Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Neutrality

This Article is not Neutral

Having never edited an article or the Talk section before, I'm relying on your good will to bear with my formatting errors. I've been following this article and especially the informative Talk section since the early days following the downing of MH17. It has been a controversial article since day 1, because the topic is very clearly influenced by political considerations, which do seem to be winning out on control of the article content.

-

However, there are other considerations which should outweigh mere political expedience, for example 1) Impartiality, objectivity and neutrality, 2) reputation of Wikipedia and it's editors and 3) due consideration to the justice for victims of MH17, their relatives and all the other current and future air passengers, who would prefer to see objective and impartial information. Therefore please welcome my comment as feedback from one of your readers!

-

Here are some comments which convince me that the article (and hence perhaps it's editors?) are NOT neutral:-

-

* 1) The article reads like the editors decided on the story line and then selected the sources to back up their version, and gave prominence to those sources which they preferred to see. For example, the last sentence of the Aftermath section "According to the Ukraine Security Council, preliminary information indicated that the missiles came from Russia". Another example is the last sentence of the Cause of Crash section "According to Ostanin, the markings on the specific launcher suspected of being used to shoot MH17, together with lorry registration plates suggest that it belongs to 53rd Kursk Brigade of Russian anti-aircraft defence troops.", the last sentence of reactions section where a Russian poet proclaims mea culpa "A controversial political poem on the subject of the disaster, "Requiem for MH-17" by Andrei Orlov, was broadcast on liberal Russian media outlets soon after the disaster.", etc. I could go on. The first and last sentences are more noteworthy than the rest of the body, and the last sentences in particular can carry the weight of a formal conclusion.

-

* 2) A whole section is devoted to "Russian Media Coverage", but as there are no equivalent Sections on UK media Coverage, US media Coverage, Netherlands Media Coverage, Ukranian Media Coverage, etc., and these countries media coverage is NOT excluded from the article, it is clear that the intention is to single out Russian media as being different and somehow less credible from the other media sources. Indeed, the article actually says so in the first paragraph, and immediately quotes a warning by an unnamed US official of Russian manipulation. Instead of actually stating what the Russian media says about the downing of MH17, majority of the section ignores what Russian media actually says, and instead selects only those sources which serve to reinforce the idea that Russian media coverage is manipulated, e.g. Sarah Forth, Russian liberal opposition, establishing links of ownership, e.g. "REN TV is part of the National Media Group (NMG) controlled by Bank Rossiya, whose largest shareholder, Yuriy Kovalchuk, is said to be a close associate of President Vladimir Putin". Doesn't it strike you as laughable to have to resort to a quote like that? If I said that I have an influence over the BBC editorial content because I shook the hand of a man who was a friend of a man who was the senior partner in the firm of accountants who audit BBC, wouldn't you find it ridiculous? I am quite sure that there many such links that could be made linking anyone in the world to anyone else in the world. This whole section strikes me as ridiculous and a blatant attempt at manipulating the Wikipedia reader. The editors are truly scraping the barrel!

-

* 3) The entire article is interspersed by references to BUK, in almost every section, from the introduction to the references, which is odd considering that almost a month ago Bundestag responded to a question from German MPs where it states that NATO AWACS identified signals from SA-3 surface to air missiles and a 3rd unidentified signal. No BUK! Further they go on to say that the full details of the answer will be kept secret for reasons of comprimising technical info of foreign intelligence services. Here's the link "http://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/2014_09/-/329982" dated 19 Sept. Suddenly, all those references to sightings of BUK in rebel areas, BUK being clandestinely taken back across Russian border, intercepted phonecalls about ownership of BUK, etc. etc. become irrelevant to the article, except under the heading of "Misdirection", which alas doesn't exist in this article. The entire tone of the article hinges on BUK surface to air missile being the corpus delicti, and the entire article's credibility falls with that simple statement from Bundestag, backed up by absence of evidence in the more cautious Netherlands preliminary report. Wikipedia editors have been recklessly careless (or prejudiced) in this instance.

-

* 4) Inadequate citation of information which is published in the Dutch Safety Board's Preliminary report indicates a lack of professionalism at best, and deliberate ommission at worst on the part of the editors. The report, which is probably the best source which we have at the moment is poorly covered, the link in references section doesn't work (Here it is for those who want it - http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf) and the following extracts from the report should feature VERY prominently in the "Preliminary Report" section.

-

- Page 23 - "Figure 8: Forward fuselage skin from below the left cockpit window containing numerous small holes and indentations (above); enlarged image of the right upper corner of this skin (below) showing puncture holes (orange arrow) and pitting (red arrow)."

- Page 24 - "Around 1.7 km north of the position where the cockpit window structure was found, was a section of the cockpit roof also showing holes indicating penetration from outside (figure 9)."

- Page 25 - "Puncture holes identified in images of the cockpit floor suggested that small objects entered from above the level of the cockpit floor (figure 10)"

- State that the report does not once use the word "missile".

.

- There is no need to interpret these findings, simply include them. It's clear to anyone with the basic grasp of English that projectiles entered the cockpit from above, through the roof of the cockpit, exited through the floor of the cockpit, and there were additional projectiles from below the cockpit windows. Wikipedia readers can draw their own conclusions. Mine is that some of the projectiles came from above the cockpit, while others came from below left. Suddenly, a single blast from a surface to air missile appears less likely (unless the plane was travelling upside down). Also, it appears that there must have been at least two sources of projectiles (unless the plane was already spinning faster than the projectiles from an exploding missile could travel - in which case, what caused it to do that?).

-

- * 5) Finally, by deleting the Talk section "This Article seems to be one sided" since yesterday, the current editors have removed the last saving grace, just about the only merit in this article which showed that Wikipedia at least tries to be neutral and objective. What on earth possesed the editors to remove the very pertinent comments and criticism raised in that section? It is this which prompted me to register and publish these comments. By removing this perfectly valid Talk section, the editors made their intentions clear.

-

My recommendations would be as follows -

-

A. To the Administrators of Wikipedia: The Editors of this article appear to have highly suspect motivation which is not conducive to the good reputation of Wikipedia nor to it's stated objectives of neutrality and impartiality. It is time to get involved and appoint replacement editors who are able to exercise self-discipline in promoting Wikipedia and it's fundamental principles.

.

B. To the (hopefully competent future) editors of this article, I suggest that you start again, structuring the article appropriately. For example, as the cause is not known, create a section covering (1) the known information (e.g. from the Dutch Safety Board's Preliminary report and from all the other official sources, e.g. Malaysian Airlines, etc. Also create separate Sections on Analysis and Speculation, listing the different causes proposed by various parties (e.g. BUK missile hit, on board bomb, air to air missile, etc.) and different responsible parties (e.g. rebels, Ukraninan State, Ukraninan militias, Russians, etc), and in each section, list the organisations (governments and media) who subscribe, or predominantly publish statements which support that particular view. That should provide the Wikipedia reader with a neutral view of what the different entities are stating (e.g. US State Department, BBC, RT, whoever. By having such clear attribution of views and coverage, it will eventually become possible for the public to see how accurate or otherwise these sources have been, when eventually the full story comes to light. It may have the added benefit of encouraging these various sources to think twice before making hasty and rash statements.

.

C. To the current editor: I don't know whether your intentions are to skew this article in favour of a storyboard which you have come to believe in, or whether you are overworked, stubborn and therefore very reckless, but either way, consider that the neutrality of this article is abjectly compromised through your efforts so far and that you are not doing any favours to yourself, your cause or to Wikipedia. Either learn - and quickly - to do the job of editing with integrity and care, or give up the role to someone more skilled and self-disciplined.

.

- Good luck! Tennispompom (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re 1: Many editors want to present conclusions, that the official investigation has not yet yielded. That will indeed results in a storyline that may not be factual. This has indeed been a problem for long.

Re 2: There is indeed a group of editors who demand that the Russian media receives as much attention as that of "the western" countries, where the Western countries are the rest of the world . In fact Russia is only one of the about 200 countries in the world, and according to themselves Russia is in no way involved in this incident in any way so their media reporting should not count for more than that of any other uninvolved country. There are reasons to be wary of Russian media, as (like Ukranian media for that matter) the Freedom of the press in Russia is considered to be in a difficult position. The only way to keep control over Russian media to be everywhere was to create a special section for these media. Far from ideal indeed.

Re 3: BUK is still one of the theories, but as long as official investigation is not finished we should probably downscale that very much.

Re 4: I fully agree with you we should not over-interpret the preliminary report. Oddly, that is exactly what you yourself are doing in your post.

Re 5: It was not deleted, but moved to an archive as it is impossible to keep discussions on this page forever due to the sheer size of discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf, thanks for moving my comment to the end of the section, I'm not familiar with the conventions, so it's much appreciated. Let me respond to your replies in turn:

Re 1: You acknowledge it to be a problem, but that is no reason to stop trying to distinguish between fact and speculation/theory. So what are you going to do about it? This article is one of the worst examples I've seen.

.

Re 2: Three points here:

First, it is clear that Russia is very much involved by virtue of being one of the "accused", as numerous references point out. Had the article made no mention of Russia, one could argue that they are not involved, but that is not the case, the article is full of references to Russia's involvement.

Secondly, even though you say just now that Russia is not involved, you go on to say that "their media reporting should not count for more than that of any other uninvolved country", and yet the article clearly gives Russian media coverage undue prominence by giving them an entire Section. Therefore, please do as I recommend, either give a similar neutral prominence (their own section) to other countries media views, e.g. Ukraine media Coverage, Malaysian media Coverage, etc., etc. or restructure the Media coverage Section so as to avoid isolating any one country.

Thirdly, I really don't know which geographic part of the world you come from, but your assumption that Russia and possibly Ukraine, are the only unreliable press, is frankly naive, sorry to have to say so. I would guess that you're not from the UK, otherwise you would know about the recent scandals with the British press and media, journalists in cahoots with politicians, inventing stories, publishing lies, breaking the law, etc., and all these awful acts done by the highest echelons of the British establishment (just Google the Leveson Enquiry if you haven't heard of it). In fact I'm pretty sure that there is no country for whom one can give a blanket statement of reliability, or indeed unreliability. There are very few countries who don't have an axe to grind on this subject, most of them have an interest in a particular outcome, US, The Netherlands, Ukraine, Germany, all of Europe, I would guess. Perhaps China could be said to be truly neutral on the subject, but I haven't seen any references in the article to what the Chinese papers say on this topic.

-

The way to deal with these risks to reliability is simple - add a section on Interests per country. MH17 tragedy has been the trigger and/or pretext (whichever you prefer) for a new cold war, sanctions on Russia, Europe and US, and it shouldn't be too difficult to include the various States Interests in the "Aftermath" Section. While we are on this topic, it might not be a bad idea to include a new Section on reasons why MH17 was shot down - even though nothing is known about it at the moment, because we don't know who/how yet, a listing of who gains / loses from initiating such an action could shed light on the matter. Can you do that please?

.

Re 3: I am by no means advocating the removal or downscaling on the content on BUK, I find it very telling in fact, as it shows just how far the various States have gone in providing evidence of a Theory which increasingly looks to be incorrect. My recommendation would be that all the BUK comments should be collected together in a single section on the BUK Theory (which is what it currently is), as long as other Theories are also listed and backed up by citations.

-

Re 4: You've misunderstood my point completely, please read my comment again. My point was that the Article should copiously cite the Dutch Safety Board's Preliminary Report, which is one of the very few authoritative sources currently available to us, by including quotes directly from it. I also said that it is unnecessary to provide an interpretation of the findings, because Wikipedia readers will be able to come-up with their own conclusion. Therefore please beef up the section on the Preliminary report, include the extracts from the Report which I have provided, and - if copyright doesn't prevent it, inclusion of the accompanying pictures from the same report would be a nice touch, and would add credibility to the Article.

-

Re 5: Thank you - noted. How do I find it again? I'd love a re-read.

-

Also, as you have lots of experience on editing, please let me know how to insert a blank line for readability, this would be much appreciated.

Tennispompom (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re point 1-4 - I to some extent agree with your suggestion; and I would like to see speculation from all sides to be largely removed. However, this article is a bit of a wasps nest as there are many editors who all want their own pet theory / idea / opinion in. I appear to be one of a small minority that wants to remove the contentious stuff. There is a lot of discussion about changes, but sadly little happens. That is also why we need to archive so much. The Wikipedia model is a bit of a consensus seeking thing that is difficult to keep on track in many cases.

PS note that I do not say UK (or any other press) is necessarily high quality press, I was referring to freedom of press (i.e. their freedom to report what they want without fear for legal, financial or physical attack).

Re 5 - In the yellowish top box you will see a line that sais: Archive 1......18. By clicking a number you can access the archives. But be warned they are almost endless.

No very easy to add lines for readability in talk, especially when indented. In articles space (non indented) you can use </br>. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of this is tl;dr, although I actually made an attempt. But this is mostly the same ol', same ol'. To repeat, for the thousandth time. We follow what reliable sources say. If you don't agree with the reliable sources, if you want to insert your own conclusions based on your own research and interpretation, if you think that "neutral" means "present all sides of the story" (including wacky conspiracy theory sides), then Wikipedia isn't a place for you. There are other outlets for these kinds of endeavors, but an encyclopedia ain't it. Volunteer Marek  18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that User talk:Tennispompom has never before contributed and then today out of the blue contributes about 16kB to this talk-page (including this tirade "To the current editor: I don't know whether your intentions are to skew this article in favour of a storyboard which you have come to believe in, or whether you are overworked, stubborn and therefore very reckless, but either way, consider that the neutrality of this article is abjectly compromised through your efforts so far and that you are not doing any favours to yourself, your cause or to Wikipedia. Either learn - and quickly - to do the job of editing with integrity and care, or give up the role to someone more skilled and self-disciplined"), it must confess I smell yet another propagandist sockpuppet. Lklundin (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This personal attack against a new user flies in the face of Wiki policy. Feel free to report a sock puppet investigation in an appropriate admin place. This is not the right place for it. Shame on you! USchick (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have welcomed user:Tennispompom and exchanged some talk on their talk page. At this stage I have seen nothing that would not be new editor behavior. So please assume good faith and don't bite the newcomer. Arnoutf (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Lklundin (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Volunteer Marek. Do I detect irritation in your tone? Being forced to repeat "same old stuff a thousand times", "Wikipedia isn't the place for me", "an encyclopedia ain't it"? Here's my first ever comment on Wikipedia, and already you are suggesting that I should leave and go elsewhere? Wow! I couldn't have got a worse reaction if I'd stuck a thorn in your side.

Please calm down and and address my comments in a calm and rational manner. Don't put words in my mouth, be civil and don't assume that you have any more rights to make comments than anyone else, including me. Then we will get along just fine and get on with the business of creating a neutral article.

Please read my comments again and address them, even if you think that similar comments have been raised before. This is an evolving story, information is becoming available all the time, and comments need to be reconsidered rationally and in light of new info / events. Remember that centuries ago, most people thought that the earth was flat, but as evidence came out supporting a different view, the story-line was reversed and a lot of very authoritative people ended up with egg on their face. The way to avoid the egg on face fate in the future is to be much more cautious in making summary assumptions about who is reliable and who is not, and present the information and the source based on the merits of the argument / quote, for example in the same way that Members of Parliament are required to declare their interests in a particular discussion topic.

