickee (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this edit before seeing the discussion here. I agree that this thing should go into the "Russian media coverage" section, and there it should be written more NPOV. Indeed there were Siberia-1812 comparisons in the Russian media, e.g. this theory published on 25 July by RIA Novosti and by Kommersant [1].

Generally, putting Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 into the "See also" section creates an undesirable bias, as the Siberia-1812 comparison is just one of many theories on the cause of this crash. --PM3 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

MH17 would be the second downing of a civilian aircraft by a Surface to Air Missile fired from Ukrainian territory. The other one being when Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (a commercial flight) was shot down by the Ukrainian military over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001. Ukraine banned the testing of Buk, S-300 and similar missile systems for a period of 7 years following this incident. Ukraine’s acting Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh described the combat readiness of the country’s armed forces as “unsatisfactory” in his 12 March 2014 report to the acting president. Tenyukh said recent exercises demonstrated a “dismal degree of preparedness among servicemen and lack of military specialists, equipment and weapons” in the Ground Forces, the Air Force and the Navy. The country’s air defense troops had received little training because of the 2001 ban on missile launches imposed after the crash of a Russian Tu-154 passenger jet. The ban was lifted in 2008, but so far only 10 percent of Air Defense Forces servicemen “have mastered the required level of theory and practice,” the report said. The Ukrainian military had several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers, capable of bringing down high-flying jets, in the Donetsk region where the Malaysian passenger plane crashed, Russian Defense Ministry said.[2][3] --82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: I disagree. Having 0 mention of this incident is evidence of clear and present bias. It should remain in the See Also section until it is expanded upon in the article. Relying on the link to other aircraft incidents is insufficient as it ignores the importance of the Siberia Airlines incident with regards to MH17's aftermath. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no significance. Volunteer Marek  18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, to you there is no significance that the last country to accidentally shoot down an airliner was the Ukraine. Also, that the Ukrainian military shot down that airliner with a Buk missile is insignificant, too. This article mentioning the downing of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 would bring the idea into readers minds that the Ukraine is capable of shooting down airliners, a possibility which would require the article to consider the scenario that Kiev deliberately shot down MH17, a scenario which German and French Wikipedia consider, but which English Wikipedia does not, a clear case of systemic bias. – Herzen (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no significance to it because only wacky conspiracy theorists or battleground warriors obsessed with correcting great historical wrongs or fighting irredentist war with their keyboards think that there is any significance to it. Reliable sources don't... Come on, this is getting ridiculous. I could just as easily say "Russia is the one country which has *purposefully* shot down civilian airliners before" and "hell, they even gave the pilot a medal for killing innocent people on one" and "and they suppressed evidence just like they're doing with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17" and insist on a link to Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and then just repeat ad nauseum "this is significant, this is significant, this is significant, this is significant...". But it won't be. No more than this is. That is the essence, the freakin' dictionary definition, the Platonic archetype of POV pushing which is exactly what you're trying to do here. No. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Technical point: it wasn't a BUK but another SAM, but the principle of incompetence is the same --82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines References has nothing to do with consipiracy theories. it reflects RS. Russian language media drew links between the two incidents to discredit the claims of the Ukrainian government. Your ad nauseam argument holds no water. in THIS case RS drew the link. We don't need to engage in original research because RS and GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS drew the link. Also, aside from RS, other language wikis report on the RS that drew this link. Having 0 mention is clear evidence of POV pushing. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we attempt to document everything that the Russian government (and its numerous media outlets) has said to try to discredit Ukraine? That would be a very long article. How much coverage has this gotten in RS outside of Russia? Geogene (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Zip. In RSs. I've seen Korean Air Lines Flight 007 mentioned more often in this context. Volunteer Marek  15:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't seen any of this either. If it's demonstrated that this is a major (and continuing) object of discussion in Russia, then I wouldn't oppose a sourced mention in the Russian media coverage section. But please don't use a See Also as a place for unsourced commentary on this. Geogene (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What are thoughts of including mention of Siberia Airlines in the Russian Media section? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Would not object, provided it was brief. Far better than in See also. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The article seems to be one-sided

The article begins with the information (not confirmed by any documents or fixed facts) provided by USA/Ukrainian officials, still many facts indicate that pro-Russian rebels haven't got sufficient weapons/Radars to track & shot the plane on this high. Many facts indicate that the plane could be possibly shot by Ukrainian army to blame rebels and Russia (it is wide known that USA officially supports the regime in Ukraine and has its own motivation to blame Russia). Please make an article and its introduction more independent, covering all facts Ilya3L (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do not you look at this page and its archives first, where all these issues you mention have been discussed at length? Btw what you claim is "wide known" is in fact your private opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ilya3L - this article IS one-sided. Our systemic bias has allowed a core of anti-Putin and anti-Russian editors to dominate consensus, and include a mass of material that really has no place here. All it should contain on the cause front is what the official investigation has provided the world with so far. Unfortunately, right now it also contains an awful lot of speculation and propaganda driven bullshit, almost all of it anti-separatist and anti-Putin/Russia. It's one of our worst examples of non-neutral POV. One day we will have the full official report, and most of the crap will be removed. I wish someone with principles, guts and authority would remove it now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

RS are the 'guts and authority' of Wikipedia articles - you want to eviscerate the article for your own pov and not for some highfalutin notion of 'neutrality ' - ever thought of that? Sayerslle (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are millions of words on this topic in "reliable sources". The self-appointed owners of this article have chosen a particular subset. Having none of the politically motivated nonsense, and only the official report, would surely be the least POV form for the article. It would also obviously prevent further allegations of a lack of balance. Surely you would want that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What?! No it wouldn't! There are already efforts in certain circles to discredit the DSB report. The original post above wants more Russian POV in the article. Blanking everything but the DSB would generate more complaints of non-neutrality. Obviously! Pay attention. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone likes the Dutch report. Examples of what I mean: [4], [5], [6]. You can imagine what the response would be if there's more certainty in the next one...or if the Dutch hand out some indictments. Your suggestion of sourcing the cause entirely to the accident report of a European nation (that is a charter member of NATO) will placate no one. Geogene (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just silly to say it will placate no one. Firstly, It's not our job to placate anybody. Secondly, I, for one, would be much happier with it. (Not sure if I will feel placated.) And I am not "no one", thank you very much. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Blow by blow reporting of the daily allegations of people you want to report is not making this a better article. Have you read WP:10YT? I always find it valuable to think about what will be important in this article in 10 years time. I can guarantee that most of the current content won't be there. Why is it there now? HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not our job to placate anybody. Well, okay, I agree with that. So I'll continue to worry about the neutrality policy and completely disregard the ongoing complaints about bias then. Perhaps you should not use them as a pretense for blanking. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to respond to the rest of my post? HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. We're not adding every day accusations at this point, and the accusations that were added are remarkable (and were followed by sanctions in some cases). The blow-by-blow feel of the article is because much of it has been written as an ongoing current event, in time, it'll need to be revised to be fully encyclopedic. This mostly includes changing the sentence structures so they aren't so chronological, but may also include trimming some of the early statements that are no longer accurate. Already some of the stuff like early claims of undignified treatment of the human remains may need pruning if they've been made irrelevant by later information. I think that Abbott's remarks are likely to persist as notable, even if they're all proven wrong. What else will be important in 10 years time? Hard to say in this case. I wouldn't definitively say that the blame that's laid out now will be irrelevant then. I hope so because that would mean that progress was made, but it takes years and years for the courts to put evidence together to try anyone, until then, some of this that's in the article is actually the best information available, sadly, and will be for the forseeable future. Geogene (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We seem to be working with the same view of what's there now. It's mostly speculation and politics, and most of it will eventually disappear. We just have different views of whether it should be there now. I don't believe it should. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how Wikipedia continues to confidently and vigorously blame the rebels for the downing, while the Western press and Western politicians lost interest in MH17 a few weeks after the tragedy occurred. Now the only country that raises the matter of MH17 at the UNSC is Russia. From these developments, one can infer who the guilty party really is. Yet Wikipedia studiously avoids the question of cui bono. That involves the taboo area of conspiracy theorizing. That the current theory that the Wikipedia article puts forth is clearly a conspiracy theory – the Russian military conspired with the rebels by giving them a Buk launcher – doesn't phase any of the advocates here of the preferred Western narrative. If it's advocated by the US president, it's not a conspiracy theory.

You are one of the few editors who continues to point out the incredible bias of this article. However, I will take this opportunity to note that I disagree with the position you have consistently taken that all the article "should contain on the cause front is what the official investigation has provided". First, the DSB was explicitly directed not to assign blame. So even when the final report comes out, it is doubtful that it will contain much more information than the preliminary report does. There has been talk of criminal investigations to determine who the guilty party was, but Western leaders obviously already know who the guilty party was, so these investigations are unlikely to go anywhere. Second, it is natural for people to want to know who shot down MH17, so Wikipedia must address this issue. There are plenty of reports from reliable sources of who the two main candidates are. Unfortunately, the usual lawyering and civil POV pushing are being used to keep discussions of the guilt of the most likely perpetrator out of the article. – Herzen (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is the "You" at the beginning of your second paragraph? HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You. The indentation is correct. :-) I was basically siding with most editors here against you on this point.

To respond to the comment starting this thread/section, I agree that this article is one-sided, and wouldn't even qualify that with "seems to be". I have raised this point before in Talk, and pointed to the example of German and French Wikipedias, which consider both the case for the rebels being the perpetrators and the case for the Kiev government being responsible. However, all of my edits attempting to represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (to quote WP:NPOV) have, sadly, been reverted. The expert opinion of a senior Russian military officer on how Buk systems work is not considered to be worthy of consideration; the point made by Time magazine (can you get any more reliable and mainstream than Time?) that the DSB report is consistent with a jet having shot MH17 down is not worthy of consideration, since the Time article was written by a journalist, not an expert. Sigh. –Herzen (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you dont want an english version of the german article. Some of the headlines there seem to support your impression of a more neutral coverage at first glance (Shot down "by ukrainian army" / "by ukrainian warplanes") But it does not include the "BUK-from-above theory" you advocate for. Alexpl (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That comment would make sense if Herzen had asked that we have an English version of the German article, but he didn't, so it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm bored with this argument. There is only one credible side and only one credible explanation, and that is what the preponderance of WP:RS suggests: the attack is widely believed to have been carried out by Russian-backed forces, with no comment on their motives. If you don't like it, I'm sure you can find a Russian TV station or conspiracy blog somewhere that presents a more satisfying explanation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're lucky that the world is so simple for you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed hundreds of sources on this issue from all over the world. There is no complete and reliable explanation out there of what happend; all reasonable "Experts", from the USA, from Russia or from anywhere else are just building theories and talking of probabilities. Overall, looking at what the worldwide media say, my impression is that

• a vast majority of the "expertes" say that MH17 probably was shot down by a missile
  • most of them say it probably was a surface-to-air missile
    • a few of them say that it may have been launched by the resetos (RebelsSeparatistsTerrorists)
    • very few of them say it may have been launched by the Ukrainian forces
• and some say it probably was an Ukrainian air-to-air strike
  • some of whom say it probably was a combined missile and cannon air-to-air attack

That's the knowlege out there, which IMHO should be represented by the article. --PM3 (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have yet to see any reliable sources that suggest a Ukrainian jet shot down the airliner -- a theory that is mentioned in the article, I might add. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that when talking of sources, we generally talk of secondary sources. It's not really up to us to judge on primary sources (although I admit that I tend to do that myself), that's the job of secondary sources, which we consider as reliable and therefore generally use as source for Wikipedia content. One of those (very few) secondary sources which is used as reference in (hundreds of) WP articles and suggested that MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian jets is the New Straits Times. Another source which published multiple Ukrainian-jet-shootdown theories and is referenced as source in hundreds of articles is the Russian news agency RIA Novosti. --PM3 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Russian Engineers Report? If so, I'm curious what you think about it, since you say on your user page that you are interested in aviation disasters. I started looking through this report, to see if it mentions that Buk missiles detonate over their targeted aircraft, but it doesn't seem to. Also, I thought that that this point was raised at the Russian ministry of defense press briefing, but it appears that I was mistaken about that. So I think I am going to drop this point.

A blog post I gave the link to before has a photo from the report. The photo is of a flat surface from the plane with holes from "high-energy objects" all in a straight line. I don't see how a missile warhead could have produced that pattern of damage. What do you think?

On a side note, I don't see how some editors can be so confident that the people in power in Kiev could not possibly be behind the downing of MH17. After all, it is well known that the Estonian ambassador to Ukraine said in an intercepted telephone call that people in Kiev had come to the opinion that the snipers shooting both demonstrators and police in Maidan Square were following orders of the people who seized power in Kiev. If those people are capable of killing people fighting on their own side, they are certainly capable of ordering the downing of an airliner, in order to give them a chance to regroup once they have started losing a civil war. Also, if the Kiev government regularly shells peaceful Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure, actions which have no military purpose, it is certainly capable of murdering foreigners. But of course, Ukrainian mass media tell Ukrainians that the rebels keep on killing their own people, even though the locals believe that it is Kiev that is killing them. In the same way, the pro-federalism demonstrators in Odessa set themselves on fire. Wikipedia demurely calls that massacre "clashes". – Herzen (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What I find interesting to see when discussions flow on this topic is the growing number of mentions of the USA. This event had virtually nothing to do with the USA. (Yes, a couple of the victims, but there were victims from many countries.) The ONLY reason the USA becomes part of the discussion is because of the propaganda war that had already been going for months in respect of the region involved. Seeing the USA as one of the "sides" only makes sense if you see this article as an argument between Russia and the US. It's not. It's about a plane crash that didn't involve the USA. (Unless you believe the weirdest conspiracy theories.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The US has a history of supporting groups which engage in false flag operations. Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is a conspiracy theorist? Also, seeing the US as one of the "sides" is unavoidable, given that it is well known that the US State Department orchestrated the coup which put the current regime into power, as we know from the intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, in which she says that "our man Yats" should be made the new P.M., before the coup took place. It is practically the official position of the Russian government that the purpose of the overthrow of the legitimate, democratically elected government of Ukraine was to destroy Russia. So as far as the mainstream view in Russia is concerned, this is all about the US wanting to maintain its position of hegemon in a monopolar world. Russia and China want to move to a multipolar world. This is why the US has produced color revolutions and a coup in Kiev in an attempt to destabilize Russia. So this is all about the struggle between the US and Russia; the Ukraine only enters into consideration as a tool for the US to use against Russia. This is not an example of "the weirdest conspiracy theories"; this is looking at geopolitics. – Herzen (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bored" is about right. Please keep in mind that the talk page of Wikipedia articles is NOT the place to speculate, opinonate, editorialize, propagate, give vent to, or let off steam. Getting a blog is free. Get one. Do it there. Maybe "the people" will listen. Here, you're just wasting editor time. Most of the recent discussion should actually be deleted/removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm tempted. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was implicitly responding to Kudzu1's highly biased observation that "the attack is widely believed to have been carried out by Russian-backed forces". So my comment was most definitely relevant to this Talk section, as opposed to being nothing more than "opinionating". Note that Kudzu1's comment totally depersonalizes Russians. It is as if the opinion of Russians doesn't matter, and Russians don't have a right to have opinions. How can you get more systematically biased than that? – Herzen (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can dispute the point. Aside from conspiracy-minded folks like Parry and Hersh, who have been carrying water for the Kremlin for some time now, and Russian sources with an implicit bias toward their country's government (note that Russia is frequently given very low marks for press freedom and human rights, so I question the idea that mainstream Russian sources are in any way reliable in a case where the Russian government has a very strong and very overt interest), and aside from that single Malaysian newspaper article that relies almost entirely on non-notable, non-reliable GlobalResearch or whatever it's called, pretty much everybody of any standing reports that the separatists are suspected of carrying out the attack, and there is scads of publicly available evidence to that effect. You might disagree with that conclusion, and that is your right. But when the preponderance of reliable sources present a narrative, I think it can rightly be considered "mainstream", and competing opinions pushed by an extreme minority of (mostly partisan) outlets can be considered fringe. And even still, as I said, the "Ukrainian jet shot down the airliner" conspiracy theory is already in the article. I think that's a very generous concession to the Kremlin and its backers as it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Too many editors here are expressing opinions on who did it. You, Kudzu1, are one of them. It doesn't matter how much you have convinced yourself you are right, it's still opinion. Nobody should be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm speaking of what reliable sources are saying, which is more than I can say for you. As I have said many, many times before, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy basis for excluding or contradicting the preponderance of reliable sources and disregarding WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:DUE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. The point is that an editor's opinion on a controversial matter should not be as obvious as yours. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: When you write, "I don't see how you can dispute the point", I respectfully suggest that you display your bias. To quote yet again from WP:systemic bias:

Wikipedia … is inhibited by systemic bias that perpetuates a bias against underrepresented cultures and topics. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects on Wikipedia.

To explain to you how I "can dispute the point", I will just mention that because, just an hour or two after the crash of MH17 hit the news, both Kiev and Washington accused the rebels of shooting it down, when there had not even been enough time to establish that it had been shot down, and because just a few hours after the downing, alleged conversations between rebels and a GRU officer were posted on YouTube with the rebels saying they had shot down MH17 by mistake (which conversations are now contradicted by the current Kiev story about why the rebels allegedly downed the plane), it was obvious to me from the very start that this was a false flag op run by Kiev to discredit the rebels. I didn't need to read the Russian press or left-wing blogs to realize that. It was totally obvious. So I have to turn your comment around: I don't see how you can honestly believe that the rebels and not Kiev shot down MH17. You are apparently completely unfazed by the Western press totally losing interest in MH17. Do you really think the US and the EU would stop bashing Russia and the rebels with MH17 if the West had any evidence that the rebels shot it down?

That was a personal note. I am not going to say anything about the reliability of the Russian media because I am tired of writing about that. I'll just note that I don't see how anyone can take the New York Times to be more reliable than Russian sources like RT when the Times has a consistent track record of publishing stories that implicate a country that the US is currently hostile to in some nefarious activity (Saddam has weapons of mass destruction; Assad ordered a chemical weapons attack; there are photographs of a Russian speznaz soldier now operating in the Ukraine) which it later had to retract. Remember Judith Miller?