If you don't counter my arguments with rational counter-arguments (i.e. don't attack me personally and stop telling me to go away), then you are not doing justice to your own point of view. Therefore please have another go, and respond to my comments / suggestions with rational arguments, I'll stand by and wait for you to reply.

Hi Lklundin. I don't know what a sockpuppet is - does it mean someone who has a different view? Please explain. In any case, your sense of smell has little relevance here, especially when you go on to suggest that I stink! LOL! But no harm done, I'm not offended. I've raised what I think are valid points, please do me the courtesy of replying in kind.

Hi Arnoutf and USchick, thanks for the defence. I am new, and may well inadvertently break a rule, if so, please tell me on my user page, I'm more than willing to learn.

Tennispompom (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Look, my yearly quota of "good faith" has been pretty much exhausted, in dealing with all kinds of sketchy accounts which have been running around all these articles. For example, I find it very hard to believe that someone, even someone who's never edited Wikipedia before, doesn't know what a "sockpuppet" is, since that's a general internet term, not Wikipedia specific. That claim right there - that you say you don't know what a sockpuppet is - just raises all kinds of flags and sets off alarm bells because it *looks* like someone trying to pretend a little too hard to be newbie.

But fine. Let me assume good faith. You're a new account. Then the first thing to do is read WP:NPOV. A lot of people come away from reading that with the wrong impressions though - they think "well obviously my opinion is neutral, hence whatever I do is NPOV". So just to be clear, you should also read Reliable Sources and No Original Research. It's those two which make it clear what NPOV involves. Basically, anything you want to put into the article must be based on verifiable, secondary, reliable, sources, or it's a no go. It's the continual and persistent ignoring of (whether purposeful or not) of these Wikipedia policies by some editors that causes these endless conversations, and leads to much irritation. It is really is tiresome to have to repeat the same thing a hundred times. Volunteer Marek  21:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Tennispompom: You are certainly laboring to take time away from wikipedians to explain general topics. Considering my already stated opinion, I will not bite and I will suggest others to also not let themselves get distracted by the friendly requests for general information. Lklundin (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Volunteer Marek, just because your "yearly quota of good faith has been exhausted", is no reason to take it out on me. For someone who makes a habit of citing Wikipedia rules, I'm surprised that you are breaking three out of four instructions printed on top of this Talk page in the big orange box: 1) Be polite, and welcoming to new users, 2) Assume good faith and 3) Avoid personal attacks. Can you do that? If not, then proceed to Instruction No.4.

The same goes for you, Lklundin, no one asked you to count the words or kB in my comment, you are wasting your time all by yourself. Stick to responding to the issues I raised (see above), avoid personal attacks on me and time will be less of a problem for you.

Tennispompom (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please make some kind of effort to avoid a battleground attitude. And since when has it become allowable to assume bad faith on the part of other Wikipedians? Also, deleting my comment from your Talk page, in which I asked you not to personalize this content dispute by claiming in your edit summary that my putting a POV tag on this article is "Herzen's POV push", when there are plenty of other editors besides me who think this article is biased, is considered to be bad etiquette. – Herzen (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For a brief moment I thought I was being addressed here but that cannot be since I have not edited my Talk page in 7 years. Lklundin (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I was addressing you. That was a mistake on my part. I made the same comment on your Talk page and that of another user, and that other user deleted my comment from his Talk page. In my Alerts, your revert of my adding a POV tag to this article came up next to his revert of my comment on his Talk page, so, since I didn't look carefully at your revert, I concluded that you had reverted my comment on your Talk page, too. You have my apologies. But your copy-pasting other editors' edit summaries accusing an editor of POV-pushing is not conducive to civility. – Herzen (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course this article is not neutral. It reflects the majority POV of English-speakers, mostly from the US, UK and Autralia, which represents a one-sided view of this topic. Regarding the UK and Australia, my impression even is that the public opinion on this topic is extremly biased. You can't change that, that is how Wikipedia works. It is always biased by the POV of the language-specific mainstream. --PM3 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"language-specific mainstream". Yeah right. We dont have dozens of state media stations spreading the same disinformation 24/7 in hundreds of publications and several languages. Sorry for that. I would like to see the people, who build their opinion on MH-17 by russian state media only, to feel more represented in Wikipedia... It would be so much easier. Just look at the russian WP article concerning the "Conflict in Ukraine". It´s brilliant and based on so many different sources... Alexpl (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if all of Wikipedia's editors would 'build their opinion on MH-17 by russian state media only' then we would have to endure delusional fringe theories about a SU-25 able to fly well above 10km. We would in fact all be Winston Smith. So better to not export the Russian propaganda. Lklundin (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Please don't be so defeatist. This article being biased is not inevitable. The only reason it is biased is that some editors make no effort to avoid systemic bias, and that other editors simply don't have the time to engage in the herculean task of removing the bias from this article. Also, the problem is not just that the primary language of most editors is English. For example, your main WP is the German one, and yet you have the same bias on MH17 as do most people in the Anglosphere. – Herzen (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If I had, I wouldn't agree that this article is biased. --PM3 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You got me there. But since this Talk section is about the bias in the article, we have a new editor who may make an effort to reduce the bias, and you can be viewed as having NPOV on mh17, since you, unlike myself, are very dismissive of the prevailing Russian view, it would be nice if you described what you see as the bias in this article, in case some editors make a significant effort to improve it. – Herzen (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tennispompom&diff=prev&oldid=629361539 - an intresting example of POV canvassing by Herzen.--Galassi (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Coaching a new editor is not canvassing. But stalking and tracking is considered WP:HOUNDING. USchick (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Who, exactly, is this 'new editor' being hounded, USchick? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is really getting out of control. The only way I can read your comment is that you are alleging that Tennispompom is a sockpuppet. So who do you think he is a sockpuppet of? Did you look at his talk page? If he is a sockpuppet, he is certainly the most refined one that I have ever seen, since he is quiet good at feigning being a newbie to WP editing. – Herzen (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Iryna Harpy, The new editor is User talk:Tennispompom. This new editor brought up concerns about the article and instead of addressing the concerns, experienced editors have attacked this new editor with sock puppet accusations and now accuse Herzen of canvassing on Tennispompom's page. Very little attention has been given to the actual concerns brought up by Tennispompom. USchick (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Don't make assumptions. I haven't checked in on this article for some time and it's somewhat cluttered with recent comments.

@USchick: Thanks for the clarification. I might be able to make some sort of headway as to what the disputes are about without spending a whole day trying to sort through the arguments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: it would be nice if you described what you see as the bias in this article – see [1]. --PM3 (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. However, I disagree with you about this POV in the article being inevitable. Since we live in a global society, with English versions of news sources of many non-Anglophone societies readily readily available on the Web, and with automatic translators such as those of Google and Yandex being available, there really is no excuse for English Wikipedia articles representing the point of view of the US government more than they represent, for example, that of the Russian government. That only happens because many editors do not take their obligation to avoid systemic bias seriously. – Herzen (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How about the fact that there is no evidence to support the US accusation against Russia? John Kerry claims there's "overwhelming evidence," but even after a $30 million reward was offered, the largest reward ever, there is still no evidence. Source: IBT [2]. Reliable sources report that there is no evidence, like NBC [3], but those sources are ignored because editors like to cherry pick sources. The International Air Transport Association is begging for information so they can protect civilian planes, and they are ignored also [4]. Senior U.S. Intelligence Officers beg for evidence [5], but no evidence appears, only wild accusations. USchick (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I wonder if those who are so certain the Russians did it can remember when they first decided that. Was it it before they actually saw any of the "evidence"? The fact that all this happened right in the middle of a long fought propaganda war makes opinions a very dangerous thing. To anticipate possible inevitable responses, I have no idea who did it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not many people are convinced the Russian Federation actually did it. But many think they are responsible, having created the circumstances by starting that war. It doesnt seem to hard to understand that difference. Alexpl (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"starting that war" eh? Right. Do you think anyone might have a different perspective on that? The certainty in some peoples' minds is what bothers me the most here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Everybody who consumed russian federation state media prior to the armed conflict, while feeling to be extensively informed by them at the same time. The rest watched and read those media in ascending horror, knowing exactly what would happen. And the worst thing is, that they cant take that shit back... Alexpl (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be nice if new users would familiarize themselves with the POV policy WP:NPOV before flinging accusations. The article is neutral and reflects the bulk of the sources. Geogene (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No matter how often some editors repeat the claim that this article is neutral, the article does not become neutral just because some editors claim it is. And there are plenty of old users who think this article is biased. I guess I have to repeat this once more, because some editors just don't hear: this article is overrun with systemic bias. To quote from the policy page of that name:

The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, but it 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.

The theory that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet is an underrepresented topic. Meanwhile, the theory presented in English Wikipedia is absurd on the face of it, because (1) the rebels have no need for Buk missile systems, so it is highly unlikely that Russia would have given them one, whereas the Ukrainian military has many Buk missile systems, so NPOV would lead to the conclusion that if a Buk missile shot down MH17, it was shot down by Ukraine; (2) nobody has claimed that the rebels have anything but a Buk missile launcher, yet a Buk command and control unit and a Buk primary radar unit would have been required to shoot down MH17; Ukraine has these units but the rebels don't; (3) nobody saw or heard a Buk missile being launched, a virtual impossibility if such a missile had indeed been launched; (4) the rebels had absolutely no motive for shooting down MH17, whereas Kiev most certainly did; (5) unlike the case with MH370, which Western media compulsively pursued for months, Western media quickly lost all interest in MH17, a strong indication that Western leaders learned that it was Kiev that shot down MH17.

If the "bulk of the sources" lead to an article creating an absurd narrative, then the thing to do is not to continue using only those sources, but to stop cherry picking sources, and start using sources which would allow the article to become more rational and reality based. To quote our "new user" Tennispompom: "The article reads like the editors decided on the story line and then selected the sources to back up their version". I don't see how anyone can deny this. – Herzen (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The narrative is only absurd from ... your point of view (YPOV). That is precisely why your proposals are not in accordance with NPOV. NPOV, not HPOV. All that the rest of your comment shows is that you've engaged in some logical acrobatics and have come up with some ways which in your own mind justify whatever preconceptions, biases, and prejudices you had to begin with. On a personal level, that kind of thing is alright, I guess, if that's your thing. At the Wikipedia level, that kind of thing is called "original research" and is expressly forbidden.

And frankly, some of your premises are ridiculous. And most of the conclusions don't even follow from these ridiculous premises. For example "the rebels have no need for Buk missile systems,". Uhhh... is that why they bragged about getting one, before the airplane went down? Why in the world would they have "no need" for one. Where you getting this from? Gee Russia, really wanted to give us a couple Buks, but we said, no thanks, we're good here, with our muskets and lances. How can this be taken seriously? "so it is highly unlikely that Russia would have given them one" <- even granting the ridiculous premise that the rebels have no need for a Buk, this conclusion does not follow. Or how your story (and a lot of this Russian propaganda) just twists and turns to explain how it must've been a Ukrainian BUK which shot it down, then turns around like you do in (3) and denies that a Buk was involved at all, it was actually a Ukrainian jet. In other words, making shit up as convenient, just for sake of creating confusion.

By that standard the "Western" narrative is an example of pristine and flawless logic and empirical evidence. Volunteer Marek  20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is there a "western narrative"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there actually is, and if there is, I don't know why. Hence the quotation marks. Volunteer Marek  04:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No matter how often some editors repeat the claim that this article is neutral, the article does not become neutral just because some editors claim it is. - and no matter how often some editors repeat the claim that the article is not neutral because it doesn't genuflect before their favorite wacky conspiracy theory, the article does not become non-neutral because these editors claim it is. It does become neutral if it's based on reliable sources. Which it is. So I think "some editors" have a somewhat stronger case than some other "some editors". Volunteer Marek  20:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My "favorite wacky conspiracy theory", before which I really would like to see more editors genuflect, is that, unlike you, I don't know who did it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this. You don't have to know something with 100% certainty to be able to say that "yea, we pretty much know". I mean, I really *don't* know that people actually walked on the moon. Come to think of it, I only *sort of* know that such a thing as a moon actually exists. I hope that I exist, dang it. So just because we don't know something with 100% certainty does not mean we say "we don't know", which is the position you've been taking. And at the end of the day, it's not whether I or you knows something but whether or not reliable sources say something. That's the essence of theverifiability policy. Which is a good one. Volunteer Marek  04:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly valid to say "We don't know" in this case. Your counter-examples are ridiculous. The narrow choice of sources guarantees a biased conclusion - the good old "western view". A non-conclusion would be safer. and far more neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there was no conclusion. Alexpl (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The single most authoritative source is the Preliminary report of the official investigation lead by the Dutch Safety Board. That is what we know. Anything beyond that is theory, speculation, opinion, tampered by the credibility of the source. Some of these should have a place in the Article, but not necessarily all. I've been reading the rules, which are perfectly adequate to deal with dact and opinion, as long as they are not mixed up. In a section below, I've put forward a PROPOSAL- STEP 1, to try to create an organised environment in which editors are not falling over each other. I'm currently working on the PROPOSAL - STEP 2, which is a revised structure (headings hierarchy) which could resolve the NPOV and RS issues. I'll post it as soon as I've finished it. Tennispompom (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

6 people commented on your step 1 proposal, and literally one person agreed. The other 5 said it was a bad idea or wasn't going to work. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not decided by a vote. Neutrality is not negotiable, per WP:NPOV. This really needs to be addressed, not doing Wikipedia reputation any good. Tennispompom (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian Media Coverage Section

I propose this section should be changed to "International Media Coverage" and include media coverage from many different countries, since their reporting covers a variety of possibilities being considered by the investigators and not just one theory as outlined in this article. Any editors interested in reading them can use Goole translate: Czech [6], Vietnamese [7], Spanish [8], Italian [9], German [10]. The theories being considered are 1. MAS theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. USchick (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For this suggestion to give a balanced view, the Russia media coverage should be reduced considerably. To make it a truly international section we should weigh media coverage from each country more or less equally heavily and since Russia is only one country it should not dominate the section in any way. I do not see this happening in the foreseeable future. If you manage to get this agreed upon before changing the title I would support this though. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this article is already very heavy on what each country said, and that's why people are complaining about the article not being balanced, because maybe their country is not being represented. We should focus more on actual events and the investigation, and less on what "he said she said" in each country. Like the fact that one reporter resigned somewhere is completely irrelevant to this story in my opinion. USchick (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Coverage in Russian media has been itself covered as a topic in reliable sources, quite extensively. Czech coverage, or Vietnamese coverage etc. has NOT been covered in reliable sources extensively. That's the difference and that's why it makes sense to have a "Russian Media Coverage" section rather than "International Media Coverage". And. One. More. Time. "Balanced view" is NOT. It is NOT. NOT NOT NOT. "Equally heavy" or "equal weight". Neutrality and balanced is achieved by following sources in both subject and extent of coverage. So if Russian media is talked about a lot in reliable sources, while Nepalese media is not, then we also have a section on Russian media, but not on Nepalese media. It's not that hard. Volunteer Marek  18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, please be careful of knee-jerk reactions! I was not proposing the reduction of the Russian media Coverage, but elimination of undue highlight being given to any one country. Also, I was strongly recommending that no country's media coverage should be prefixed with up front negative warnings about impartiality, or conversely, that every country's potential lack of objectivity should be treated equally, by listing their interests in the matter. I counter-propose that the following countries media coverage should be given their own section, because they have an interest in the outcome:- Ukraine (it happened on their turf, and they've been accused), Ukranian Rebels (it also happened on their turf and they've been accused), Malaysia (their plane), The Netherlands (the plane set off from there), Russia (their satellites and radar next door and they've been accused and suffered punishment for it already - sanctions, exclusion from G8), US (their satellites directly overhead, and initiation of Sanctions on Russia), Germany (as the dominant EU state, initiating sanctions on Russia and suffering sanctions from Russia) and UK, Australia, and other countries whose people were the victims of the MH17 tragedy. There should also be an additional section of Media Coverage in countries which were not impacted, where China, japan, etc. could be included. Tennispompom (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