I'm sorry; this really does sound like editorializing now, I guess. But I am just responding to your implicit question. And if you honestly wonder how Westerners can relate to a Russian point of view: I just learned about this Web site, which was started by an American expat living in Moscow who is apparently an investment banker: Russia Insider. – Herzen (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you offer something independent, like Novaya Gazeta. Sure go ahead. But I see absolutely no movement in your position - it was a case of something you keep calling "the west" fighting with the Russian Federation from the first post and it still is. No differentiation whatsoever. So, to get some kind of result for the article: do you want a list of different causes which have been discussed for the crash in the article, something like user:PM3 has shown above, yes or no? If you answer yourself, that would be great. Alexpl (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta is hardly "independent". It is controlled by an oligarch, who ironically also owns the English Independent. It's funny how English Wikipedia gives so much attention to Novaya Gazeta, when it is not representative of mainstream Russian opinion in the least. – Herzen (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly, you are utterly convinced that you have struck upon the correct theory, best explained as a variation on the underpants gnomes plan -- step 1: Ukraine shoots down the plane, step 2: ????, step 3: profit! And as I said, you are abundantly welcome to your own beliefs. You can believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, dinosaur bones are a hoax, and Ringo Starr was the most talented Beatle. Believe whatever you want. But your position simply has no basis in reliable sources (the preponderance of which say something completely different), unless the meaning of that term is redefined. And that's not going to happen on this Talk page. I suggest you take your complaints to the appropriate noticeboard and see if they're more receptive to the idea of Russian state media being more reliable than The New York Times. Good luck. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, English Wikipedia editors blocking consideration of the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, when French and German Wikipedias consider that possibility, is a textbook case of IDONTLIKEIT. Why does English Wikipedia fail when French and German Wikipedias succeed? – Herzen (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom. But I don't try to censor that idea out of Wikipedia. I just want Wikipedia readers to be able to read about the other possibility, that Kiev did it. I want both theories to be covered by English Wikipedia, even though I don't like one of them. Thus IDONTLIKEIT applies not to those editors who believe that English Wikipedia should consider the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, but to those editors who believe that only one of the two main possibilities should be covered, thus producing a catastrophic violation of NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom" -- the same can be said of the members of Islamic State. In other words let's not go to these kind of highly non neutral statements. Arnoutf (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To make this crystal clear: it matters not one bit what other language encyclopedias say. Zero. Nada. Who cares. It's not an argument. We have this Wikipedia, it has its own policies, and we follow those. "But other Wikipedias say something else!" is a lame and invalid argument. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a tendency to make dogmatic assertions without providing any sort of argument to back them up. The reason I brought up French and German Wikipedias was that the claim is repeatedly made by editors who take a hard pro-current Kiev government line that nobody but Russians and conspiracy theorists takes the idea that Kiev might have downed MH17 seriously. Do you mean to suggest that the French and German Wikipedias are infested with conspiracy theorists? If not, then the conclusion that English Wikipedia's failure to give due attention to the possibility that Kiev downed the plane is a grave case of systemic bias is inescapable. The NPOV guideline is very clear, yet some editors persist in brazenly disregarding it. – Herzen (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

UH... pointing out that what other Wikipedias do has no bearing on what we do is a "dogmatic assertion"? Huh? Sorry, that's just policy, since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Yes, NPOV guideline is crystal clear: no FRINGE crap. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - calling the opinions of those with whom you disagree "lame and invalid" is a pretty lame and invalid argument. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But calling opinions which are contrary to, or are pretending to be, in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy, is not. It's an accurate description. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. It's actually just bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What's bad manners is wasting loads of other people's time with tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It just keeps going and going and going and going... enough already. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Expect to have lots more of your time wasted for as long as the article contains so much political and propaganda driven bullshit. I won't change my view for that idiotic reason. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

From Obama's remarks at the UN General Assembly today:

Recently, Russia's actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order. Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kyiv, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.

Note that Obama doesn't say that the rebels shot MH17 down. Thus, the English Wikipedia article being written as if the rebels shooting down MH17 is an open and shut case is completely unacceptable. – Herzen (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The misinterpretation of the Obama remarks above is the most patently ridiculous argument that I have seen advanced by an established Wikipedia editor in months. It is typical of the content that this user continues to post in this Talk page. The arguments have been heard and found wanting. That it continues without end in sight constitutes disruption. Geogene (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

'I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom.' But I don't try to censor that idea out of Wikipedia' - your saying about you don't like calumnies against your people is nothing but a confession of purblind nationalist bias - in 1945 you'd have no doubt given grief to wp editors if they relayed RS on this story -red army and rape 1945 - and said it was a calumny against soldiers who were liberating europe - - anyhow the Russian stories are not censored from this article so I don't see what you are complaining about - they said it was an attempt to take down putins plane?, it was Ukrainian jets , it was Ukrainian Buks - all the stories - all the freedom loving stories - to take credit for saying you wont try and censor the article! I should hope not. this isn't Moscow. Sayerslle (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't know anything about me. Any relatives of mine who fought in World War II fought on the side of the Germans, so I certainly wouldn't have objected to atrocities that the Red Army commited against the German people being included in a Wikipedia article. In my family, the Soviets were the enemy. But I guess you haven't heard that Russia isn't communist anymore. Incidentally, your crack about "your people" is indicative of a battleground attitude. I suggest you make more of an effort to maintain civility in the future.

Since you suggest that censorship is not being applied to this article, I have restored the subsection headings delineating accounts of Ukrainian and of rebel responsibility with this edit. – Herzen (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I rather think you brought the battleground mentality with your 'people freedom fighting' rhetoric whom you don't like seeing calumnied -well, if RS are at the root of it that's just too bad, but whatever, - you've made it clear you have a 'side' and that dictates your editing - now you are dead set it seems to me to make out there are two views, each alike in weight of RS reportage of credibility - etc - pure pov crap. undue. but then to create a kind of miasma , to confound RS with fringe , and RS with RT - that's your way. Sayerslle (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed one of the disputed subheadings to "Russian claims", as it cannot be denied that, aside from conspiracy theorists, this viewpoint is peculiar to Russia, Russian sources, and the parallel reality that seems to exist there of late. It should not be mistaken for my endorsement of these subtitles. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: Thank you for coming up with that compromise solution. I hope no one will delete the subheadings as they currently stand. But you are mistaken when you say that "this viewpoint is peculiar to Russia". It has also been reported by the Malaysian press:

Emerging Theory: Probe now into the possibility that plane was shot down using two different weapons.

Investigators are looking into the theory that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from from a fighter that had been shadowing it, as it entered its death dive.

The New Straits Times coverage of the MH17 disaster has come up before in the "NPOV edit" section of this Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

They've gone again since they're very similar in nature to pro and con like sections, with WP:GEVAL issues as well. They have been brought up before in archive 12 in which they were removed. Stickee (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, POV isn't supposed to be split even inside articles. Geogene (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The only reason that POV is involved here is that some editors refuse to abide by the American principle of innocent until proven guilty. Thinking that there are two different parties that might have been responsible for the downing of MH17 is not having two different points of view: it is simply being able to understand reality in a minimally non-biased fashion. – Herzen (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROCON does not apply because none of the points in the "So what's wrong with pro & con lists?" section are applicable to these section headings. The idea that more than one party may be responsible for a given crime is a commonplace in legal practice. This is really a no-braner. WP:GEVAL does not apply because the only reliable evidence we have to go on, that provided by the DSB preliminary report, gives absolutely no basis for preferring one possible scenario over the other. The article already raises the possibility that Kiev might have done this, although somebody has added the "conspiracy theory" smear to that passage. So I really don't understand why anyone would object to subsection headings for the two main possibilities here. It is as if Wikipedia editors believe that Kiev shooting down the plane is a logical, metaphysical impossibility. Is that encyclopedic? – Herzen (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

On NST: Indeed it has come up continually in this talk page and on the talk pages of many other language variants of WP. This is far out of proportion to the relative influence the NST usually has, it's not that widely read outside of Malaysia. This naturally raises the question: why so much discussion of this single source? It's exactly the kind of thing you see when you have a sizeable minority of editors that would like to get a particular viewpoint into the article, but don't have another source to choose from, because out of the thousands of potential candidates, this is the only one that they can find for it that isn't suspected of being under Kremlin influence (or control). But the NPOV policy says that viewpoints in articles should be in proportion to their coverage in RS. That this one article keeps coming up repeatedly shows that this is a tiny viewpoint, and its relative coverage in the article should be scaled appropriately. And in this case I think NST is non-RS because it cites Global Research--which seems to be the primary purveyor of MH17 conspiracy theories in the West. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Der Spiegel not a major reliable source? Here is what it reported on 8 August:

It is becoming apparent that the question of guilt is hardly going to be conclusively clarified. Too confusing are the conditions in the area around the crash; too unprofessional was evidence on the ground was handled - and large are the political interests of the parties.

Enlightenment is not expected in this question also from the Dutch Security. You conduct the investigation according to international rules, says van der Weegen. "This is not about who is to blame or the responsibility. The aim of the investigation is to clarify the cause of the crash.

This is completely consistent with the DSB preliminary report. That report tells us nothing about who the guilty party might be, and Der Spiegel observes that who the guilty party is will never be officially revealed. Thus, the Wikipedia article, by creating the impression that everybody knows that the rebels did it, is doing a grave disservice to its readers. – Herzen (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If anything beyond the official report is to be included when this article finally settles down, that reads like some of the best and most objective content I've seen yet. And the expression "large are the political interests of the parties" is an accurate description of a lot of what's gone on here so far. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, the article is to reflect what the bulk of the sources are saying on the matter. As Geogene and many others in this thread said, the preponderance of the sources are presenting the narrative of a likely rebel shootdown, and the article should reflect that. Splitting the cause section into 2 subsections would mean the article won't reflect what they're saying. Furthermore you've again mischaracterized a source. That spiegel article you mention even says "many indications suggest that separatists flight accidentally shot down in the embattled eastern Ukraine MH17" (sorry for the bad google translate). Stickee (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all of us agree that your interpretation of "the article is to reflect what the bulk of the sources are saying on the matter" is a valid one. The sources you insist on using simply reflect the pre-existing systemic bias of Wikipedia, of which you are clearly a part. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article naturally prefers the mainstream POV of the public opinion of English speakers. Other language regions have other mainstream POVs, therefore different articles have different perspectives on the same topic. That's how Wikipedia works, it's always that way (even with scientific articels, e.g. there are significant differences in the stance of English and German articles on modern physics). There is no "truth" in Wikipedia. It is made by human beings who have beliefs, and these beliefs influence their selection of sources and contents, knowingly or unknowingly. You should accept this reality, because you can't change it. --PM3 (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is biased, but editors can work harder to override their beliefs when editing here. During the last US Presidential election, and my own country's most recent national election, I patrolled high profile articles and their Talk pages for vandalism and POV pushing. I was accused by supporters of both sides in both countries of supporting the other side. They were all wrong. Several here could try so much harder to keep their own beliefs out of their editing, and to make those beliefs far less obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And @Herzen [7]: I think that Der Spiegel is an inferior source, the content quality has gone near tabloid journalism level during the past years, especially in the online section and since they hired their new chief editor from Bild. This really is no source I am proud of as an WP author, I try to avoid it whenever possible or use it for the trivial things only. --PM3 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. What a surprise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Your point that English Wikipedia "prefers the mainstream POV of the public opinion of English speakers. Other language regions have other mainstream POVs" is interesting and suggestive. But although there may be no "truth" in Wikipedia, Wikipedia officially aims for WP:NPOV, which is something different from truth. And many editors, many of whom seem to be primarily Anglophone, continually complain that the articles in English Wikipedia on Ukrainian subjects are biased towards the current Kiev regime, which seized power illegally and hence is not legitimate by any reasonable legal standard. Therefore, I am not as defeatist about the possibility of Wikipedia avoiding systemic bias as you are. I would say that the reason that the Ukraine related articles are so absurdly biased is not that different Wikipedias are doomed to represent different "mainstream POVs", but that the majority of editors do not appear to understand what avoiding systemic bias entails. Yes, I am a throwback. I still believe in Enlightenment values.

I agree with you about Der Spiegel. But there seems to have been a general decline in European journalism since about 2000. European journalists used to delight in mocking their governments, but now they pretty much serve as stenographers for government officials, the same as American journalists do. And since somehow the view has become entrenched among Wikipedia editors that no blogs are reliable sources (whereas blogs now play the role that the free press played earlier in Western societies), Wikipedia articles on political matters tend to end up being (poorly written) government propaganda. – Herzen (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is not more biased than your statements here. "Absurdly biased" is just a measure of the distance beween your own bias and the article's opposite bias, which you will not be able to change. --PM3 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If an article is biased, I see it as my job to point it out, even more so if the owners won't countenance change. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that a paid job?--Galassi (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

With subsidies for dental treatment. Since user:Herzen now seems to have gone lost because of all the wrongddoings of "the West", maybe HiLo487 could propose some actual changes to the article to make it less biased. Alexpl (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove all comment on the cause apart from what the official report says. (Now I sit back and watch the Putin/Russia haters all foam at the mouth and say "You can't do that. Look how many people just like me agree with me!") HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nadezhda_Tolokonnikova is as russian as the KGB bloke putin - just because one doesn't foam at the mouth with admiration for putin doesn't mean one is anti-Russian - banal to say so - Sayerslle (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. That's why I didn't say it. Unfortunately, hate is an irrational emotion. The irrationality impacts more than the haters think. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only time people use the word "haters" is when they're losing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please lose the battleground attitude. – Herzen (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am aiming for a consensus. With a consensus we all win. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe consider not reducing those who disagree with you to "haters". I can't speak for anyone else here, but I know I have raised specific policy objections to your proposals that you have never made even a perfunctory effort to address. Dismissing "haters" is weak, and it's not constructive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The simple policy objection to your position is that it requires a massive dependence on or lack of awareness of our systemic bias. You may not be a hater, but it's obvious from some of the anti-Russian and anti-Putin comments that have been made here that some are. It's a valid description of the emotion being shown. This discussion should avoid emotional influences. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to get into any trouble, like the editors of the RU Crimea article are about to be in. [8]. Geogene (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Funny how that story gets published in the "government controlled" Russian press. By the way, when I looked at a few Ukraine-related articles in Russian Wikipedia, I was surprised to find that the line that they take is pretty much identical to the line that English Wikipedia takes, and has virtually nothing to do with how the Ukraine crisis is presented in the Russian media. For example, in the article on MH17, Russian Wikipedia does have a subsection on the scenario that Kiev shot down the plane, but it devotes more space to denials that Kiev could have done that than it does to consideration of various theories which have been put forth about how Kiev might have done that. German Wikipedia considers those; Russian Wikipedia doesn't even mention the possibility that a fighter jet might have used machine gun/cannon fire against MH17, even though that is the scenario most Russians believe. – Herzen (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I find nothing funny about it. Geogene (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova is as russian as the KGB bloke putin. How do you know that? It appears that you know very little about Russia. Pussy Riot hate Russia. Since at least Peter the Great, there have been some Russians who hate Russia, taking the West as their admired model. Here is a recent essay that explains the Russian model, something that people like Tolokonnikova have no understanding of. And this piece explains why a leader of contemporary Russia who acts in the interests of the Russian people could only have come from the KGB. Your comment is exactly what HiLo48 was expecting. – Herzen (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@ herzen/hilo - oh I see , thanks for educating me on who the true Russians are - you two do seem a bit biased to me to be crusaders for npov but there we are - 'I don't mind most Russians - but I don't like Putin - 'oh gawd, don't say that hilo and herzen will hear you' - funny Sayerslle (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to allege that I was displaying bias. Precisely what is my bias? HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And the conspired anyway [9]--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Assuming that's an accusation that I am involved in some sort of conspiracy, what bullshit. You linked to a post from Herzen on my Talk page, to which I didn't even respond. Conspired? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, you have expressed your own bias here and it is pro-Western. Your viewpoint seems to be that the DSB report is the final word, and that's a "Western" POV, as Russia has been completely excluded from that investigation and Ambassador Churkin has made it clear that they're not happy about it. This is not intended to insult you, as I don't believe in unbiased editors, but it is worth pointing out in this case because of the self-righteous attitudes you've been expressing about the biases you perceive in everyone else. Your remarks imply you see your role in the dynamic here as that of a Socratic gadfly, but the truths are that (1) you've really just complained a lot by making assertions about these failings you find in the rest of us, (2) this is both annoying and insulting, (3) this sort of behavior takes the fun out of editing this article for people that disagree with you, and (4) it is possible that you are doing this on purpose. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, your bias is clearly on display in that you even see this as a "Western" vs something else issue. I am always working to draw peoples' attention to our systemic bias, then trying to to do something about it. The official report is the closest thing we have to an independent look at this matter. To be accused of being biased for supporting that is ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that, in the moment that your proposal to limit this to the official DSB findings is accepted, you would have to work against Herzen and his wish to interpret or even comment those findings? In the current situation he will immediately start to hammer us with sources that the DSB finding could never match to a BUK missile and only a ukrainian fighter jet could have done it. Will you be here to prevent that, or is your mission accomplished and you just pullout? Alexpl (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:personal attacks and projecting on to me. I would find restricting this article to the findings of the DSB to be an excellent compromise solution, and would not work against that in any way. As for "interpreting" those findings, I think the German satire I copy pasted here which Volunteer Marek hatted, even though it is absolutely relevant to this talk section, because he doesn't like it (behavior which precisely exemplifies what that TV segment satirized), shows very well who is doing the "interpreting" here. It is not the people who want to bring some semblance of NPOV to Ukraine-related articles. – Herzen (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I hatted your comment below because it was simply inappropriate and disruptive. I probably should've just removed it outright. Are we gonna use that youtube video as a source? No. Does it add anything to the discussion? No. You're just posting it as a means of indirectly insulting others. Also, while we're on the subject, I see no personal attacks by Alexpl, or anyone else, against you. All I see is obstinate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

And no, we are not going to limit the article to the DSB report. That would be ridiculous. And against policy. There is simply no reason to do that. What we ARE going to limit the article to is reliable sources. Which means conspiracy junk and fringe stuff stays out. Volunteer Marek  07:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And our systemic bias lives on. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

To repeat ad nauseum. No original research. No synethesis. No fringe. No WP:OTHERSTUFF, including what some other Wikis might do. If you must get something off your chest there's better places for that. If you want to spin and speculate, there's better places for that. And none of this is going into this article as that would be a flagrant violation of the encyclopedia's policies. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You are always talking of the official report and want to discard all other sources. However, the official report is not of that good quality. For example:

• Flight SU2074 is missing on the map on page 12.
• AI113 on the same map is probably errounously labeled as A330, all other reputable sources I could find say 787, including Flightradar24, the Russian radar records and the newspapers.
• Data of last A check on page 16 contradicts Malaysia Airlines press release of July 18, 1:30 PM, which is more plausible when considering the check interval given in the DSB report.
• The ATC protocol on page 15 consistently calls the airline MALASIAN. Do you really want to write MALASIAN in the "Crash" section where this information is included?? MALASIAN (mal-Asian? someone bad from Asia?) is the official word per DSB report here.
• Ruler is missing on the weather map on page 18.
• There are lots of mismatches in detail wording, which is unprofessional for such a report.