These are suggestions for WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. Where it happened, how it happened, whether it's a "stakeholder" or not, doesn't matter. The only question that matters is "is the media coverage of a particular country a subject of extensive coverage by reliable sources". Volunteer Marek  18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view the article, and especially the media speculation, is currently already very long. So I would suggest to reduce those sections relying heavily on media speculation (Reaction, Cause and Russian media) anyway (regardless of country of origin). For that reason alone I would not support adding even more. We could however split of "daughter articles" where the media attention is more completely listed. Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A section about "Stakeholders" would address the concerns outlined by Tennispompom, where each involved country's position can be explained calmly and rationally without any qualifying phrases that imply "this is what someone said happened, but that's not really what happened, because someone else said something different." USchick (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It would address their concerns, but it would also be original research. Volunteer Marek  18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm snot sure what you're saying. What if it's well written and supported by sources? You haven't seen it yet, how can you already be against it? USchick (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The OP's proposal clearly conveys the intent to insert original research and synthesis into the article. Feel free to propose text on talk, but what is being discussed above does not sound like it would be in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Volunteer Marek  20:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigation

What's missing in this section are the theories being considered by investigators: 1. MAS theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. This section could be developed more and then spin off into a separate article on the investigation itself. It sounds like it will take a year, and a lot can happen during that time. To have the entire investigation in this article is probably undue weight, but for people who want to examine things more closely, a separate article about the investigation may be useful. USchick (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To do something like that we would first need a reliable source that list which theories are indeed considered by the (official) investigators. I have not yet seen such a list. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Czeck article does a good job of explaining it all in one place [11]. This Wikipedia article reads like there's only one version of the story, the Buk version, like that's already been determined, and it hasn't, that's why there's an investigation going on. USchick (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand the google translation, the article indeed summarises all theories. However, it also claims that spokesperson of the Dutch Safety Office did not tell what the official investigators were investigating (at least that is what I made up from the translation by Google). Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because all information related to the investigation is classified. [12] This also needs to be explained in the article. USchick (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources. Reliable sources. Not original research and theories about theories that may or may not be "considered by investigators". Otherwise no go. Volunteer Marek  18:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources are reporting about three possibilities. 1. MAS theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. This article only addressed one of those. USchick (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources. Reliable sources. Where?  Volunteer Marek  20:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You are obviously not listening. Lklundin (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean they're not listening. You seem to ignore every objection on this talk page from anyone with an opinion different from yours. You may want to consider toning it down a bit. USchick (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to prove that I am listening: 'MAS' is the ICAO designator for 'Malaysia Airlines'. So what do you mean by investigators having a 'MAS theory'? (and it appears that I must remind you to provide reliable sources). Lklundin (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, thank you for listening. I may be dyslexic, because I meant SAMs theory. USchick (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Social media from Igor Girkin

VKontakte social media attributed to Igor Girkin, is highly speculative and is refuted by other sources. [13] Another person also claimed responsibility, also VKontakte. This is undue weight and certainly does not belong in the lede. USchick (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe this has already been discussed. Please see archives. It received wide spread coverage in multiple reliable sources. Please do not remove well sourced info. Volunteer Marek  20:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It has also been reported in reliable sources that he is not the one managing his VKontakte profile. [14] "Some of these pages are maintained by Strelkov’s sincere fans. Others are run by Ukrainian activists, still others just by pranksters. As a result, it can sometimes be difficult to divine authentic quotes from fabrications." So again, this is speculation that doesn't belong in the lede. If it's not appropriate to talk about international media coverage, why is this bit of trivia relevant and in the lede? USchick (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the archives first. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the archives where it has been pointed out repeatedly that his profile is fake, and editors choose to ignore this fact. Did i miss something? I provided a source where another Russian rebel claims responsibility for the attack. Here it is again [15]. Please explain to me why sources are being cherry picked to support only one version of events? This article is clearly disputed and the POV tag was very justified. Why was it removed? USchick (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, in the archives, it is repeatedly pointed out that this is something that is widely covered in reliable sources. Yes, there is some accounts which claim it's fake. Personally I don't know if it's fake or not. Neither do you for that matter, so please stop pretending like this is some established fact. You are only hurting your own credibility when you rely on baseless assertions for arguments. None of this matters however. What matters is whether or not this story has been covered in reliable sources to a significant extent. And yes, it has. The damn thing has three sources after it. Another two dozen could be added but that would be silly. Volunteer Marek  20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: Yes, this should definitely be removed. First, something like that is very easy to fake. Second, it is inconsistent with the SBU's current theory of why the plane was downed: the rebels intended to shoot down a Russian airliner in order to give Russia a pretext for invading Ukraine. Thus, the statement in the lead that "after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement" does not make any sense, since according to the SBU, the plan all along was to shoot down a civilian aircraft. – Herzen (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it stays. It stays because it is all over reliable sources. I don't know if it's easy to fake or not. But that doesn't matter - I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but again, read WP:NOR. Stop it with the original research and synthesis. Volunteer Marek  20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

More than one rebel claimed responsibility according to RS. Why is Strelkov being singled out in this article as being solely responsible? Strelkov took credit for a different plane altogether. USchick (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, I'm getting sick of this. Either you start giving links to sources or there is no point in discussion. I have no interest in having an argument for argument's sake or serving as a sounding board for your personal theories. For example, your claim "More than one rebel claimed responsibility according to RS" is just an empty assertion. Where is this RS you're talking about. To repeat just one more time, the reason Strelkov is being singled out is because his post, fake or not, was singled out by reliable sources. Please read WP:RS again because this is pretty elementary and you've been on Wikipedia for awhile. Volunteer Marek  21:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I provided a source (twice) showing where reliable sources are contradicting themselves as they report about unreliable social media pages. None of this information is reliable and none of it belongs in the lede, especially since the discussion is about a different plane. There are plenty of sources that I already provided that talk about a variety of theories that are currently being considered. All those sources are reliable. and so are the theories, yet, for some reason we can't talk about that because you're stuck on this one VKontakte profile. Why is that? USchick (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you being disingenuous? The Wire source you provided is about some guy who claims that he was the one who "pulled the trigger". This is just a single story which has not been widely covered in other media. And in no way does this contradict Strelkov claiming responsibility. Are you really pretending that the Vkontakte post by Strelkov claimed that he was sitting right there in the BUK pressing the buttons? Because that's not what it claimed. You are also playing another game, pretending that because Strelkov apparently *thought* they shot down a military plane, not a civilian one, then the Vkontakte post is not relevant to the shooting down of *this* plane. I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously. If we have an article on "Shooting of Mr. Smith", and some guy claims to have shot "Mr. Jones" but later it turns out that the person they shot was actually Mr. Smith, then yes, it is relevant. Why does this even have to be explained?

And the Vkontake post by Strelkov WAS widely covered by reliable sources. Your own personal opinion as to whether this is "reliable information" or not is completely, absolutely, irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether it's in reliable sources or not. It is. Volunteer Marek  21:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If he takes responsibility for a different plane, then I suggest you explain in the article how it pertains to this plane. I'm sorry to bother you, but yes, this explanation is necessary. It's also not the main event, and does not belong in the lede. USchick (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is you're asking for. He took responsibility for shooting down a plane. He thought it was a military plane. It turned out to be this one. And you're claiming that because he took responsibility for shooting down a "different plane", then this info is irrelevant. That makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what "It's also not the main event" means. Volunteer Marek  21:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

He took responsibility for a different plane. At what point did it turn out to be this one? Can you please provide a source for your claim, that whatever he (or someone else) said on his unreliable profile "turned out" for a fact to be this plane? Did the investigation confirm it or is this your personal OR?USchick (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, he took responsibility for *this* plane. He just *thought* it was a different kind of a plane. Sources are already in the article. Stop playing games, it's disruptive. Volunteer Marek  21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the articles more closely. His message names a different plane. The article says "messages from Strelkov for weeks published a post saying rebels had shot down a plane outside Torez, near the location of the wreckage of MH17." The article does not link his post to this plane. In fact, the article states that the recordings may have been falsified. So the information presented in the article is a direct contradiction of what the sources say. USchick (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. He *thought* they shot down an AN-26. The article says, whole quote:

Shortly after the Boeing 777 went down with 298 people aboard, a Russian social networking page that has been uploading messages from Strelkov for weeks published a post saying rebels had shot down a plane outside Torez, near the location of the wreckage of MH17.

The post, which was later deleted, appeared to incorrectly identify the aircraft as an AN-26 military transport plane, lending credence to the theory that the rebels mistakenly downed the Malaysian airliner. "We warned you not to fly in our skies," it read. (my emphasis)

And now you're gonna sit there and claim that "The article does not link his post to this plane."?!? Even though in the very paragraph you're quoting it says "lending credence to the theory that the rebels mistakenly downed the Malaysian airliner". I'm sorry but I'm not interested in having my time wasted. Volunteer Marek  22:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So someone (we don't know who) may have been shooting at one plane, another plane falls out of the sky, and you automatically assume they shot the wrong plane? And you don't think that's OR? Does anyone even know where the An-26 was flying? Or at what elevation? And this speculation belongs in the lede? Really? USchick (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything. No, it's not OR. It's straight from the Guardian and the Christian Monitor as quoted above. Who cares where some AN-26 was flying. Who cares about some elevation. *That* is an attempt (pretty blatant) at OR. Again, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you are not discussing the issue in good faith as you're sitting there denying the obvious. Even after the sources have been quoted directly. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that you are merely obfuscating to push a POV because you don't DONTLIKE what reliable sources say. Volunteer Marek  22:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't claim what you say. In addition, can someone please clarify something? If a guided missile is programmed to hit one plane, is it possible for it to go off course and hit a different plane in a different location at a different elevation? They weren't shooting a sling shot. It was a guided missile, right? USchick (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Volunteer Marek  01:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't claim that it was the same plane. The only person making that SYNTH is you Volunteer Marek. USchick (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be having a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. From the source above, already quoted several times, "lending credence to the theory that the rebels mistakenly downed the Malaysian airliner". From the other source "All this creates the impression that Girkin claimed responsibility for the downing of MH17, thinking it was a Ukrainian military transport, and then panicked and tried to hide the evidence after the truth came out.". You really can't just pretend that the sources don't link Strelkov's claim to MH17 because it's right freakin' there. Volunteer Marek  01:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lending credence to a theory from a news reporter is not the same as an expert opinion. Can we please be consistent about how we choose sources and what theories we're willing to support? There is no expert opinion in the article. There is no investigation that supports this idea. The entire thing is based on a questionable personal profile that was later rescinded. None of this belongs in the lede. USchick (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what your point is. You also seem to have changed your story. Before it was "the sources don't support the claim". Now, that that was shown to be total bunk, it's something about "lending credence to a theory". It belongs in the lede because it was widely covered in reliable sources. Volunteer Marek  01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It may have been covered at one time, but since then is has been discredited. It was a wild theory from the beginning, just like lots of other theories. And yet, it remains in the lede. This is why people are complaining that some editors are pushing a POV agenda in this article. USchick (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, apart from being covered by reliable sources, all this information collected from different places makes perfect sense. What a tragedy. Lklundin (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick. Sources. Volunteer Marek  02:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

---

@Lklundin: Actually, it doesn't make any sense, never mind "perfect". To quote from the article (my addition to it): "The SBU later concluded that rebels intended to shoot down a Russian airliner in a false flag operation to give Russia a pretext to invade Ukraine, but shot down MH17 by mistake.[144][145]" However, the lead says "after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement, and the post was taken down." But according to the SBU, the plan always was to shoot down a civilian aircraft. Not only is this article incredibly biased, but the editors who don't see a problem with it aren't even bothered by its being incoherent. – Herzen (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Another source: "Different versions of the events surrounding Flight MH17" [16] USchick (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Um... so... you think article is biased... and as evidence you quote... a portion of it which you added yourself? How does this work? Volunteer Marek  02:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I quoted the title of an article from a reliable source that outlines different versions of events. I'm asking editors to consider this source and to include all the versions, not just the one Buk version, which is POV. USchick (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that the Malay Mail Online] is an RS? An unattributed article by an online publication run by unknown quantities is reliable because no one knows anything of substance about it other than they 'try' to be reliable must, of course, be reliable on the grounds that it exists? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec, @USchick) I wasn't responding to you, but Herzen. And no, the article you linked to does not in any way support "including all versions". It just outlines various theories which at one point or another have been put forth by someone or other. Most of them pretty ridiculous, like that the real target was Putin's plane or that the plane contained already dead bodies. The source makes no pretense that these are all equally valid theories, and neither will we. The BUK version is the main version as described in reliable sources. If we had an article on Conspiracy Theories about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, as I've suggested before, then that source would be useful for it. But this is a different article. Volunteer Marek  03:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the original list of sources Czech [17], Vietnamese [18], Spanish [19], Italian [20], German [21]. The theories being considered are 1. SAMs theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. This article only talks about one version, the SAMs version. Including this information would bring balance to the article. USchick (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh, putting aside the question of reliability, these sources don't state what you say they state. How does the German source present "more than one version"? Your Vietnamese link doesn't work. The Czech source just repeats that "Union of Engineers" "report" (previously discussed). Volunteer Marek  03:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that an admin is here to review for sanctions, now you're interested in discussing the article Volunteer Marek? Thank you for your interest. The German source says "Western countries believe that the Boeing was shot by a rocket from pro-Russian rebel." This is the only version of events outlined in the Wiki article right now and ignores all others. A number of editors are challenging this viewpoint. I will work on the Vietnamese link if you're serious in your effort to collaborate. USchick (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What admin? What are you talking about? I have been discussing this article extensively. I *started* the discussion on the tag. Mostly against my better judgement, as it has been a tremendous time sink and a reasonable person might conclude that you're here just to obfuscate. Volunteer Marek  04:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There are three editors begging for balance in this article, so I'm sorry if we inconvenience you. The Vietnamese article is no longer working, but here is a Malaysian one instead [22] USchick (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

NST doesn't work as a source for this article. Consult the archives. Geogene (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In the archives there is the hint that NST is used as a source for thousands of WP articles: [23]. It's an ordinary, traditional newspaper, with some political bias, as I guess about halve of the sources used in this article have. --PM3 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

World Net Daily is also used as a source in a very large number of WP articles, although it has been decided that it shouldn't be. But I only oppose using NST in this particular article, I'm sure most of its uses elsewhere are fine. Geogene (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I wondered how a military person could take the Boeing for AN-26, which is a turboprop... It is doubtful that Igor Girkin himself would make such a mistake... Usernick (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Ok, I have checked it. The post is shown http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/17/malaysian-airlines-mh17-reported-crashed-just-after-rebel-leader-boasted-of-shooting-down-plane-we-warned-them-not-to-fly-in-our-skies/ . According to this source "An hour before news of the crash, Igor Strelkov reportedly wrote on Vkontakte, a popular Russian social media website, “In the district of Torez an An-26 was just shot down. It crashed somewhere near the Progress mine. We warned them not to fly in our skies.” Also, "The message was sent about 30 minutes after the plane is believed to have gone down. The post was later deleted and another post went up, blaming Ukrainian government forces for shooting down the passenger plane." Hence, Igor Girkin did not claim responsibility, at least personally. This is in contrast to what is stated at http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0717/Web-evidence-points-to-pro-Russia-rebels-in-downing-of-MH17-video and in the Wiki article.Usernick (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should a tag be placed at the top of this article?