So I don't think relying on this report as the only source would be a good idea (besides from that it would mean withholding lots of relevant information from the readers). Also, the DSB report is not ony a technical but also a diplomatic paper - the wishes of all countries involved in creating it had to be respected, including e.g. Russia and Australia. What can we expect from a report on the reason of MH17 crash which approved by both Russia and Australia? Not much. I don't think that relying solely on such diplomatic paper would yield an informative flight accident article. --PM3 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention Russia but not the Ukraine. Russia had absolutely no influence over the report, but Ukraine did:

On 7 August 2014, following the coordination meeting held at Eurojust on 28 July, authorities from the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine signed an agreement to set up a joint investigation team (JIT) to investigate the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, with the participation of Malaysia and Eurojust. …

A week ago Mark Sleboda reported about the existence of an agreement between exactly these four countries, adding that a non-disclosure agreement was part of the deal.

So don't try to blame Russia for the low quality of the report. Russia is, as far as I know, the only country which has complained about the deficiencies of the report. Herzen (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Who cares, Herzen? The point PM3 was making is just as valid. Geogene (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: You confuse criminal and accident investigation. The JIT does criminal investigation. The DSB does flight accident investigation, which is a separate job, and Russia is one of countries who are part of the investigation team (the others are the Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, France, Germany, the USA and Great Britain). See [10], and also [11] on page 4 ("Russia did not want to take part in the first instance, but has now joined"). Russia is complaining about an investigation in which they are engaged themselves (or more precise: investigators of the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency are involved, see page 8 of the DSB report). --PM3 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The negative obsession of some here here with Russia is far too obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:POT Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just done a complete quick-review of the article, and besides of some missing information - e.g. the debris distribution, and the international police deployment and intended/aborted international military deployment - I think there is one big issue left: This article is very biased by the view of US authorities resp. members of US autorities, which are quoted in an unappropriate amount (and of course have an one-sided POV which undermines the article's neutrality). I do not intend to change that, I even assume that it is unevitable because it just reprents what is written in the English language sources, which are the prefered sources here. Just wanted to note it so that I am done. --PM3 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The last transponder transmission recorded by Flightradar24 was at 13:21 UTC

What is that, there is no official source? The aircraft is still 85 seconds remained on track after the failure of the flight recorder ??? 84.118.81.7 (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to be able to make heads or tales out of what you are trying to say. If you can't make a comprehensible argument in

English, you should not distract Wikipedia editors by starting new sections in Talk pages. – Herzen (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

IP84 is referring to the third paragraph of the "Crash" section in which Flightradar24 reports the last transponder transmission at 13:21:28 UTC, while the FDR/CVR has a last recording at 13:20:03 UTC: a disparity of 85 seconds.

To address IP84's question: I personally can't answer why the disparity exists but it's likely just a timing issue on FR24's part (FR24 only takes a reading once every minute). The most we can do is just report what they're saying. Stickee (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

All flight data recordings stopped at 13:20 UTC

See Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 14#Suggestions regarding the last Flightradar24 record. It may have been extrapolated. I removed this 13:21 FR24 data from de:Malaysia-Airlines-Flug 17 months ago because it is implausible and contradicts all other sources. This has been underpinned by the DSB report, which says that all data recordings and ATC communication stopped at 13:20. I suggest to remove this 13:21 information here, too, both the time and the coordinate contradict all other sources. Compare the coordinate to the last FDR position in the DSB report on page 21: It's west of Hrabove and Roszypne, not east of Snizhne where FR24 put the last ADS-B position. --PM3 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the last FR24 record shows a 10 second delay to the 60s recording interval, while all the previous records only show a 2-4 second delay [12]. I read in some internet forum that FR24 will wait up to 10 seconds before the next data is recorded. This very much looks like after the 10 second timeout they recorded extrapolated data, to fill an assumed data gap. From the last FR24 coordinate given here in the article, the plane would have needed to do a U-turn and fly some 20 kilometers back to the West and then crash there. This terribly contradicts all what the DSB report sais about the crash sequence:

• plane flies in eastern direction
• at 13:20 all systems stop working a few km west of Roszypne
• cockpit section falls straightly down near Roszypne
• rest of the plane following a downwards trajectory to the east and comes down near Hrabove.

--PM3 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I support the proposal. Flightradar's data seems to be less accurate than the DSB report and appears to contradict it. (The precision of FR24's data may be causing readers to overestimate its accuracy). Geogene (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no disparity or course deviation. According to the data of Flightradar24 MH17 simply continues to fly on course Kuala Lumpur after the failure of the flight recorder and cockpit voice recorder at 13:20:03 UTC as before and did not crash until 13:21:28 UTC. But Russian sources speak of a course deviation at 13:20 UTC. 84.118.81.7 (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As was said above, the Flightradar24 data is probably wrong. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Primary Russian source, on which all other Russian sources on this issue are based, shows that at 13:21:28 UTC the plane is already crashing, dramatically losing speed and moving to the northeast instead to Kuala Lumpur. Hear to the comment of the Russian video at ~20:50: The commentator is explicitly talking of 13:21:30 UTC, and MH17 on the radar screen has a speed of ~350 km/h at this moment, compared to 890 km/h which FlightRadar24 gives for the same time. One of both must be wrong. --PM3 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So it seems the FR24 data is different from all the other data. As you and Geogene have suggested already, it's probably best to remove the FR24 info. Stickee (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Geogene (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Banner

It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that this article lacks neutrality. It is highly biased towards the Ukraine/US version and gives little credit to other versions of the event. The other Wiki pages on this topic (see French, German and Russian versions) describe all possible versions, like a proper Wiki page should. Editors like Volunteer Marek, are very reluctant to acknowledge this and prevent changes to the article. These editors call all the other theories as Fringe, Original Research or Russian propaganda for no real reason, other than they don't like them. Clearly this argument can go on forever without any party being satisfied with the results. So here is what I suggest. Let's add a NPOV at the top of the article to tell the reader that the neutrality of the article is hotly debated. What do people think? 118.210.139.81 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the intention of the NPOV banner is to flag the article for the sake of other editors, not necessarily the readership. It's also to be used only when there is an active discussion that is making progress, and not for an unlimited time. When the discussion stops for any reason, the banner is supposed to come down. So to use it indefinitely during a protracted debate in order to "punish" the article is not a valid use. And I should add that this article is approximately neutral per the actual WP:NPOV policy, which says that article POV should reflect that of the bulk of the reliable sources. The arguments that it is not neutral not only disregard policy but are, frankly, ridiculous, and becoming sillier all the time, with them most recently being based on the moral superiority of certain editors here. This "debate" does not merit a banner. The thing is, these things you complain about, that we call other viewpoints "Fringe", "Original Research", and "propaganda" (I don't recall that one being used, but many of these sources are not RS) are excellent reasons to exclude these things from the article. There is no reason for anyone to complain editors using these legitimate arguments, and that they do shows they're not able to respond in kind. Those that support alternative POVs have not made an effort to justify their proposals or refute these characterizations with policy. I will not support use of the banner to try to give undeserved legitimacy to the arguments of editors that apparently have no concern for the actual NPOV policy. Note that I think I was the editor that most recently added the NPOV banner to the article. I've since become convinced that there is no material benefit to the current discussion. Geogene (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of template messages is "to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made." WP guidelines say nothing about "there [being] an active discussion that is making progress". You are right that this discussion is not making progress, but that is only because some editors continue to deny that there is grave systemic bias in this article, and relentlessly undo edits which attempt to establish a minimally NPOV in the article. You and some other editors continue to denounce the idea that somebody other than the rebels might have been responsible for shooting down MH17 as fringe. But we live in a globalized world. The Anglosphere, France, Germany, and Russia are all part of the same global Internet community. As the IP who started this Talk section pointed out, the French, German, and Russian Wikipedias all consider this possibility. And yesterday I added some of the dialog from a German TV program which satirized how Western news media confidently blame the rebels for downing MH17, when no one has been able to provide any credible evidence to that effect. To quote from the blog post I just linked to, the TV network that that satirical program was broadcast on was "ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen), the second German public broadcast organisation, absolute MSM, like NBC in the US or BBC2 in the UK." If the German equivalent of NBC and BBC2 emphatically presents a given POV, then the only reason why English Wikipedia editors would consider that POV to be Fringe is Systemic Bias.