The argument about whether or not this tag belongs in the article caused an edit war that went all the way to ANI. The argument is still unresolved. Should this tag be placed at the top of the article?

USchick (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. USchick (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment is irrelevant and meaningless if it does not refer to policy and explain specifically how it relates to this article. Spurious "IDONTLIKEIT vote. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit wars continue to erupt because the concerns of editors are being ignored by other editors who gang up on people whose opinion doesn't match their own. Numerous examples have been provided where sources are being cherry picked to support only one theory, when in reality, there are several. Also, there is a strong opposition to facts. Editors prefer speculation over facts in this article, only because that's what the Western media reports. Other media has been discounted as "unreliable." USchick (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Such sources have not been provided. Sources which discuss the fact that there are conspiracy theories out there or some opinion pieces from borderline reliable or non-reliable sources don't count, sorry. Volunteer Marek  06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources have been provided and discounted for frivolous reasons, like for being Malaysian (which reeks of systemic bias). USchick (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the sources you provided - at least those where the links worked - either completely and absolutely did not discuss "other theories", like the German source you gave above (i.e. you just made some shit up and gave an irrelevant link) or they were sources which discussed the existence of conspiracy theories about the crash, like the Malaysian source (no, it was not discounted for being Malaysian, you're making shit up again). These sources did not give equal credence to all these "alternative theories", just noted their existence. Stuff like that could certainly go in an article on Conspiracy theories concerning the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they don't belong here. This is just more of the standard WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You, and Herzen, are simply wasting tons and tons of editor time. It's disruptive. Volunteer Marek  06:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

An example where you discount a proposal before you even know what it is [24], but you already don't like it. And you already discounted any sources that may support it. USchick (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What? You already explained what you wanted to do. You hadn't posted the exact text, but the overall idea was there. Stickee (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And New Straits Times was dismissed as unreliable simply for being Malaysian. USchick (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. With a diff from VM. It was never dismissed simply for being Malaysian. Stickee (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec, @USchick) No, the NST was NOT "dismissed as unreliable simply for being Malaysian". You are misrepresenting things. Again. Please stop it, it's a bad habit, and gets tiresome to point out that your comments are simple falsehoods. Also, you're indirectly insulting editors. One particular article from the NST was dismissed as unreliable because it relied on (and quoted?) globalresearch.com, a well known crazy-people-ran conspiracy site (some of these people have come to this article from there and have tried to do ... exactly what you and Herzen are trying to do). Please stop lying about other editors. It is NOT gonna help you get your way. Just the opposite. Volunteer Marek  07:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Direct quote from User:Geogene: "But I only oppose using NST in this particular article, I'm sure most of its uses elsewhere are fine." [25] At the same time, a discredited social media comment is still in the lede simply because it was "widely reported." Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Social media from Igor Girkin. My proposal to remove speculation out of the lede was also shot down with no good reason. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Proposal to remove all speculation out of the lede USchick (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, a discredited social media comment is still in the lede simply because it was "widely reported." Yes, per WP:WEIGHT. And your proposal to remove "speculation" from the lead goes against WP:LEAD, which says all prominent controversy should be summarized there. You need to go take those issues up at the relevant policy pages. Your slanderingmisrepresenting me, that I have taken to USChick's user talk page. Geogene (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)refactored Geogene (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, Geogene is saying that a Malaysian news source can't be trusted to choose the right side of the argument because sometimes they actually have an independently Malaysian viewpoint. Then he proceeds to cherry pick when NST can be trusted, and it turns out, only when they agree with Geogene. USchick (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, USchick is making stuff up again. "In case it's not clear, Geogene is saying that a Malaysian news source can't be trusted to choose the right side of the argument because sometimes they actually have an independently Malaysian viewpoint." - no, that's not what Geogene is saying at all. Geogene's was saying that that particle NST article is not reliable because it is based on a crazy conspiracy web site. It had *nothing* to do with the source being Malaysian. If it was an American source, a Russian source, a Mozambican source, a Wyomingian source, a source from Alpha Centauri, it would still be problematic precisely for this reason - it's based on a deceptive conspiracy website (which tries to pass itself off as a legit news organization). Nothing to do with Malaysianiness. Basically, by now, it's pretty clear that if USchick makes a claim, pretty much the opposite case is true. Volunteer Marek  21:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, User:Volunteer Marek please explain why you think this source [26] belongs in the lede since it also talks about an outlandish claim from a Russian social media site that has been discredited by other sources. Please post the explanation in a new section. I have asked repeatedly for this clarification. Thank you. USchick (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... because the CSM did not use a crazy ass conspiracy website as a basis for its report? Because there's another reliable source provided, The Guardian, which says the exact same thing? Because "outlandish" is your own original research and not based on any policy or source? Because "discredited by other sources" is your own opinion, not something actually based on sources? Because you are trying to establish some kind of equivalence between a batshit crazy source like globalresearch.com and respectable sources like The Guardian or The Christian Science Monitor? Because this has been explained repeatedly, and the fact that you keep repeating your objection (what you call "asking repeatedly for this clarification") is just your own WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and NOT a failure of others to explain it to you, which has been done, repeatedly? Because you're playing obnoxious games which do nothing but waste other people's time? Because you are not acting in good faith?  Volunteer Marek  00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your source is talking about Vkontakte, an outlandish website with a fake profile, which has already been established as fake, but because you have two whole sources that you like because they're cherry picked and American approved, that makes it ok. I see. It is my personal opinion that you're lying and trying to cover for your racist friend who doesn't like Malaysian sources, but that's just my opinion. In any case, this needs to stop. I'm willing to stop and only respond to content based discussions in new sections. USchick (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I reported USChick to AN/I for calling me a racist in the post above, as I had warned her I would do if her bad behavior continued. Geogene (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"You and Herzen"? That's the second time you've used that phrase. Do I detect a little battleground attitude here? After USchick posted this RfC, I looked at her user page, and was surprised to learn that she calls herself a Ukrainian, and indeed has За єдину Україну! on her Talk page. If even self-identifying Ukrainians find this article to be biased because it only considers what Kiev and Washington say about MH17 (and PM3 has made this point as well, although he only brought up Washington), your absolute determination to fight to the last breadth the possibility that MH17 might have been downed by fire from a fighter jet can only be viewed as fanatical. – Herzen (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Russians and Ukrainians united in an effort for balance in this article even though they are divided about the war in Ukraine! lol USchick (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This has been discussed at #spurious tag - again and many other discussions. It isn't a badge of shame. This is a controversial topic under ARBEE discretionary sanctions, and as such the neutrality will always be disputed. Stickee (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no discussion at #spurious tag - again. One editor stated why there was not going to be a tag. Period. USchick (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet Stickee, neutrality can be achieved, no need to abandon it just because it requires effort. Please read my reasons for Supporting, and then my EXPLICIT proposal on restructuring. Tennispompom (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as the person who was denounced to ANI by Stickee, who could not do me the courtesy of explaining that putting back a {{POV}} tag technically counts as a revert, if that article has ever had a POV tag on it before. Fortunately, I did not get sanctioned, thanks largely to the kind intervention of Volunteer Marek. – Herzen (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment is irrelevant and meaningless if it does not refer to policy and explain specifically how it relates to this article. Spurious "IDONTLIKEIT vote. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've explained at great length, over the months, why this article suffers from systemic bias. That it clearly does gives one all the policy basis required to justify giving this article a POV tag. – Herzen (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but your definition of "systemic bias" is equivalent to "article follows reliable sources, I just don't like what reliable sources say". That is the *exact opposite* of NPOV. Volunteer Marek  05:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and the RfC is misfiled. You don't decide whether or not a tag belong in the article based on an RfC. The template specifically says: The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. In other words, it's not a vote. The tag needs to be meaningfully substantiated, which means that it needs to be explained in detail which parts and how are in violation of policy. This hasn't been done. Not once. By any of the users who've edited warred to put the tag in the article. Indeed, each time the edit war errupted, the taggers did not even bother starting discussion or justifying their reasons, it was left to other editors to query the tag. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a valid reason for atag. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Which template? Please provide a link. The dispute section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution states “RfC discussions related to article content take place on article Talk pages.”. A tab is part of article content. You then say “The tag needs to be meaningfully substantiated, which means that it needs to be explained in detail which parts and how are in violation of policy. This hasn't been done. Not once. ” – please see my comments on this talk page, and my response to RfC where I have been specific AND detailed. Tennispompom (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This template: Template:POV. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Volunteer Marek, I see exactly what you mean! The Template says one thing, while the WP:NPOV says another! The Template does indeed say “The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.” Unfortunately, the Template isn’t fully consistent with Wikipedia policies, I quote a couple:-

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Note the use of phrase "reliable sources", instead of "reliable secondary sources" per Template. The core policy does not exclude the use of reliable primary and tertiary sources. The core policy is further reinforced on the following excellent link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources", which goes on to explain the subtleties under various headings:-

• "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good"
• "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad"
• "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?"

The last section is definitely recommended reading for all editors on this article, because it shows that the many items in the MH17 article are in fact primary sources (either outright or by Wikipedia policy), even when we mistakenly think of them as "secondary".
The Template has been in existence since Dec 2003. The phrase “reliable secondary sources” wording was first introduced on 27 January 2008 by User CBM, who is an Administrator and mainly writes on mathematical logic, per his User page. It is a different world in the arena of academic and scientific articles, where use of primary sources is generally not helpful (quote from Wikipedia docs: " Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.", an educated person would NOT be able to understand a specialist subject, therefore not allowed). The Template can be corrected quite easily by removing the word “secondary” and perhaps adding an explanation for different arenas, e.g. current events, scientific research, etc. Using proper Wikipedia process, of course! It could be a simple error, or perhaps the rules have changed but the template was mnot updated. I’ll leave a note on CBM User page. If anyone knows the process for alerting Template editors, or even finding out who they are, please help me here - I'm still a newbie, and alert them to a request for Template update in line with the current Wikipedia policy. Tennispompom (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The arguments against this article's NPOV have been repeatedly refuted and yet persist because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT approaches by certain editors. If valid NPOV concerns grounded in Wikipedia policy are clearly articulated and there is a serious content dispute, the tag would be appropriate. I don't think that is the case right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It has already explained in detail multiple times by now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose When a talk page has deteriorated to the point of holding an RfC over whether the article should carry a POV tag, there's something seriously wrong with the calibre of contributor it has attracted. I've read the article (again) and have seen nothing of great significance to merit re-tagging. For those who want to indulge in being journalists, or turning this into an alternative new blog, try contributing for Wikinews. You're welcome to go ballistic there. This is a tawdry bid by POV-ers to get their way. Try writing an article for WSWS. I guarantee it'll be rejected for being the bourgeois, 'small L liberalism' tripe it is. Wikipedia does not strive to be cutting edge news. It's meant to be boring and conservative because it follows strict policies being twisted all over this talk page. Don't like it? It's not compulsory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of a personal attack on "the calibre of contributor" who holds a different political opinion than the one presented in this article. Any attempt to introduce facts into the article is discredited as a hoax. USchick (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not trying to introduce "facts" into the article, you're trying to introduce wacky conspiracy theories. Volunteer Marek  06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the difference between a "non-mainstream point of view" and a "conspiracy theory". The term "conspiracy theory" only applies to crazy claims that the plane was filled with corpses, etc.,etc., while the suggestion that the Ukrainians shot down the plane is a valid point of view, which simply isn't covered by mainstream media. By the way, the Ukrainian SBU's official version is itself a rather wacky conspiracy theory, according to which the rebels were planning to take down a Russian civil airliner to pin it on Ukraine, and the article has no problems quoting Kyiv Post on this (while RT and Ria Novosti are a no-no). Buzz105 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of insulting other editors, why don't you ask yourself why German Wikipedia can manage to consider three different scenarios of how MH17 was shot down – two of those involving the Ukrainian military doing it – while English Wikipedia can't even manage two? German Wikipedia has the same policies as English Wikipedia. Have Germans become so undisciplined that the editors of German Wikipedia do not "follow strict policies" the way that English Wikipedia editors do? No, the more likely explanation is that, since Germany lies between Russia and the West (in Mitteleuropa), German Wikipedia editors are less prone to systemic bias than Anglophone Wikipedia editors are. – Herzen (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, what German, or any other Wikipedia does, is completely irrelevant. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT^10. Volunteer Marek  06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe to you it's irrelevant, but many editors work across languages, like this Category:Featured articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias. USchick (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with this issue? Nothing. Just more obfuscation and obstinacy. Volunteer Marek  06:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're talking crud again, USchick. That's not an attack, it's called WP:SPADE. Should we have everyone toddle over to the Russia and Ukraine article talk pages earlier this year where you were trying to hold the map showing Crimea as disputed territory in the infoboxes hostage to whatever policy you could throw at it. I recall NPOV and RECENTISM as your mainstay because the 'global community' don't recognise Crimea as having been legally taken over. According to you alone, Crimea was to remain as part of Ukraine as if nothing had happened. Strange to find that, while other language Wikipedias were already displaying Crimea as disputed, you weren't concerned about cross-wiki consistency for one moment, nor were you concerned with widely reported facts on the ground (i.e., you would have had to been in a coma not to know what had been going on). I don't think anyone can even make out what your position is other than WP:CHEESE. I've gone through your 'arguments' on this page and haven't been able to establish what aspects of the article are wanting. It's all a little bit of this or a little bit of that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone has to like the method for it to be excellent. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can we stick to one article at a time please? I have stated numerous times that my specific objection is that there are several theories about who shot down the plane. There's an investigation because no one knows what happened. This article outlines only one version, supported by one political side, and discounts other versions as "conspiracy theories" even though there are numerous sources that talk about various versions of what could have happened. USchick (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No it is not, because comparing what English Wikipedia does to what other Wikipedias do is an excellent method for assessing whether a given English Wikipedia article suffers from systemic bias, and striving to avoid systemic bias, and hence achieving NPOV, is one of the main policies of Wikipedia. You can only argue that what other Wikipedias do "is completely irrelevant" by assuming that it is not a policy of English Wikipedia to strive to elliminate systemic bias, which of course would be a false assumption. – Herzen (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) No, it is not an excellent method, because it could very well be that other Wikipedias are the ones with the problem. It is not an excellent method because different Wikipedias have different policies, rules and guidelines. It is not an excellent method because different Wikipedias have different cultures. Most of all it is not an excellent method - in fact it would be a method which directly violates English Wikipedia's policies - because we base our articles on reliable, secondary sources, not tertiary non-reliable sources like other Wikipedias. *That* why it's completely irrelevant, not because it has anything to do with "systemic bias" (and even that essay is not in fact a policy). Now. How many times has this been explained? Right. Volunteer Marek  07:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Comparing foreign language articles is what editors do when they collaborate in an effort to stay neutral. USchick (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's what two editors do when they are trying to push a POV on an article. That's not collaboration, that's just straight up POV pushing. You can't get reliable sources for what you want to do, so you start running around yelling about how "other Wikipedias do it" (and that's granting that you are accurately describing "how other Wikipedias do it", which given how many things you've completely misrepresented in these discussions, is a big assumption in and of itself). Volunteer Marek  07:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you don't cross reference, since you only work in one language, but that's what a lot of other editors do who work across languages. This article spans languages and politics. To represent only one viewpoint form one country that's not even directly involved is POV and UNDUE. USchick (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please drop your "maybes". I actually do "work" in more than one language. But when I work in one language I stick to the policies of that particular Wikipedia, rather than try to use "what other Wikipedias do" as an excuse to push POV. And we are NOT representing "only one viewpoint" from "one country". We are representing what reliable sources say. You don't like what they say. Fine, that's your business. But your personal preferences isn't what we base articles on. Not in English Wikipedias. Volunteer Marek  07:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You work in more than one language, do you? Then why don't you have a global account? It's not as if your user name is in such high demand that you couldn't have gotten a global account for it.

Actually, never mind. Looking at that search for your global account, I see that you do work in more than one language. Your other language is Polish. I should have guessed, given your user name. Since the only countries that matter are Poland, the UK, and the US, it is not hard to understand why you never bothered to get a global account. – Herzen (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Great. Now you're making racist remarks. I've held off on reporting you for disruptive behavior before, but you're repeatedly crossing the line here. Volunteer Marek  13:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please spare us from the boring Russian bias. Alexpl (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If you find Russian bias so boring, why do you bother responding to it? Wenn Du gelangweilt bist, Du sollst schweigen. – Herzen (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The first part was correct, but you totally screwed up the second one. Racist bias is WP:NPA. Alexpl (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The article not only reflects the imbalance of POVs in the Western media sources (as was stated above), but is unbalanced itself. For instance, it extensively quotes the Ukrainian officials, like Vitaly Nayda, but makes only brief mentions of the Russians' statements; at the same time, there is a separate section called "Russian media coverage", thus implying a priori that Russia is misbehaving (the neutral approach would be to describe how the accident was covered in different countries, including Russia, allowing the reader to come to his/her own conclusions). Buzz105 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we start a betting pool on how many throw-away sock puppets accounts show up here?  Volunteer Marek  13:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The article not only reflects the imbalance of POVs in the Western media sources In that case the article is neutral per NPOV. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The coverage in "the West" is different from publication to publication - its that free-press stuff. In Russia its only one big state-info-block. From RT, over NTV, Russia-1 & 2, TASS to RIA Novosti its all the same. Novaya Gazeta is the big exeption. So we could write: The Washington Post wrote XYZ, while russian state opinion was ABC, while the Guardian wrote VFG. You cant artificially create diversity were none exists. Alexpl (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose User:USchick claims that the matter "isn't settled", in reality she and a couple of other tendentious editors just can't let it go. Geogene (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

See the number of edit wars outlined directly below this section. And that's just the main ones. USchick (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're counting "edit wars" now. Does it mean that information is being suppressed contrary to guidelines, or does it mean that at least one "side" in a content dispute is prone to warring? In any case, I don't see the wisdom in citing bad behavior as an effort to give legitimacy to the use of the tag. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, information is being suppressed. Anything not consistent with one particular political opinion is automatically dismissed as "irrelevant." USchick (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Most everything that is being "suppressed" is coming from sources of low weight and doubtful (or at least easily questioned) reliability. Most of the arguments used against it are based on core policy like reliability, neutrality, and weight. The most common appeal for other viewpoints are based on an essay about systemic bias. Usually the systemic bias argument includes an admission that most of the sources have an Anglo-American bias. Of course the other viewpoints don't have much of a chance here, they never did. Wikipedia itself is structurally biased against them. At least you could avoid blaming other editors for this situation. Geogene (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why you dismissed a Malaysian source that reported about an online source, but other online crap is in the lede because it's "widely reported" by sources that you happen to like. This is called cherry picking sources, and this is what makes this article POV. USchick (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not under any obligation to "explain" anything to you. I did make a good faith effort on your Talk page. But now might be a good time for you to realize that flinging accusations is not a good way to persuade others to your viewpoint. Geogene (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

On my talk page you made a personal attack against me by accusing me of "slander" when in reality, you simply discounted a reliable source. USchick (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake! You *lied* about what Geogene said. Completely and absolutely. And it's not like it's that hard to check that you lied, or like there's room for interpretation. One way or another, that's slander. And it's not like this was some isolated instance of you completely misrepresenting editors or sources, you've been doing it consistently and repeatedly, I can list at least four different examples off the top of my head. Geogene pointed out that you were completely misrepresenting his statement in a bad faithed attempt to make him/her look. And now you turn around and claim that pointing this out is a "personal attack"! As in "it's okay for me to lie my ass off about you but if you dare to point out that I'm misrepresenting you in order to make you look bad, gosh darn it, golly gee wilkers, how dare you sir!!!???!! I am outraged, that's a personal attack!!!!!". Gimme a break. Quit while you're... before your hole gets any deeper. Volunteer Marek  00:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

LIED???? I completely stand behind my comments even though I'm being attacked again by someone who's not at all involved. USchick (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, USchick, someone who tells untruths in order to WP:WIN is a liar. It's called WP:SPADE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesus! USchick identifies as a Ukrainian on her user page for Christ's sake. She's on your side! Attack me all you want. I don't identify myself as Russian on my user page, but I do imply that I am, since I indicate that my mother tongue is Russian. Also, I have made it clear that I believe that Kiev shot down MH17, unlike any other editor as far as I know. USchick has expressed no such belief. All she is asking for is a minimal, tiny amount of objectivity in this article. And for that, you and Volunteer Marek viciously attack her. It is as if at English Wikipedia we have a miniature version of what is going on in the Ukraine. – Herzen (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about with someone being on 'my side' or not on 'my side' nonsense? I'm on the side of Wikipedia's policies and the spirit of the project, not on the side of making concessions to any theory before there is even any reliable scholarly research on a WP:RECENTISM matter. I've only just told you on another talk page not to make assumptions about where editors stand on any matter, yet you're doing exactly the same thing moments later. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I'm confused. You voted "opposed" to a POV tag being placed on this article. Then why did you thank me for this edit, for which Stickee instantly denounced me to ANI? – Herzen (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor pedantry: AN3, not ANI. Stickee (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-minor pedantry: the belief that "person X is of nationality/ethnicity Y, therefore they are on side Z" is almost the textbook definition of prejudice. Cut it out Herzen, POV pushing is one thing, bigotry is another. Personally I couldn't give a flip what nationality or ethnicity any of you are. It's about whether or not you're willing to respect Wikipedia policies, NPOV, RS, NOR etc. Volunteer Marek  06:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling the views of a people that a group with which you identify has a long-standing animosity with conspiracy theories, which you obsessively do, is a "textbook definition of prejudice", in my book. But of course, in your case, it's not prejudice. It's observing Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: If I thanked you for that edit, it was by accident. I must have had a few tabs open and clicked in the wrong tab. I shouldn't be so careless now that there's a double-check before thanking. Don't let it go to your head. I'm retracting it manually right here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: "Don't let it go to your head"? Your level of hostility and seeing WP as a battleground are amazing. But of course, you're here to build an encyclopedia, not to push your POV with incredible rudeness. – Herzen (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support User:Herzen. A minimal, tiny amount of objectivity in this article is all I ask. USchick (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article has problems (eg undue attention to speculation), but NPOV is not a major one of those. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf. Major or minor, there is a neutrality issue which needs to be addressed. There is no single universally accepted theory on the cause of the crash, but only one of them colours the article and gives the impression that Wikipedia subscribes to it. This has arisen mainly by inapropriate application of various Wikipedia principles, which I have been reading about a lot recently LOL! It is quite a complex topic and needs more in depth attention than it has received so far. I’ve analysed the issues and proposed a way to rectify it within Wikipedia rules. Please have a look at my response to this RfC, which explains my reasoning, and then look at my proposal to restructure the article, which shows how neutrality and balance can be achieved. Tennispompom (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support The article has major NPOV issues, which must be addressed if Wikipedia neutrality is to have any meaning.

To address the longstanding NPOV issues on this politically sensitive article, it is necessary to tackle head on the RS and Opinion vs. Fact rules which have been arbitrarily and inappropriately applied, resulting in low quality, poor balance and exclusion of key elements of the article, practically amounting to censorship). Specifically:-

* main competing theories on the downing have been excluded by using RS as reason for not including them

* attempts to reverse the use of RS as a tool of censorship, have been locked out by using the NOR rule inappropriately, creating confusion between fact and opinion

* over-enthusiastic editors have allowed their views to cloud to impose a decision making process based on personal likes and dislikes, instead of on rational application of Wikipedia rules

* the polarisation of personal views has contributed to a disrespectful atmosphere, where one single viewpoint has been superimposed on the article, in a world where no universal paradigm exists

* NOR (synthesis) rule has been broken, as follows. Citing from the Wikipedia NOR Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, Section: Related Policies, Subsection Neutral Point of View states: ""Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative."

To address the neutrality issues and rescue the article, it is first necessary to revisit the how RS should be applied in this politically sensitive article, how to distinguish between what is reported as fact and what is reported as opinion, and then to restructure the article in a way which allows it to comply with Wikipedia principles. By taking this approach, none of the existing work needs to be removed, it needs to be restructured and missing theories and events added in. Thus neutrality, due weight and balance will automatically follow.

RATIONALE on RS

In the context of a politically contentious article, media organisations cease to be mere sources, they are ACTORS. They provide a platform for information to be disseminated to the public, and colour it by what they chose to put in or leave out, by their positive or negative comment and to whom they chose to provide give a platform. The press and broadcasters exercise the power of information. Some abuse it some try not to, but they all filter information in accordance to their stance, be it party-political or otherwise.

In any state, whether it is democratic or authoritarian, the press, media and other information outlets to the public generally go hand in hand with the government and other institutions of that country, whether that be by threat of law, or by more subtle means such as appointing your pal to be the chief editor. While a certain level of watchful press should act as a guardian over the actions of the political establishment, e.g. exposing corruption, threats, etc in government, in an extreme cases, the state would cease to function if the main media was in direct conflict with the political establishment and government of the same country. There has to be a high degree of co-operation between the two, a mutual vision.

Lack of press freedom in an authoritatian state is often given as a reason for excluding a media source on RS grounds. However, in a politically sensitive topic, the media is an actor in its own right, and not a mere source, where Wikipedia is required to rubberstamp (or otherwise) the reliability of the information which the media source presents.

In an authoritarian state, the freedom of the press is curtailed by the state in order to control the people. What difference does that make in the context of reliable reporting in Wikipedia? None - Wikipedia shouldn't have a blind spot to reporting on the media actions in authoritarian states. In an authoritarian state it probably doesn't make much difference what the public think and know through their "subjected" media, because the public in an authoritarian state can be coerced rather than persuaded. Obviously any autocrat wants the people not to raise a rebellion in order to perpetuate his position of power, but if they get the information control wrong, they have more leeway to "fix it" by other powers at their disposal.

Let's look at democracies now. One can argue that the extent of concord between the political establishment and the mainstream media is much more necessary in a democracy than it is in an authoritarian state, because the mainstream media are almost the sole means by which the political system communicates with their voting public, and uses it to form and mould the public opinion (i.e. voters). A democracy also wants to propagate itself, and maintain the political system which they have in place (think of a democratic political system as a cartel between the current government and the opposition, who accept the rules and know that they are effectively power-sharing over time). A democracy therefore has a much greater incentive to control how the power of information is used in order to maintain the trust and cooperation of their voters, and hence a much greater incentive to interfere with the freedom of the press.

The conclusion must be that the use or abuse of power of information happens in all political systems. Just think of Berlusconi (italy), recent Leveson Enquiry in the UK and the resulting criminal prosecutions, and attempts to impose an enforceable Code of Conduct on the press. I'm not picking on UK, I just happen to be more familiar with the local events, it's just an example of what can go wrong with the press in a democracy. So when people proudly say that there's freedom of the press in their country, one should also ask "free to do what?"

In the context of a politically sensitive article, it doesn't matter whether the press is "free" or not, or even how free they are, what really matters is how is it acting.

It is a fact that power of information is used as a tool in all types of political systems, and the RS argument is irrelevant when reporting on the use of power of information, as exercised through the mainstream media of any type of state.

Also, it doesn't matter whether the power of information is being used or abused. In the context of a neutral Wikipedia, it is not for us to make a judgement call and try to justify the stance taken by any one media house, along the lines of "BBC is good, Pravda is bad". Our role is to report what they are doing. They are an actor in this context just as much as other actors such as ICAO or UN SC.

The Reliable Source rule has therefore been misapplied in this article. It has been mistakenly used to exclude certain sources as unreliable, and the result has been to throw out the baby with the bathwater, to censor the existence of alternative theories, presenting an unbalanced, biased view where one theory has been superimposed on the article as a global paraiogm (which it is not), while the other mainstream theories have been suppressed.

Reliable Source in this context is a red herring. There can be no more reliable source of how a mainstream media is choosing to act than the media source itself. Therefore the BBC is the best source to link to when presenting their use of power of information and Pravda is the best source to link to when presenting their use of power of information.

This is not a scientific article, where someone in Wikipedia rightly judges that the Beano is not a reliable source for Einstein's quantum theory. This is a politically sensitive article, where public opinion and the use of power of information matters. RS should not be applied as prohibition for inclusion in this type of article.

RATIONALE - fact and opinion

I'll illustrate using a more familiar scenario. When a murder takes place, especially of a celebrity, the press usually go haywire. All kinds of stuff is reported in the media, much of which eventually turns out to be wrong. Official investigators, usually the police, are appointed, the official invetigation begins, and when it eventually comes to trial, it all goes sub judice, the media have to exercise self-discipline on pain of all kinds of nasty sanctions if they misbehave. Eventually, the courts follow a process and pronounce judgement, and (barring appeals), it's generally the end of the matter - the official judgement becomes FACT. Of course there will be dissenting oppinions and views, criticisms, campaigns to reverse a perceived miscarriage of justice, etc. But the official processes (investigation, trial and judgement) create a fact. For example, Pistorius not guilty of murder is now fact; when the courts pronounce the sentence, no one in their right mind would say that the sentence is an "opinion". And it is in the light of that officially determined facts that all the previous media twists, opinions and speculations can now be assessed, impacting on their reputations in the public perception.