Rather than admitting that this TV program demonstrates that considering the possibility that the rebels might not have been the ones who shot the plane down is an idea that is mainstream and not fringe, you and Volunteer Marek deleted my comment which quoted from the program, thus doing exactly what the program satirized: "delete, delete!" Volunteer Marek deleted my comment on the grounds that it was "disruptive"; you deleted it under the pretext that it was a copyright violation, even though quoting two minutes of dialog from a one hour TV program clearly falls under fair use. The only way the editors who are determined to preserve the Systemic Bias in this article can do so is by using lawyering and civil POV pushing to prevent other editors from fixing the article. – Herzen (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment was nothing more than soapboxing about how "unfair" the media has been on this issue. We're not a forum, and its place is not here. Stickee (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

IDONTHEAR becomes less effective once editors gain experience with how some editors use various stratagems to game Wikipedia policy. The idea that if a major Western TV network takes a possibility seriously, then that possibility cannot be fringe, so that NPOV requires that Wikipedia discusses that possibility, is not hard to understand. It is highly regrettable that many editors working on Ukraine-related articles appear to behave as if they are NOTHERE. – Herzen (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spurious tagging of articles based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is disruptive (whether done by sock puppeting IPs or not). And let's remind everyone about WP:NOTAFORUM. And I'm sorry Herzen, but if there's a single editor on this talk page who personifies both WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE, that's you. All the way. Volunteer Marek  05:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The suggested tag is NPOV and has nothing to do with IDONLIKEIT. This is an official WP tag. Let me remind you this is not a forum. We are just following WP rules, sorry if you don't like them.14.2.17.35 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, this is just so tedious. As Geogene said, this article reflects the preponderance of reliable sources, including reliably sourced and duly weighted mentions of the alternative, ahem, theories that the Russian government and its various mouthpieces prefer to propagate. Doing anything else with the article would be an abrogation of about half a dozen Wikipedia policies that I have brought up here before, including but not limited to WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, WP:DUE, and WP:VER. So no. No shame tags. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes and you are one of those making it tedious. Please explain why this article has been written with all theories in at least 3 other languages (French, German and Russian)? There could be more, I haven't checked. They are using the same Wikipedia with the same rules. Why are the same theories considered Fringe and OR here, but not over there? Is it double standards? Going by majority, it looks like THIS article is inconsistent rather than those. I am really looking forward to your answer to these questions.118.210.139.81 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because other crap exists on other languages isn't an argument. This article already gives the fringe theories a generous amount of air time. More than is due by policy. Stickee (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you labelling it crap? It exists in other languages for a good reason. This article is crap because it is pushing just one point of view. Why are you calling all Russian media unreliable? How is it less reliable than US backed media? US has interest in this conflict so US media will report the view that US government holds. This does not make it reliable. The only truly reliable media in this event is Malaysian.118.210.139.81 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the WP policy article you link to suggests that if the Wikipedias of the four major European languages other than English treat a subject significantly differently than English Wikipedia does, English Wikipedia editors can just blithely assume that all those other Wikipedias are just crap, so there can't possibly be any problem with English Wikipedia. So you are just grasping at straws. – Herzen (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia also considers the scenario that Ukraine shot down the plane, and has subsection headings for the scenario that the rebels shot down the plane and for the scenario that the Ukrainian military shot down the plane.

You raise a good point when you note that Wikipedias of different languages have the same rules. I haven't checked the rules of non-English Wikipedias, but I don't see why they should have different basic rules than English Wikipedia. In fact, it has been in discussions of this article that I first ran across the claim that English Wikipedia has its own rules, different from those of other Wikipedias. Of course since this is English Wikipedia we are talking about, editors blithely assume that English Wikipedia applies the rules correctly when it comes to MH17, whereas French, Spanish, German, and Russian Wikipedias do it wrong. – Herzen (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A "good point" from this IP editor that you yourself have brought up elsewhere on this Talk page, I might note. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The "good point" I was referring to was that Wikipedias of different languages have basically the same rules. I had not made that point, although it is true that the IP editor mentioned the same non-English Wikipedias that I did. Also, the IP editor wrote in his initial post in this Talk section that Russian Wikipedia "describe[s] all possible versions", whereas I had written earlier that Russian Wikipedia does not consider the fighter jet using cannon fire scenario. – Herzen (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does have the same rules, but it also has vastly more traffic than any other version. This means that on English Wikipedia it is less likely a biased point of view remains unchallenged. (first half of edit by me: Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC) broken up by anon editor)

Now you are just clasping at straws. What does traffic have to do with anything? China has the biggest population, so are you suggesting that their version should be favoured more than others? Of course not, this would just be ridiculous. The bias in this article has been challenged on many occasions, unfortunately nothing has been done about it, because certain individuals are controlling the article. By the way, this is illegal according to WP rules.14.2.17.35 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Traffic means active people means more points of view, so less likely that few editors can control the debate (as I clearly explain). Traffic has little to do with inhabitants but with visits and edits. Indeed I agree that cutting up edits of editors on talk pages like you did with mine is at best considered extremely bad form, and probably illegal indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mean to cut up your edit like that. Here we have many different points of view, so please explain why the article presents just one of them? Or do you suggest I invite more people with my point of view to edit the article to get some balance. This would lead to edit wars, which again is illegal. I am trying to reach a diplomatic solution here. Adding a NPOV banner is such a little thing and even that has been strongly rejected by you guys... 14.2.56.81 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit continud) What strikes me in the discussions here is that the editors defending the Russian POV, casually collapse Asian (Malaysian), Eastern (Polish, Baltic, Ukranian) and those of many "western" countries into a single "western" POV; disregarding the number of different countries, and not even considering that there is truly free press exists in many of these countries, meaning that the press in many individual western countries maybe voicing opposing views even within a single country. These arguments would in my view lend more weight to reports in these presses (more countries, more diverse press for alsmost each individual country). But of course I will be accused of Russia bashing by stating this; as it is always easier to ridicule those you disagree with than reconsider your own assumptions. Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're just a hater. YOLO! -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that of all the different language Wikipedias I have looked at, the line of the Dutch Wikipedia is most like that of English Wikipedia, in almost completely ignoring the possibility that the rebels did not shoot down the plane. Could that be because after England, the Netherlands are the most enthusiastic ally of the US, of any Western European country? – Herzen (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, as the article notes, "the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch that read "Vergeef ons, Nederland" ("Forgive Us, Netherlands")." This indicates that there is a "more diverse press" (to use your phrase) in Russia than there is in the Netherlands. If you are able to provide an example from the mainstream Dutch press considering the possibility that the Ukrainian government shot MH17 down, please do so. – Herzen (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting that those arguing that other language Wikipedias give more credit to the Ukraine shot down MH17 theories ignore the Dutch language version that does not. This strongly suggests that the selection of Wiki's used as argument above may not be representative of all Wiki's indeed, but a handpicked collection with as only purpose to make a point. Arnoutf (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? What other Wikipedias write has absolutely zero influence on what we do here. Volunteer Marek  18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it has nor should have influence, mentioned cherry-picking is just one of the reasons why this is the case and why it should indeed be so. Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why what other Wikipedias do matters has been explained to you any number of times. Your IDONTHEAR has become very tiresome. But of course, IDONTHEAR is one of the essential tactics employed in order to OWN an article. – Herzen (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC) At the very least, please have the decency to stop making blanket assertions without making the least effort to back them up with some kind of argument. – Herzen (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we HEARD you alright. And we've explained to you why it doesn't matter and why you're wrong; simply put it would violate the policies of THIS Wikipedia. "I keep saying the same wrong thing over and over again and nobody's convinced" /= "they didn't hear me". Volunteer Marek  00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The above edit does not explain anything, and is a clear case of WP:POT. PS As arguments go. We should not use Wikipedia articles as sources per WP:RS. That logically also extends to other language wikipedias. Even if we look at other languages for inspiration, we should give a fair and balanced overview of what is happening there (ie at all other Wikipedias) and not just the few that do things you happen to like. The listed wikipedias are just one selection. Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for itself. Stickee (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not suggesting to use other Wikipedia articles as a source for this article. We are questioning why other theories have been mentioned in 4 other languages, but they cannot be mentioned here. Same event, same sources, same Wikipedia with the same editing rules. I am yet to see an explanation to this. Oh and please stop yelling and throwing out derogatory remarks - it is unprofessional and unnecessary. If you continue in this fashion we will ask senior management to ban your account. 14.2.34.249 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who this "we" is. Anyway, like pointed out above numerous times this is completely irrelevant and unimportant. And pleeeeeeaaaaassssseeeee go ask "senior management" to "ban your accounts". A bit of scrutiny on this talk page to put an end to these endless and tedious arguments (as well as probable socking and other forms of disruption) would be most welcome. Volunteer Marek  00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We is me, Herzen, HiLo and many others. I don't know where you got the idea of socking. If you think that I am Herzen then you are mistaken. Our writing styles are completely different. Once again you can't answer my questions or have a mature discussion so you start dropping false accusations and derogatory comments. I will not hesitate to contact senior management to ban YOUR account on violation of WP rules.14.2.34.249 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit of friendly advice: if you want to report someone, I suggest that you get a named Wikipedia account, instead of making contributions using an IP address. As I've observed before, I think that getting an account actually increases your privacy.

As for who "we" are: at least two editors who tried to get some NPOV into these articles dropped out after they were reported for administrative action, even though no permanent action was taken against them. One of those requests for administrative action was made by Volunteer Marek. – Herzen (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of final report

According to the secondary sources which I put into the introduction, the DSB said that the final report will be published "hopefully by the summer of 2015", and according to the government of Netherlands it "could be published in the summer of 2015". This has been globalized to "mid 2015", but this is misleading - mid 2015 would be June/July, but northern summer is from late July to late September, and the DSB and government statments look more like "not before summer 2015".