In the context of the international incident such as MH17, there is no concept of international sub judice, and it's all voluntary, depending on how the foreign policy of the any one country wants to play things. In the case of such a politically charged topic, the press and media are not being coerced to exercise restraint, we can expect all kinds of views and theories from all sides, there is an information war out there after all. However, the fact that an agreed international investigation exists, makes things very easy for a Wikipedia article: the rule to follow is that only the official authorised investigation generates facts, onlt the official state players generate facts, and all other reporting in the media, is an action by the media, who deliberately chosing which opinions and views to use to form public opinion. We don't know whether they are right or wrong, until the official investigations and official criminal trials, appeals etc., are completed. Therefore, there is no need for Wikipedia to take sides, no need to decide which theory is right or wrong, we only need to report a sensible gist of how the various mainstream media are exercising their power of information in this context.

There will be official statements by the institutions, e.g. Foreign minsters, e.g. Malaysia Airlines. What they say is an official statement, and (right or wrong), it should be reported as fact, because it is an action by the officially involved institution.

However, when an entity or person who is not part of the official investigations and the future trial process makes a statement, then the question arises, how do they know what they are saying? The answer is that by not being involved in the official investigation, what they say has no official standing, and should be treated as an action by the broadcasting house or newspaper who chose to provide it with a platform in order to influence public opinion. For example, when anonimous intelligence officers' views are reported by the BBC, this should not be viewed as the unnamed officers' action (we don't know who they are), this is the action of the BBC, who chose to give them a platform.

If everyone accepts this approach, then editors can achieve NPOV quite easily: it allows us all to temprarily sit on the fence while the official investigations are ongoing, even if we lean in opposite directions. It also resolves the RS issue and the Fact vs Opinion issues.

Please refer to my specific PROPOSAL - RESTRUCTURING BELOW

Tennispompom (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm pulling out the WP:TL;DR. Read WP:TALK properly. Keep comments as succinct as possible: no-one is obliged to, nor should we be compelled to, read a treatise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna Harpy, apologies, I tried to address Volunteer Marek criticism (quote "The tag needs to be meaningfully substantiated, which means that it needs to be explained in detail which parts and how are in violation of policy. This hasn't been done. Not once.") Sorry, and thanks for links. Tennispompom (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, the lead for example jumps to speculations and judges without knowing the facts. The article should not make conclusions based on mainstream media reports. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The lede does no such thing. What some keep insisting on calling "speculation" (a purely rhetorical trick devoid of substance) is just info straight out of reliable sources. You don't like what reliable sources say? Go edit somewhere else because that's how we do it here on Wikipedia. I'm getting tired of saying this. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Social media comments attributed to fake profiles is speculation, even if reliable sources have a slow news day and have nothing better to report. USchick (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "social media comments attributed to fake profiles", this is The Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor, both very reliable sources. Quit misrepresentin'. Volunteer Marek  19:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been pointed out many times that the claim that the article must stay as it is because "we use reliable sources" is nothing but "a purely rhetorical trick devoid of substance". Or wait, it does have substance. "We use reliable sources" is Wikispeak for "I own this article." – Herzen (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That comment makes no sense what so ever. "We use reliable sources" is NOT a rhetorical trick, it's Wikipedia policy. "We use reliable sources" ... I don't know what Wikispeak is, but again, it's not in any way "I own this article", it's Wikipedia policy. Again. If you don't think we should use reliable sources go edit somewhere else and quit wasting our time. Volunteer Marek  20:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, using reliable sources is Wikipedia policy, but your ceaseless incantation of using reliable sources is a rhetorical trick. As is your rhetoric in which you talk as if Wikipedia policy and you are the same thing, whereas somebody who disagrees with you violates Wikipedia policy. Your rhetoric has become stale. – Herzen (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll happily cease to bring up Wikipedia policy, as soon as you start following Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek  20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not following wp policy. You are rejecting reliable sources, abusing new users, spamming talk, trolling, reverting edits, pushing uour pov and rejecting other views. I vote to ban this user.118.210.196.217 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Currently the article is not neutral and pushing a western pov without giving much credit to other theories. The current editors are refusing to negotiate and work as a team. They are rejecting other reliable sources. Furthermore, the article is poorly written and reads like a dogs breakfast. Not a tasty one... 118.210.196.217 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

So that makes it 2 sketchy throw away accounts showing up so far, the second one most certainly a banned sockpuppet. I say that before this is over we'll get to at least 5. Anyone wanna take the bet?  Volunteer Marek  21:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. Get back to the topic of conversation.118.210.196.217 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been all this time, and now Legobot has dragged me back to this talk page for this RFC, so, just to see if I can possibly contribute to this discussion without having to read this entire huge wall of text, would anyone be willing to say briefly what arguments and whatnot have already been presented, so I can avoid just repeating others? This may very well be asking too much, but there is no way that I'm reading all of this. Dustin (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt anyone involved would be able to give you a balanced summary of what has been said. I guess just read the actual base-level comments and not the huge back and forth discussion (which mostly went off track at times). Stickee (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• 'Oppose - What, exactly, is the problem? That the article is not consistent with the typical Kremlin-affiliated source? That is not an objection if those sources are unreliable, and we've been over that particular issue many times before. You cannot shortcut that debate about source reliability by slapping a tag on the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not Sure and offering Idea: At first I was support, but now I am not sure. I think that the article is cursed to be NPOV because of the drastically different portrayal and coverage of the events, by reliable sources. I don't know that any of the editors involved would be entirely to blame for the edit warring. I suggest that the lede of the article include something about the divergent coverage of the events and then rather than have a Russian Media Coverage have a "Divergent Media Coverage" section where the differences in coverage would be discussed. I think it is one of the more important parts of the story from a historical perspective. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good suggestion Elmmapleoakpine, it's what I've been suggesting all along: restructure to include world media coverage in a neutral manner. One of the issues has been a misinterpretation of WP policy to exclude all except secondary sources, whereas reliable primary sources are perfectly adequate and advocated in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. As Brian Dell put it nicely in another section, "There is no doubt that "the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch...". As such, there is no issue here about the reliability of sourcing, unless someone wishes to contend that we all cannot believe our own eyes." . The Novaya Gazeta fails on undue weight grounds, but the principle applies to due weight media views, such as those from China and India (2/3 of global population). Have a look at my Restructuring proposal. Tennispompom (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your maths - China and India (both about 1B inhab) make up for 2/6 of the world population - not 2/3

Also if we go for a one man one vote system in the media than we should reduce Dutch and Australian media to almost nothing, while we desperately would need Brasilian insights etc. I don't think that would improve the article.

Distinguishing between involved (plane and passenger; country over which it happened) and uninvolved may help a bit, but that leave Russia as problematic. Russia claims to be uninvolved (rendering their media irrelevant); but if they are indeed involved their statements on this case are proven to be unreliable (as they claim they are not). Arnoutf (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any interest in distinguishing between involved and uninvolved parties? Does anyone want to see an RfC about that? USchick (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war 3

Immediately after the crash, a post appeared on the VKontakte social media attributed to Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, claiming responsibility for shooting down an AN-26,[8][9][10] but after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement, and the post was taken down.

This discredited statement from a social media profile is still in the lede, simply because it was "widely reported" in some sources. The fact that it's old information and has been discredited by other sources is irrelevant, simply because it supports the prevailing political agenda of this article. Would anyone like to address the systemic bias of this political effort to cherry pick sources? USchick (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like it--this is an edit war? How is it "cherry picking" if it's widely reported? Geogene (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are other things being reported in RS, but since you don't like those particular reports, that information is being censored in this article. When I point out this discrepancy you accused me of slander on my talk page User talk:USchick#Slandering other editors in MH17. USchick (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly have. Geogene (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a discredited statement, it's discussed above, it's not an edit war, it's just your POV pushing.

Stop calling everything an "edit war" in some back door attempt to get that POV tag into the article, or in an attempt to force your POV down everyone's throat. Volunteer Marek  19:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If I get blocked for edit warring, I can't participate, so yes, it's an edit war because these changes are being made over the course of days, so they don't qualify for 3RR. But this information is being censored anyway because it doesn't fit the political agenda presented in this article. USchick (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge There Is No Cabal waging a clandestine edit war on this article. Lklundin (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No Cabal, only politically motivated propaganda. USchick (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That I can agree to. I suspect however that we disagree on the origin of the propaganda. Lklundin (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I imagine we do. That's why my original suggestion was to stick to the facts and remove any speculation, at least from the lede. USchick (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When you use the word "speculation" what you actually mean is "text sourced to reliable sources that I just don't like!". No go. Volunteer Marek  04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

By speculation, I mean opinions of uninvolved parties with their own political agenda. USchick (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you mean "reliable sources". And what, involved parties are incapable of speculating or something?  Volunteer Marek  19:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Marek stop trolling. Western media is not reliable here, because they have a political agenda.118.210.196.217 (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. You're in the wrong place. WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek  21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fabulous. These articles just keep attracting talking socks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You can tell when your opponent is about to admit defeat - when his argument reduces to name calling and rejecting reliable sources. Keep up your attitude and you will be banned in no time :) 118.210.196.217 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - Article Restructuring

Refer to reasoning provided in my reply to RfC. That approach leads to the following specific proposal for restructuring the article, and a clean up of lede. The proposed framework is in part inspired by the Wikipedia "good article" Korean Air Lines Flight 007, have a look. We could do better, why NOT aim for a Feature Article status?

Lede (alond lines of...)

Two hundred and ninety eight people lost their lives when Mlaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 crashed near Hrabove, Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014.

The Dutch Safety Board, who are leading the official international investigation into the cause of the crash, issued a guarded Preliminary Report on 9 September 2014, indicating that the damage to the forward section of the aircraft, apparently penetrated by a large number of high velocity objects from outside, resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft and its in-flight break up. The Investigation efforts were, and continue to be handicapped by access, safety and other issues which mainly stem from the fact that the wreckage site is in a conflict zone.

No official reports have yet been made public by a separate official investigation into criminal liability for the loss of human life and the craft.

The evolving political situation in Ukraine and beyond (x-reference to other Wikipedia articles on the ongoing Ukraine, US, EU, Russian Federation impasse, sanctions and counter-sanctions, etc.) forms the backdrop of heightened geopolitical tensions between RF, USA and EU, creating an information war environment where theories, speculation, accusation and counter-accusation proliferate. (x-ref to sections below)

Eastern Ukraine airspace is now closed to civilian craft, and Airlines which had not suspended flight paths across Eastern Ukraine before the downing of MH-17, acted quickly to do so, following the tragic event.

Contents

1. Flight Details
   1. Craft
   2. Passengers and Crew
   3. Cargo
   4. Route
      1. Deviations from designated route
   5. ATC Communications
   6. Meteorological Conditions (optional, if anything comes up)
2. Wreckage
3. Human Remains
   1. Collection and Transport to DSB Investigation
   2. Autopsies
   3. Repatriation
   4. Funerals, Tributes, Ceremonies
   5. Next of Kin Support
4. Official Actions, Investigations and Findings
   1. ICAO
   2. OSCE
   3. UN SC Resolutions
   4. DSB Investigation into cause of crash
      1. Memorandum
      2. Participant States
      3. Available Evidence and Providers
         1. Malaysia
         2. Russian Federation
         3. Ukraine
         4. Etc.
      4. Preliminary Investigation
         1. Timing
         2. Report Results
            1. Theories eliminated
            2. Findings
         3. Press Conference
      5. Post report leaks
      6. Final Report Schedule and plans
   5. Official investigations into Criminal responsibility and liability
   6. Other Official Investigations and Evidence gathering
   7. Sanctions and Counter-sanctions
5. Official State Responses to the Crash (e.g. Prime minister, Ministries)
   1. x-ref link to condolences WP article (I think it's called Reactions, but 99% condolences)
   2. Official Responses by Countries who are official participants in the DSB-lead investigation (per DSB Report, same order)
      1. The Netherlands
      2. Malaysia
      3. Ukraine
      4. Russian Federation
      5. United Kingdom
      6. United States of America
      7. Australia
   3. Official Responses by other Countries (add as required, e.g. German Bundesbank Official Response)
      1. Germany
      2. China
      3. etc.
6. Media Coverage
   1. Caveat - Below are theories and events which were given a platform by the mainstream media of the states involved in the Official International Investigation
      1. Theories presented by mainstream media in Investigation participant countries
         1. Deliberate downing by Donetsk rebels using Surface to Air Missile
            1. Ukraine Media
            2. Australian Media
            3. etc.
         2. Accidental downing by Donetsk rebels using surface to Air Missile
            1. Ukraine Media
            2. US media
            3. UK media
            4. etc.
         3. Deliberate downing by Ukraine Military using Air to Air Missile
            1. Russian Federation
            2. etc.
         4. Deliberate downing by Russian Military using BUK Surface to air Missile
            1. Ukraine media
            2. US Media
      2. Theories presented by mainstream media in other states (if any)
         1. Japan
         2. Germany
         3. China
         4. etc. as they arise
      3. Key reports by mainstream media of Countries which participate in Investigation (present as a table with Date, Country, TV/Press Name, Content (e.g. BBC reported that), Link)
         1. United Kingdom
            1. First 12 hours
            2. Before publication of DSB Preliminary Report
            3. After publication of DSB Preliminary report
            4. etc. as official reports, trial, judgement happen
         2. The Netherlands
            1. First 12 hours
            2. Before publication of DSB Preliminary Report
            3. After publication of DSB Preliminary report
            4. etc.
         3. etc.
      4. Key reports by mainstream media in Other Countries (present as a table)
         1. China
            1. First 12 hours
            2. Before publication of DSB Preliminary Report
            3. After publication of DSB Preliminary report
            4. etc.
         2. etc.
7. Public Opinion and Views (where required, e.g. polls of views of Russian public, Guardian interviews Londoners)
8. Cultural Aspects (music, poetry, art, monuments, e.g. "Requiem for MH-17" by Andrei Orlov)
9. Financial Consequences (date order, e.g. "share price of MAS fell...")
10. Notes, Internal Links, External links, etc.

The numbering format hasn't quite worked - sorry - but the structure is clear from the indents.

This could work. Comments? Tennispompom (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First impressions: not good. A lot of your rationale for this is in your 2000 word RfC response, so I'll try to reference it here. As you've previously stated, the purpose of your proposal is to create a POV shift in the article ("which is a revised structure (headings hierarchy) which could resolve the NPOV and RS issues"). It creates undue weight (see WP:GEVAL) which doesn't follow what the reliable sources say on the matter. On another matter, most of your rationale contradicts the policy on reliable sources itself (where you somehow say that sources suddenly are no longer sources, but "actors"). Your efforts are noted, but it's flawed from the ground-up and isn't going to work. Stickee (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stickee,

1. You misread my intention – I don’t want to shift POV, I want to achieve NPOV, and in order to achieve it, the article needs to be restructured.
2. I don’t see how the proposal creates undue weight, I took great care to identify significant reliable sources, and avoid any insignificant views by proposing that the article gives equal prominence to media reporting from all countries involved in the International Investigation (per DSB Preliminary report), even keeping the order the same, and to allow for other views, if editors want, e.g. China, etc. By taking the list of official investigating countries, I avoid the problem of NOR (synthesys) – it’s not my list, it is an Official list. Of course, only mainstream media from the listed countries should be used, no obscure small media should be referenced.
3. Alternatively, significant sources could be selected by other means, e.g. by size of population, but that would require a lot more work, and be more contentious, because then you would only want to include the media coverage of China, India, US, Brazil and Russia, which have the most significant polupations, and smaller countries, like Ukraine and The Netherlands wouldn’t feature at all. You might find that is more contentious. Personally, I would recommend going for the list provided by Dutch Safety Board in their Preliminary Report.
4. Reliable source is not a problem in this context. By reporting on what the publication does, as opposed to using them as a reliable source for some other fact, the media itself becomes a reliable Primary Source, and well within Wikipedia rules and policies.

Perhaps the rules were changed since you originally read them, but I checked them today. Happy to provide links to the Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Sometimes being a newbie, who has just read the Wikipedia rules, is a great advantage. Tennispompom (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: It has been explained countless times that in this article, editors who consider themselves to own it determine whether a source is reliable on the basis of whether it supports the preferred narrative or not, so any argumentation that this article is neutral because it is based on reliable sources is nothing but lawyering. Thus, any talk of "reliable sources" by editors who refuse to admit that this article has major problems are nothing but incantations at this point. – Herzen (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't true. In the other article at least you added negative information about the Ukrainian Army based on Human Rights Watch (or was it AI? Can't remember). I left that alone simply because in that case you actually bothered to go out and find a reliable source. Likewise I've opposed adding "pro-Ukrainian" information when it was not based on reliable sources. The criteria for a source to be reliable are outlined at WP:RS. It's NOT editors here who determine whether or not a source is reliable or not. It's the criteria. The editors here can only to choose WP:RS policy or not. Some of us choose to follow it. Others insist that it be ignored. Those editors are in the wrong place.

This also has been explained a dozen times already. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  19:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As to the proposal itself, let's just say that it won't work. Volunteer Marek  21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Doing this article along the line of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (as suggested above) would be fine, however "Korean Air Lines Flight 007" does not include "media coverage" section and some other sections suggested in the plan. This is for good reasons. Also, suggested version of intro is inferior compare to the current version. So, no, this is not going to work as suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi My very best wishes, The article is BASED on, but not identical to the "Korean Air Lines Flight 007" for two very good reasons: 1 - For Korean the outcome is known, hence media coverage is not as important as it is in the present undecided case (it does include a Political section however, which I have broken down into political actors like mainstream media, state officials, etc) and 2 - we can improve on the Korean Article. Feel free to make specific improvements, say exactly what you would add or remove and please explain why it makes it better / more NPOV Tennispompom (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom: Jeez, you've put an awful lot of work into this. You show remarkable dedication and commitment for a new editor. (But I know that that is largely because you need to channel your creative energies somewhere while you are off work lol.) I'm curious, what do you think about the way that the German Wikipedia article is structured? You can find the Google translation of it here. For your convenience, here are the subsections of the cause section:

8 Further evidence and theories about the cause of the crash

8.1 evidence of a kill

8.2 Alleged missile launch by separatists

8.3 Alleged missile launch by Ukrainian military

8.4 Alleged shooting by Ukrainian warplanes

It appears that German Wikipedia has been hijacked by what Volunteer Marek conspiracy theorists (and I call editors who strive to attain NPOV).

Seriously, the easiest way to fix this article would be to scrub it entirely and just replace it with a translation of the German article. A single person could do that in one day. All he or she would need to do is use the Google machine translation and then copy edit. – Herzen (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia. You also don't 'scrub' an article and sources. You would need to go through the process of addressing each source to be deleted and justifying its deletion as not being a verifiable and reliable source. Any such changes would need consensus. The onus would be on you to demonstrate that each source to be 'scrubbed' does not meet RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just responding to Tennispompom's proposal in this section to basically start from scratch. My point was that one does not need to start from scratch, because I believe the German article to be satisfactory, and it could be used as a basis, instead of Tennispompom's proposal. I certainly was not indicating that I was contemplating making significant changes to the article without obtaining consensus first. That would be suicidal, as far as my Wiki editing activity goes. – Herzen (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's disrespectful of all the authors who made up this English article (including me!) and of their work. Also, if you are so enthusiastic about the German WP, you may consider the German advice to authors regarding translations: Bitte überlegt stets, ob sich nicht deutsche Quellen finden lassen. Eine Übersetzung bedeutet immer auch einen Kulturverlust und die Gefahr, in Übersetzungsfallen zu tappen. Which means: Please always consider if you there are German sources available instead. Translation always means a loss of culture and the risk to step into translation traps.

I think what is needed instead here is a "moderator" with lots of guts, nerves and time, who pours the different POVs here on the talk page into a consensus rework of the article. With all the people here chaotically battling and mistrusting each other, you can't manage a rework. --PM3 (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No. For all of the reasons stated above. See WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1, Both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV support the proposed restructuring. Which specific part of these docs are you citing to support your "no"?

Read WP:STRUCTURE, it clarifies the reason for the restructure proposal. Also have a look at clarifications in WP:PRIMARYNEWS, para which starts with "However". Surely not rejecting these docs? Tennispompom (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Presenting competing theories with their own individual sections assigns a degree of equal weighting that the sources simply do not support. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources report that the attack is believed to have been carried out by pro-Russia elements. As the article already notes, the Russian government and a relatively small number of pro-Kremlin mouthpieces, most of which lack the notability for their claims and statements to stand alone on Wikipedia, continue to push conspiracy theories blaming the shootdown on Ukraine and/or the West. The article in its current form treats these claims with appropriate weight. Your proposed restructuring would put them on the same footing, which is utterly unacceptable by encyclopedic standards as spelled out in the policies I cited. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you've got the NPOV policy all mixed up. All primary sources are reliable as long as an educated reader can confirm that the media source really did publish what they published. Thus, even a state controlled Chinese paper is a reliable source for current event reports and opinions. As China and India are overwhelmingly the most populous countries, mainstream media in those countries hold the global majority public opinion. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong, whether they are state controlled or not, what matters is the fact that they are saying it. I am assuming that you are not attempting to justify a single point of view (i.e. opinion) as fact, because that would be original research! Tennispompom (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1, you may also find this extract from WP:FIVEPILLARS useful in clarifying matters:

Second pillar - Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. Tennispompom (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war 4: BBC Russian Service video

I added a mention of this video, in which several witnesses say they saw military jets flying near MH17 before it exploded, just to see how quickly my edit would be reverted. It took all of eight minutes. Geogene reverted it with the summary "didn't the BBC retract this for some reason?" Of course the BBC retracted this for a reason! The reason the BBC retracted it was that it contradicts the official US narrative. Whenever RT is mentioned, editors studiously add that it is "government owned" or "government controlled". Well hello! The BBC is owned and controlled by the UK government, and the US and the UK have a special relationship.

Why should we care that the BBC deleted this video from its Web site? The video is still available on the Web, and it speaks for itself. The BBC never claimed that this video is a fake, not produced by the BBC. With the endless discussion in the article of "witnesses" seeing Buks here and Buks there (but no mention of the fact that the only party that has operational Buk systems in the Ukraine is the Ukrainian military itself), I don't see how anyone can claim that the article not mentioning these witnesses' observations is nothing else but a manifestation of the flagrant, unhinged bias that this article is terminally compromised by, as evinced by so many current Talk sections that I've lost track already. – Herzen (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen In your comment above to quote "The reason the BBC retracted it was that it contradicts the official US narrative" you do yourself a great disservice in not realising that Government funded does in no means mean that a news service is in anyway controlled or even controllable by the said Government in countries like the UK. In fact the opposite is usually evident. Your inability to understand this I suspect explains some of your evident POV in your discussions.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you once, per BRD. You're calling it "Edit War 4". Geogene (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just that. It seems now Herzen and USchick have decided to *start* edit wars as a way of proving that there are edit wars on this article. It's a pretty obvious and obnoxious violation of WP:POINT. Volunteer Marek  23:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this information is unusable for the article, as long as there is no RS which confirms it. May have been false witnesses.

If the explosion, the fire and other planes in the air would have been visible inspite of the cloudy sky, people would have instantly used their mobile phone cams. But where are the pics? --PM3 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of witness accounts discussed in the article which are no more reliable than those in the BBC video. So why are those included but this one is "unusable"? And speaking of people instantly using their mobile phone cams, why has not a single photo been produced of a contrail from a Buk missile, which lasts for about ten minutes, IIRC? Any kind of junk and nonsense implicating the rebels in the downing of MH17 is fine for the article, but the slightest mention of information which casts doubt upon the official US account is "unusable". – Herzen (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: There was an alleged contrail sighting with a claimed timestamp of 13:25 UTC, you can find this photo all over the net, e.g. here: [27]. And it is not included in the article, I assume for the same reason that there are no reliable second sources for it. So what? --PM3 (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: That is nowhere near as prominent as the photo of a Buk contrail that is contained in the Russian engineers' report. – Herzen (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have great admiration for USchick, because while she identifies as Ukrainian, she wants this article to be objective. So I adopted her logic that since we all know that edits which attempt to bring even an infinitesimally small level of objectivity to this article will be instantly reverted, a single revert of an edit which attempts to bring in NPOV amounts to an edit war.

Note that it has not even occurred to anybody but PM3 to produce some kind of argument as to why this BBC video should not be mentioned by the article. Editors, adhering to their battleground stance with grim determination, know that they have the power of numbers on their side, so the nuisance of rationally discussing content issues can be avoided. – Herzen (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, more provocation. Geogene (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that in the same sentence, you are accusing others of "battleground stance" AND admitting that you're trying to start edit wars to "prove a WP:POINT", right?  Volunteer Marek  00:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

About people pulling out their cell phones: this location in rural Ukraine, and residents with options have left. Over 1 million people have fled, so babushka with a cell phone, even if she has one, wouldn't know how to use the video feature, or probably still has a flip phone. USchick (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet there are statements by witnesses saying they could see those fighter planes, but not one statement by a witness who says he/she saw a SAM contrail. – Herzen (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

---

It looks like something might come of this edit of mine after all. Usernick told me on my Talk page that the BBC put a reedited version of their video back on their Web site. The edited video still contains interviews with witnesses who said they could see those fighter planes near MH17. Here is the Google translation of the blog post stating that the BBC published the reedited version of this report. – Herzen (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, it seems that there is no more opposition to the idea to refer to this BBC video. What do you think should be said about the video, and where to this info should be added?Usernick (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Defence officials in Moscow have suggested that a Ukrainian fighter jet caused Flight MH17 to crash, but Tuesday’s report made no mention of any military aircraft in its airspace." [28] Stickee (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Stickee, and what is your point? The report made no mention of many other things as well. And in any case, the issue here is how to report on the BBC video.Usernick (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov expressed dissatisfaction that the report does not mention the presence of military aircraft in the area, and as far as I know, the DSB never responded to his criticism. – Herzen (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: How about this: "Three witnesses told the BBC Russian News Service that they saw a military jet near MH17 around the time that it exploded." You speak Russian, so please confirm that that wording accurately represents the content of the TV news report. (I guess that the reason that the earlier edit of this report is better known is that no one has added English subtitles to the new edit, as far as I know.) I suggest placing this sentence at the end of the paragraph in the cause of crash section that begins with "On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference". I hope that people will not consider this placement to be SYNTH. This is the least confusing place to put this. – Herzen (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Can you please link to the video? It will have to be a reliable source to be considered. USchick (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Aware of ARBEE

• I'd like everyone to confirm they are aware of WP:ARBEE and that I will be topic banning people from this article that have engaged in battle ground attitudes, pointed edits, disruptive editing, POV pushing, edit warring, and personal attacks. I suggest that everyone make themselves aware of WP:ARBEE and quickly adapt to conform with the expected behaviors. After 24 hours, anyone who hasn't acknowledged reading ARBEE will get a formal notice on their talk page.--v/r - TP 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Geogene (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. (I didn't know about the concept of pointed edits.) – Herzen (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. USchick (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged, though I consider this request as a violation of WP:AGF as I did behave well. --PM3 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Buzz105 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Finally an admin to sort out the rubbish and get rid of evil editors. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. NB origin of confusion may be an incorrect NPOV Template, pls see my next post. Tennispompom (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Stickee (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Usernick (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I take issue with the above 'adapt'. It implies that _every_ contributor to this page has been in violation of the policy. PS. I was away for a couple of days and only saw the suggestion now. Lklundin (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've changed my mind. Reading through some of these talk page comments, I see that there are accusations about western media and western governments, particularly the US government, of a conspiracy for a new world order and some other rubbish. Being that I work for the US Government during the day, I don't need to be caught in some conspiracy bullcrap and accusations of being an arm of the US Government on Wikipedia (not saying the accusations have happened, yet). So, I'm out. Some other admin can enforce WP:ARBEE.--v/r - TP 20:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can request eyes on this page from another uninvolved administrator? Geogene (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies, User:Black Kite, User:Dennis Brown, User:Dougweller, User:DangerousPanda, User:Bbb23, User:JzG, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:SlimVirgin and User:Ponyo are the sysops I most often interact with. Perhaps one of them might be interested. It might be better if someone else found a sysop, though. Per the same rationale, I wouldn't want people to think I influenced this article at all by picking the enforcing sysop.--v/r - TP 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. Thanks! Geogene (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What if we all agree that TP is a neutral admin? Considering that he's the only one so far willing to work with us, I'd like to keep him! He went off on me in ANI, so you know he's not partial. USchick (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there isn't a chance of that happening even if everyone here agreed. All I need is some wacko with a blog fully of conspiracy nuts to suddenly enter the picture and make wild threats toward my kids. Or someone in Russia prints some paper about how the US Gov't is in charge of the Wikipedia article on this and then I get in trouble for giving the appearance of government endorsement/involvement in what I do on Wikipedia. Just not interested in my hobby turning into a nightmare. Thanks anyway for the vote of confidence.--v/r - TP 22:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have watchlisted this - and I'll be reviewing the contents of the talkpage in due time the panda ₯’ 22:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

How about we post on the admin forum and ask every interested admin to help us out. This will remove the bias that TP was referring to. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the administrator who brought up ARBEE has an openly adversarial attitude towards Russia and and is vocally contemptuous of the idea that theories about MH17 besides the official USG version should be considered, and that another administrator dropped into a discussion to make a comment about "the Russian propaganda version" of events, I wouldn't hold my breath about admins instantly solving the problems to which Tennispompom has drawn our attention. – Herzen (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some admins from both sides. That way we can have a fair battle. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins should not be on any side. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I think that the intervention of the admins would be very timely now. The posts of Volunteer Marek added on 00:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC) and on 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC) are unacceptable. Usernick (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What VM was referring to in the 00:13 comment was the actions of another user. Those actions by that other user were taken to ANI and nearly resulted in them being blocked by TParis. Stickee (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely it is not unreasonable to assume good faith towards Admin - whatever their private view, they understand Wikipedia policy and are more than capable of self-discipline in maintaining neutrality. I'm not familiar with any Admin, but - as we certainly need one - could I suggest User:SlimVirgin? This user edited the supporting documentation to the Template:POV in 2012 (see Section ""), which Volunteer Marek confused with Wikipedia policy and quoted on this article's talk page to argue against neutrality improvements. I've looked at SlimVirgin's list of articles, many of which have been identified as Wikipedia "good articles", so she is experienced, clearly cares about quality and is no stranger to controversial topics. One could hint that by editing a single word on a Template's documentation section two years ago, she inadvertently set off a chain of events and might like an opportunity to resolve it in role of Admin. I need to leave a note on SlimVirgin's user talk page anyway re the Template:POV, and perhaps I could request that she also admins on this page. Thoughts? Tennispompom (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No, some Admins here are not capable of self-discipline in maintaining neutrality. If they were, their views would be unknown. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I support it. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen. You said: "Given that the administrator who brought up ARBEE has an openly adversarial attitude towards Russia...". Why do you think so? No, he did not. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Dutch Professor apologizes to Putin