What about "in the third quarter of 2015" to fix this? --PM3 (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. To me, the word "by" in their statement kind of indicates that it will be before summer of 2015. Another possibility is to say "The Dutch Safety Board is now leading an investigation into the incident and a final report is expected within one year of the crash." (taken from the quote starting with "The Board aims to publish..." from [13]). But the "third quarter" also sounds okay. Stickee (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a small collection of quotes I found on the matter:

• "A final report by the board is not expected until mid 2015." Reuters, 9 Sept
• "The final ICAO report will likely be released in the second quarter of 2015." Aus Govt, 9 Sept
• "The final report will be published later, hopefully by the summer of 2015" DSB Spokesperson, 3 Sept
• "The Board aims to publish this report within one year of the date of the crash." DSB Spokesperson, 9 Sept

Overall they say the same thing, but the specifics are a little different. Stickee (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Australian, so I don't have a problem with the regionalism in the use of the word "summer" (can't we just assume that when European officials use the word "summer", they are talking about the northern hemisphere?), but I think that "mid 2015" is a vague term that can be stretched as far as April-September (the middle half of the year). By the way, when Stickee says "by" means "before", he is just wrong: OED defines "by" as "indicating the end of a time period". In this case, the time period is summer. – Herzen (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to put in my experience -- in the Netherlands we usually consider 1 July- 31 August summer. Schools end around July 1st and start around September 1st (universities always start in the week of September 1st). We do sometimes include June (but usually call that late spring) and September (but usually call that early fall) into summer. So your interpretation of late July - late September as summer may not be relevant everywhere. Arnoutf (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm that evil person who removed "summer of 2015". I'm Australian. Here, summer is December, January and February. So "summer of 2015", said in the voice of a global encyclopaedia, in an article of major interest to Australians, makes no sense. If the expression is to be included, it must be as a precise quotation from whoever said it, with full attribution and sourcing. It may even require a global translation to what it really means. If we can't do that because we can't agree on what "summer of 2015" means, then there is not much gained by including it at all as an indication of when the report is expected, is there? HiLo48 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course this is an indication of when the report is expected, and it's a valuable information for the readers. There is no doubt that they talked of northern hemisphere summer, because another statement said "within a year" - leaving open if this refered to 17 July 2014, 9 September 2014 or the date of the statement). Also there is no doubt that northern hemisphere summer starts in the middle of the year and lasts for a few month. If we can't agree on a handy description of this, I suggest to quote the sources

... is expected in "summer 2015"^[6][7]

and add a comment to the footnotes that this refers to nothern hemisphere summer, which begins in the middle of the year. --PM3 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If it needs clarification (and it will for many of the people likely to be interested in this article), that clarification needs to be with the text, not buried in footnotes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I might also draw attention to the second bullet point of MOS:SEASON. Stickee (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we believe the statement made by the Dutch Safety Board that it "expects to publish the final report within a year of the crash" [14]? Was that the last official statement or has it been superseded? If it hasn't we just have to wait until 17 July 2015? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, Wikipdia has no deadline. HiLo48 (talk)

That's no official statement. The WSJ does not say how it came to the assesment of "within a year of the crash on July 17", this may be based on an older DSB statement or on some third source. I think that this Dutch government statment of 20 September, which is already referenced in the article, is much more official an up to date. --PM3 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources beside WSJ, of course. One would expect an official estimate to get progressively more accurate and nearer. So what is the latest "official statement"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, am skeptical. The Dutch P.M. just said that the investigation is unlikely to resume before winter (in Dutch). This is for purely political reasons: "Rutte said that he had sought no contact with the separatists. 'The Netherlands do not recognize the separatists. Contact with the Netherlands would have brought us into an impossible relationship with Ukraine and Russia. We are a NATO country, it is inconceivable that we had sought contact.'" So because the Netherlands are a NATO country, they hamper the investigation into who murdered almost 200 of their citizens. (This is odd, by the way, since the Ukraine itself is in contact with the separatists, since it reached an accord with them in Minsk.)

Would anyone mind if I added something like "The Dutch P.M. said that the investigation is unlikely to resume before winter [another season!], because the Netherlands, being a NATO country, will not enter into contact with the separatists"? – Herzen (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• They tried to resume the on-site investigation during this month, and as to the Malaysian PM gave up twice because "shooting warnings were issued by unidentified parties". Malaysia has a pretty neutral position in the Ukaine conflict, therefore I think this statement ist trustworthy. You won't tell now that the NATO has troops at the crash site that threaten to shoot the investigators, will you?
• The final report may be completed without futher on-site investigation. The have also much off-site investigation work to do, see the DSB report on page 32.
• The last official statement I know of is the one of the Dutch foregin minister of 20 September that I already mentioned three times, here is the fourth: [15]
• I don't expect the date to become more accurate before mid 2015.

--PM3 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Malaysians are still saying that they intend to do further on-site investigation: “The focus is on entering the crash site to recover remains that are possibly still there and personal belongings of the victims. We would also be gathering evidence which shows any possible criminal act on the aircraft.”

I am not claiming that NATO has troops at the crash site, but Kiev is claiming that the rebels laid landmines to impede the investigation, thus impeding the investigation with that claim. The article you linked to states:

On Thursday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak met Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk at the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, but even Yatsenyuk remained non-committal on when investigators could re-enter eastern Ukraine before winter.

I am unaware of the Kiev regime ever honoring a promise that it has made. – Herzen (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The article that I linked starts with "Malaysia has expressed disappointment in Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels in the eastern city of Donetsk for not fulfilling their promise ...". Now please stop spamming each section in this talk page with offtopic and skewed information. This won't help at all in finding the right words for "summer 2015". --PM3 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Going back on topic. Mid 2015 seems ok to me. In my view mid can be vague enough to cover April-September as mentioned above, and creates no summer or winter differences in the hemispheres. Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's misleading, as the sources indicate that the report will not be published before July. Why not "third quarter of 2015"? That would fit the sources and be more precise. --PM3 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm there is some thing to that. However, 3rd quarter is more precise than summer which can be stretched from end of may till end of September, while 3rd quarter is July-August-Sept. So I am not sure that does not overinterpret. But a phrase like "by summer" can be construed as by (or even before -- cf. the assignment is to be finished by 2 june at the latest) the first day of summer (which may again be as early as 1 June) or before the end of summer (which may be as late as 30 Sept).

Perhaps phrase more like: It will take to well into 2015 before the final report is to be published or something like that. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, because the quotes Stickee got from the sources say the same thing, but specifies different variations on the date of the anticipated report. So I would recommend what you said because it's more time neutral. Sam.gov (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My favourite is still "third quarter", but "well into 2015" looks ok, too (after consulting the dictionary – as non-native speaker, I was not sure what exactly it means). --PM3 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What Malaysia didn't say

Where the discussion ended 10 days ago: (i) there is no evidence that Malaysia (Mr Najib) ever said that investigators believed the plane was brought down by a surface-to-air missile from an area controlled by pro-Russian separatists; and (ii) there is overwhelming evidence that it was very unlikely that he said this. But the wikipedia page still says "Malaysia said… investigators believed the plane was brought down by a surface-to-air missile from an area controlled by pro-Russian separatists." Thoughts anyone?Jen galbraith (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

[16]mh17 investigation - wsj and reuters reports - reuters, 7 sep - 'Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 broke apart over Ukraine due to impact from a large number of fragments, the Dutch Safety Board said on Tuesday, in a report that Malaysia's prime minister and several experts said suggested it was shot down from the ground.' -

"The preliminary report suggests that high energy objects penetrated the aircraft and led it to break up midair," Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said in a statement. "This leads to the strong suspicion that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigative work is needed before we can be certain," he added. Sayerslle (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that article, it's a much better source to link to. It gives a good basis from which we can correct the article, which (as it stands) is still incorrect. Based on your link, we can correct the text to the following: "Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "pretty conclusive" and they strongly suspect that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigation is needed to be certain".Jen galbraith (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed text does not represent what the prime minister said. He said that more evidence is desirable in order to prosecute a criminal case. This is always true, in any criminal case (you can never have too much evidence). Let's not use it to imply more uncertainty than there actually is. After all, the prime minister also said reports are "pretty conclusive". My bad, I see that this is a different quote from the PM, not the one that we were previously discussing from the joint press conference with Abbott. Geogene (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Geogene (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The improvement is noted. Given some apparently conflicting quotations, I did a little investigation to reveal that the statements attributed to Mr Najib come from two sources: (i) the press conference with Abbott; and (ii) a blog entry on his own blog, (this was news to me). Fortunately the press conference is available for anyone to watch (thanks youtube), and the blog entry can also be found. Original research I know (so shoot me - why let the truth get in the way of a good story?). Fortunately however, there is an abundance of RS statements in clearly attributed to Mr Najib which are consistent with what he ACTUALLY said, so we can choose from these as necessary.

For example, there are RS statements consistent with the following: “First of all, we do have the intelligence reports as to what happened to MH17, and the intelligence reports are pretty conclusive. But what we do need to do next is to assemble the physical evidence, evidence that can be brought to the courts when the time comes, so that it will be proven beyond any doubt that the plane was shot down, was shot down by heavy missile, and this has to be proven in a court of law” (press conference, verbatim); and “This leads to the strong suspicion that a surface to air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigative work is needed before we can be certain” (Mr Najib's blog).

I can find NO RS statements clearly attributed to Najib (NOR do these appear in either his speech or the press conference) referring to either: (i) what he thought investigators believed; (ii) where he though the missile was shot from; or (iii) any reference to pro-Russian separatists. So the article (as it stands) is wrong, and this phrase should be removed from the article.

No doubt Mr Najib will make more comments in the future. Until then, for the sake of truth (!) can we please change the article to be consistent with what Mr Najib ACTUALLY said. For example: "Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "pretty conclusive" and they strongly suspect that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigation is needed to be certain.”Jen galbraith (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"[Mr Najib] said the evidence, which points to Russian-backed rebels shooting the passenger plane down, was “pretty conclusive” but that they needed to gather proof to use in a court of law." ([17]). Stickee (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So this is almost to the point where the conversation got to about two weeks ago. As noted then, the news.com.au article doesn’t directly attribute the comment to Mr Najib. Nevertheless, there is a some ambiguity in the phrase, so let’s pretend for the moment that someone chooses to infer that news.com.au claims this to be a quote from Mr Najib. That someone is left with three alternatives: (a) sloppy journalism; (b) unfortunate editing by a tertiary source internet news service; or (c) The news.com.au “journalist” had a worldwide exclusive scoop, information not in Mr Najib’s blog, not said in press conference (which is what the news.com.au article is referring to), and yet (quite modestly) he chose to bury this bombshell in the middle of the article, in what is best an ambiguous phrase, rather than directly attributing this to Mr Najib. So, (a), (b) or (c)?Jen galbraith (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Off-Wiki "Fan Page"

If anybody's interested, I've discovered that an obscure wiki has an "article" devoted to us, the editors of this page, complete with a ranking system in which we're assigned scores. For the record, I do know who is responsible and it will inevitably make me much less tolerant of his arguments here. Geogene (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How intriguing. By all means send me a link. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Emailed you. Stickee (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Awww, I only scored a 1. But great to see Brian scoring a 5. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The air-to-air missile version

As was already pointed out, some of the independent experts, including a retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko and Robert Parry, support the version of an air-to-air missile, thus contradicting the claims of Russian or separatist involvement. As of now, the article looks pretty unbalanced, making it seem like there are no hypotheses other than "the Russians/separatists did it". Buzz105 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

what is anderweltonline and nst.com - are they reliable sources? unless their views are considered noteworthy and picked up by RS I think they are fringe. certainly Robert parry is not any kind of 'independent expert' is he? - he is just the contemporary version of the journalists who propagandized for stalin in the 1930s, if its Syria or Ukraine he takes up Putins cause - - Robert parrys folly - his views are fringe on this for sure I reckon- wp doesn't have to reflect the whole range of pro-putin stories - just reflect the reportage in RS. - that's my understanding anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, you're correct in your judgement that it's fringe. Both of those links provide are based upon the website GlobalResearch (Peter Haisenko, Robert Parry), a conspiracy website (eg 9/11 Truth in 2014: Is a Breakthrough Possible?). Stickee (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

oh , global research is Michel Chossudovsky isn't it - a favourite of RussiaToday for all too apparent reasons - this is Robert Parry - 'According to a source briefed on the tentative findings, the soldiers manning the battery appeared to be wearing Ukrainian uniforms and may have been drinking, since what looked like beer bottles were scattered around the site.But the source added that the information was still incomplete and the analysts did not rule out the possibility of rebel responsibility.' - this is Parry and not onion.comSayerslle (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Haisenko's doesn't originally come from GlobalResearch, GlobalResearch just reposted it later (which isn't indicative of anything, since GR collects all sorts of "alternative theories" - both credible and incredible ones). There's also this interview by Stephen Cohen, who also disagrees with the mainstream version of events. By the way, I wonder why the allegation of the source being pro-Russian automatically makes it unreliable, and the Ukrainian/pro-Ukrainian sources are treated as genuine. In this conflict, Ukraine is as much a biased side as Kremlin is (perhaps even more so, since the crash happened on its territory, and Putin is only indirectly connected to this - through his alleged support of separatists). Buzz105 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a question, why would a retired (=out of date) civilian (=no professional relation to any kind of weapons or their impact) pilot be an expert on this? Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Forget it. Haisenko is an expert on everything, and has written a lot on that platform about the negative effects of globalization and the numerous wrongdoings of the US in the past. Recently he defended the russian seizure of crimea as be beeing legal - at least compared to what the US and UK have done in the past. And the preliminary report of the DSB on the crash is, naturally, concealing something...... [18] And it is possible that the evil henchman of the "Kiev Maidan government" & "the West" have something to do with it. Shivering. Alexpl (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No they are not reliable. We already turned that first special link down on the german wp few weeks ago, as representing a private blog. It actually supports an early version of the air-to-air gunfire theory, having no real idea how a radar guided SAM really works. The impact of early speculations on the corresponding articles of the Wikipedia (SU25, BUK M1, a.o.) may be interesting for researchers, but I see no use for us. Alexpl (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Buzz105 the newsweek piece starts with - Cohen 'who is a longtime defender of Russia and Putin' - and then he says putin lacked a motive - but I think the gist of most reportage is that it was a mistake anyhow, so that's irrelevant point - and then he says 'it isn't clear the rebels had the means ' - so, you know, what is his opinion worth? - its from July 18 so has been well superseded anyhow by RS reportage that followed in the weeks afterwards - Cohens knee-jerk 'Putin is innocent of everything' is not very interesting - maybe you just think it is important opinion because it tells you what you want to hearSayerslle (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There are enough of secondary sources for Haisenko and Parry - [19] (Mladina), [20] (Radiotelevizija Slovenija), [21] (Press TV), [22] (New Straits Times) - but this is not about an air-to-air missile but a shootdown by fighter plane cannons. --PM3 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

For an air-to-air missile shootdown theory, see Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 16#Report by Russian Engineers Union, full version. Technical point of view.. It's crap, but there are sufficient secondary sources for that, too. --PM3 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alexpl: I agree to your judgement on Haisenko. However, when it comes to decribing theories and opinions in the article, our judgements are irrelevant. We have to stick to secondary sources and reproduce what they say. The only point here is if a theory got enough coverage to be included in the article or not. --PM3 (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Archives of Tjibbe Joustra presentation on MH17 original report

• http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/albums/1155/216a920b9a9cprem-en-small-1.mp4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6T0Az2UDf
• http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/albums/1154/41a761f8e2e3prem-nl-small-1.mp4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6T0B34S3p

These archives were made so that the source materials are preserved. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigation timeline

The second paragraph of the "investigation" section is somewhat confused. What really happend after the Crash:

• The NBAAI started an investigation on July 18. [23]
• The NBAAI invited international accident investigation organziations to participate, among other the DSB (see lat but one sentence of the paragraph) and the ICAO [24].
• The international team started on- and offsite investigation. [25]
• The NBAAI delegated the investigation to the DSB (last sentence of the paragraph), which heads an international team of 24 persons of seven countries (second sentence).

--PM3 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Does it necessarily need to be chronological? As it stands, the paragraph opens by saying the most important thing (ie: that it's be investigated by the countries), then it goes on to explain how that happened (ie: that the NBAAI asked the DSB). Is it factually inaccurate at the moment? Stickee (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm ... it is not directly inaccurate, but I think it's misleading. I will try to do a little clarificatin to fix this, without changing the order. --PM3 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added some information to the "Investigation" section, so that it is clear to the reader what happend when. Now I suggest to move the two blackbox paragraphs up to become the second and third paragraph of the section, then things will be much better ordered. --PM3 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The changes look good. Although is there an equivalent English language source for the Die Zeit article? English sources are preferred when they're available, and I'm pretty sure there would be plenty. For the black boxes re-ordering: sounds good to me. Could they perhaps be merged into a single paragraph even, since the first paragraph is quite short? Stickee (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed that.

There is one sentence left which does not fit: A senior US administration official reported to ABC News that FBI and NTSB officials were poised to head to Ukraine to advise the investigation.[110] This is a very vaguge information, someone unnamed said that someone else intends to join the investigators in Ukraine somewhen. I propose to remove this, it's a pointless newsticker snippet. --PM3 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Mined crash site?

This does not make sense:

On 30 July, it was reported by a Ukrainian representative that pro-Russian rebels had mined approaches to the crash site and pulled heavy artillery around, making further work by international experts impossible.[108]

On 6 August, the investigation team left the crash site ...

If further work was made impossible, how could they continue to work until 6 August? I suggest to remove the first sentence, as the report of this representative contradicts the facts and I am not aware of any confirmations of this claim. --PM3 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this from AFP: "Journalists turned into a nearby village to ask if there was another way round: "Sorry, but it is maybe mined," a local man said of the only other road." ([26]). Stickee (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A local man telling a journalist that a road may be mined hardly supports the assertion in question. Also, your comment doesn't address the time discrepancy. – Herzen (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I second that. Ukrainian officials continually confabulate; it is difficult to keep track of all their lies. Also, censor.net.ua is a notoriously unreliable source, worse even than maidanpr (which openly advocates nuclear terrorist acts against Russians). It should never be used. – Herzen (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: As the second part of the Ukrainian representative's claim is obviously wrong, and I am not aware of any confirmation on separatists mining the area, I think we should at least present it a bit more cautios, like: On 30 July, a Ukrainian representative claimed that pro-Russian rebels had mined approaches to the crash site and pulled heavy artillery around, making further work by international experts impossible. --PM3 (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Be careful of MOS:CLAIM (using the word "claim" to cast doubt). Stickee (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, you have a rule for everything. Next try: On 30 July, a Ukrainian representative said that pro-Russian rebels had mined approaches to the crash site and pulled heavy artillery around. – removing the words which obviously contradict the facts, so I need not to MOS:CLAIM them. :) --PM3 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, I just wanted to avoid opening these two cans of worms again :P Stickee (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: You haven't replied to my observation that there is no question that censor.net.ua is not a reliable source. Its only reason for existing is to dish out anti-Russian propaganda: take a look at the English version. For example, look at this: "The terrorists do not let the observers to the territory they control." But the OSCE itself reports that the rebels give it access to territory they control. censor.net.ua has a pattern of putting out primitive, delirious anti-rebel propaganda falsely claiming the rebels restrict access to international investigators and observers.

Secondly, the idea that the rebels would mine access paths to the crash site is crazy. Rebels provided access to international investigators from the very beginning; the rebels complained that the Kiev government kept investigators from coming to the crash site for over a week. Since this claim is extraordinary, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. What we have here is one source of abysmally low quality. – Herzen (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of other sources reporting the same statements: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Stickee (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, would you mind substituting at least two reputable Western sources for this one Ukrainian propaganda newsblog, since you are making edits to this part of the article? – Herzen (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)