This is a reliable source and MUST be included. http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25981/53/ 118.210.196.217 (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"do not serve the people but are working towards a New World Order". Umm New World Order? Stickee (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The letter seems to be genuine [29], and Cees Hamelink is a real person and has an article about him in the Dutch Wikipedia, but I guess we need to wait per WP:NOTNEWS until reliable sources will discuss the letter in some detail.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The letter seems to originate from http://ommekeer-nederland.nl/brief-met-excuses-aan-president-putin/. There it is clearly stated that the letter is not written by the professor, nor signed by him. --Ajv39 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not find this. And Het Parool, which discusses the situation [30], is clearly a reliable source, meaning there is no reason to mention the letter in this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Being only a 5-day-old user, I'm not familiar with the editing rules. I'm concerned, should we hold off making additions / changes to the article until we are sure we all on the same page with respect to the Wikipedia policy? The POV Template error isn't the only problem, and questions have been raised re Undue weight, and other editing rules. Should we perhaps discuss and agree the standards first, before applying them by adding new items? Tennispompom (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No need for everything to stop whenever a disagreement happens. Geogene (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait. "I'm already phoned days flat," said Hamelink. "The editor of the Russian newspaper Izvestia asked for an interview. I explained to him that I have nothing to do with that stupid letter. ". But that is a reliable source and MUST be included!  Volunteer Marek  21:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Since there is no need to include the letter there is no need to include a response. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The professor is a real person. The letter is written by the professor and is signed by him: http://ommekeer-nederland.nl/documents/letter-putin-en.pdf . Hence this information must be included in the article.118.210.196.217 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The letter was neither written nor signed by the professor, see the green comment here: http://ommekeer-nederland.nl/brief-met-excuses-aan-president-putin/ (Google translate, orange comment). --PM3 (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)--PM3 (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that this section be closed and archived.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, the issue is not closed yet. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. And I don't care if this Dutchman really wrote this letter or not. A letter from a private person to a head of state is not of encyclopedic interest. – Herzen (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The letter was clearly written by someone and it is a fine little peace of propaganda. There is sufficient of that to warrant a separate article: "Pro-Russian Propaganda Regarding MH 17". Lklundin (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what "green comment"?!? If you refuse to add this letter to the article then I vote we remove the following for fairness: "On 25 July, the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch that read "Vergeef ons, Nederland" ("Forgive Us, Netherlands")." 118.210.196.217 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that is not encyclopedic and should go. – Herzen (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please open a new thread for this issue. This section which you started is about a fake, let us keep to the topic. There is no need to discuss this fake together with anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@118.210: There is only one green comment on the page that I linked. It starts with "Opmerking:" --PM3 (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

POV Template Template:POV is inconsistent with core article policy NPOV

This morning, Volunteer Marek sent me the link to Template:POV, and after checking it, I found that there is a crucial difference between the wording in the template and the wording in the core NPOV policy. The template uses the phrase “reliable secondary sources”, while the policy simply states “reliable sources”.

Other Wikipedia guideline docs make it plain that “primary” (and tertiary) sources are not excluded, especially in the context of media coverage. I've posted the links to the relevant Wikipedia rules docs in my response to Volunteer marek in the RfC section, if anyone would like to check.

Since then, I have also posted a request for update on the template Talk page, the Talk page of the User who introduced the wording into the template 6 years ago, and put a note on the Wikipedia Talk: Twinkle Talk page, requesting template maintenance, per instructions on the Template page. There has been no action yet.

It appears that the earlier lack of consensus regarding use of primary sources for media reporting arose because the Template isn't consistent with the policy it is designed to support. So can I ask everyone - in light of this discovery - do we have consensus that the Policy documents are correct, and the Template needs correcting by removing the "secondary sources" limitation?

Should we wait until the editors responsible for maintaining the template complete their maintenance? What's the right process to follow when the template is wrong?

Tennispompom (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is difficult to track. But I don't see how this is connected to any of Volunteer Marek's points about the NPOV tag, which he quoted in bold:

The tag may be removed by any editor.

This template should not be used as a badge of shame.

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

That editor's relevant comments appear to occur at 05:08, 15 October 2014, 20:57, 16 October 2014, and 21:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that you believe you have found an inconsistency between the last statement from the NPOV template and the core NPOV policy. But I don't see where primary vs. secondary ever came into it into the NPOV tag debate here. Can you point out what I missed here? Geogene (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, it is very difficult to follow. I'll set out the logic first:-

It's not at all difficult to follow. USchick (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: There is a ruling on the TEMPLATE:POV Talk page on this subject. It states:-

The policy is WP:NPOV. It is one of the WP:5 pillars of wikipedia. To the extent that the template documentation is useful it is to underscore policy. The precise language of the template is not all that critical, but the precise language of the policy is. Refer to that instead.

CAVEAT: The sequence of discussions under this heading was accidentally messed up (by me of all people!), attempts by others to fix it caused further confusion, hatting, un-hatting etc. Many entries which were originally in this thread are now in the section which immediately follows "A variety of efforts used in this article to game the system"

RELEVANCE to Article: Reference to Template documentation was used to justify (incorrectly) the requirement to use only reliable secondary sources in the construction of the article, and to override the Wikipedia core policy WP:NPOV which requires reliable sources.

CONCLUSION: It is incorrect to exclude reliable primary and tertiary sources in any article, including this one. Arguments on this Talk page, which are based on the incorrect requirement for exclusive use of secondary sources will need to be revisited.

Tennispompom (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A variety of efforts used in this article to game the system

I'm closing this discussion because of some users moving other user's comments around making it look like they're replying to something else, the changing of section headings in midst of discussion for no reason and other hi-jinks which make it impossible for the discussion to be fairly represented. If you wish to discuss something below, start a new discussion section and don't mess with other people's comments.

Please note that the text below does not accurately reflect how the discussion actually occured. Or anything else for that matter. It appears to have been "spliced" together by some users afterward. Volunteer Marek  21:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to reply to a comment in this discussion, but it was hatted by Volunteer Marek. He should undo the hatting of this discussion. If he is unhappy with comments having been moved around, he should use the page's history to decide where they properly belong, and move them back there, instead of hatting this very relevant discussion which he doesn't like. Hatting this was extremely disrespectful to Tennispompom, who put a lot of time into writing the original post of this section. This hatting was an utterly unilateral move for which no consensus exists. – Herzen (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If he is unhappy with comments having been moved around, he should use the - NO. It is not MY responsibility to try and find the place where my comment belongs. It should not have been moved in the first place. Hell yes I'm unhappy with you or anyone else moving my comments into the middle of other discussions so that they don't make sense. It's not only a violation of Wikipedia policy, it's bad faithed and extremely rude. YOU don't get to call others "disrespectful" after showing no respect what so ever for something as basic as not changing other people's comments. If you don't have a sense of how insulting and obnoxious this is then I'm sorry, but you lack a basic sense of decency and etiquette. Volunteer Marek  01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been moved around. The discussion moved forward, and for some reason he had a comment left over at the bottom of that same discussion. He came in, assumed bad faith and freaked out. I left an explanation on his talk page. The only thing out of place is his one old comment. Hopefully he'll be back soon. USchick (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been moved around and you moved it. Leave my comments alone. Volunteer Marek  01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what "hatting" means, have raised the question in TeaHouse. I assume I placed my reply in the wrong place - wasn't deliberate. When I get a reply, I can easily recreate myself - I edit in Notepad, it's faster and I still have the text. Tennispompom (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As previously uninvolved in this article and seen the hatting at WP:TEAHOUSE, I have unhatted. Misconduct or refactoring by users is not a reason to close a discussion, especially one which you have commented on yourself. If it needs to be hatted, let an uninvolved user do it. Tutelary (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

For the nth-fucking time. I did not comment in THIS discussion. I commented in a different discussion then some *!&#$R^& moved my comment. If you don't understand why this is problematic and extremely disrespectful perhaps you got no business getting involved in the teahouse. Any other forum with a modicum of professionalism would come down extremely hard on this kind of behavior. Volunteer Marek  01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Marek please stay civil and avoid swearing. You are risking getting banned. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I raised a NPOV issue because only one speculative theory is mentioned in the article. However, alternative theories cannot be included because Wikipedia policy / guidelines do not allow it:-

• Anything other than UK, US, etc. media source is an unreliable secondary source (e.g. can't list the Russian theory surface to air missile, because Russian papers are subject to influence of their Governments)
• Previous RS discussion boards confirmed that publications, such as RT, are not reliable sources, but can occasionally used as reliable secondary sources when reporting on statements made by Russian Government, for example, but not on anything else - items have to be decided on a case by case basis.
• Fringe English publications which do mention the theory are excluded because they are fringe, or eliminated as undue weight (i,e, conspiracy theories)
• The likes of BBC, Washington Post, NY Times, etc. make no mention the Air to air missile theory
• when I suggested it should be reported by using the Russian, etc. source as a Primary source, i.e. by definition reliable, the POV Template excludes the possibility of using a primary source - source MUST BE SECONDARY.
• Finally, there has to be a reliable secondary source, otherwise NOR rule applies.
• RESULT - there was no legitimate source which could be used within Wikipedia rules to allow significant alternative crash theories to be included in the article. That is what the bulk of the discussions here was about.

By identifying that the template has one word too many ("secondary"), and that a primary source is not excluded by NPOV policy, but is actually advocated to use in cases where mainstream media present opinons and theories, it now becomes quite possible to include more than a single theory in the article.

Unforunately there's no real alternative to reading through comment by comment - not at all easy. Here's a selection of them. If you search for the text, you can see where the debate arises:-

• Volunteer Marek rejects my comment on addressing NPOV, with "Basically, anything you want to put into the article must be based on verifiable, secondary, reliable, sources, or it's a no go. "
• Herzen explains that it is systemic bias, and explains how it works on my talk page.
• PM3 states "We have to stick to secondary sources; important are those opinions which are on topic and widely spread in the WP:RS. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, you can't evade that."
• Volunteer Marek also states "That comment makes no sense what so ever. "We use reliable sources" is NOT a rhetorical trick, it's Wikipedia policy."
• I then go on to propose that an unreliable secondary source can be treated as a reliable primary source, and Volunteer Marek quotes the POV template (secondary sources are required), therefore as article doesn't breach POV template, it is by definition neutral. Quote Volunteer Marek: " The template specifically says: The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public."
• Artnouf writes:- "If it were reliably sourced and analysed by a secondary source we might have a look at it; especially since Rutskoy (considering his political activities) may have an agenda with his statement; we should be careful with using him as primary source."

Tennispompom (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry re poor format above. How do i indent a bullet point? Tennispompom (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this outline, it's perfect. I attached a very accurate name to it. In good faith, I assume this wan't done on purpose, but as a result of a recent event, and quickly developing events. Now that we have time to reflect on it, i hope we can fix it. USchick (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The secondary sources issue is addressed here: WP:PSTS. Personally I think that NPOV and RS/NOR are more or less the same thing but Wikipedia does choose to make a distinction. Either way however, they're both "pillars". Volunteer Marek  18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a few updates on the POV Template's Talk Page. Apparently the the text "reliable secondary sources" appears in the documentation to the Template source code. The Documentation is NOT protected, and was not added by the User CBM, who edited the Template itself. Apparently the documentation was modified separate;y, quote User PrimeHunter:- "secondary" was added by User:SlimVirgin 19 September 2012.[3] By the way, Template:POV/doc is not protected and can be edited by anyone with no template knowledge.
I'm now querying whether it is appropriate to use template documentation in lieu of rules. Tennispompom (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is an eminently reliable secondary source which brings up the fighter plane having shot down MH17 theory: Time magazine. That Time article is mentioned in this Talk section. Believe it or not, when I added the observation by Time that the DSB preliminary report's findings were consistent with a fighter plane having shot down MH17, that edit was reverted because the person who wrote the Time article is not an expert. So when experts say that a fighter plane could have shot down MH17, that is not allowable for inclusion in the article because reliable secondary sources do not report this; when a reliable secondary source observes that a fighter plane could have shot MH17 down, that is not allowable for inclusion because the author of that news story is not an expert. – Herzen (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an excuse that was made up, since there's nothing about that in Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What do people think of my adding the following to the end of the preliminary report section:

According to Time Magazine, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.

I believe that that statement accurately describes the content of the Time article; also that statement does not assert that it is stating a fact, but just reports what the main US newsweekly has reported

As you know, that was brought up here Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 16#Consistent in which several people, including an admin, said it was a misrepresentation of the source. Stickee (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for digging that up and giving a link. I wish people would do that more often. However, I can't find any comment there which claims that the way I presented this source was a "misrepresentation". And note that in my new formulation, I use a direct quote, whereas before, I glossed "to leave room for" as "consistent with". I really don't see why this shouldn't be included. And I can't see any definite conclusion having emerged out of that earlier discussion. And I'm not sure whether being a reviewer (I don't know what that means) constitutes being an admin.

This Time article seems to be a perfect test case for the issue discussed in this section: here is an unimpeachable secondary source pointing out what several editors have been arguing Wikipedia should mention: that there is more than one theory "out there" of how MH17 was downed. It really is impossible to create a valid argument for why the addition I proposed should not be made to the article. – Herzen (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The "admin" comment was referring to Ymblanter whose comment I linked to in that section, not me. You also brought this up a few days ago and got these 2 responses [31] [32] by Geogene. Saying "leaves room for" is pretty much the same thing (as you said yourself in that thread). The very next paragraph goes on to say how it is inconsistent with the other evidence. Stickee (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Ymblanter's remark was about an interview with a Russian general, not the Time magazine article, and PM3 convinced me to lose interest in what that general said. As for what Geogene said, I rebutted his points. Geogene interpreted the article in terms of what the author would like to be the case, instead of what the author himself says is the case. There is no way of getting around the meaning of this statement: "[T]he wording of the 34-page report … was also vague enough to leave room for one of the more common theories among the rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine." Trying to deny that that sentence says what it says is a textbook example of the serious issue with this article which is the subject of this Talk section. – Herzen (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What. The. Hell. Happened. To. My. Comment??? This is not what I was replying to in my comment at 18:06 above [33]. My comment above was in a section entitled "POV Template Template:POV is inconsistent with core article policy NPOV " not "A variety of efforts used in this article to game the system". It was in reply to an inquiry about the relationship between NPOV policy and use of secondary sources. Not about some statement about "gaming the system" or "one theory"

This is very obnoxious to say the least. It also looks extremely bad faithed. I have no idea how this happened, but whoever did this needs to stop this kind of nonsense, or they will be blocked very quickly. Volunteer Marek  21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and move your comment wherever you think it belongs. There were too many discussions going on in this one big section so I broke it up. So sorry to inconvenience you. USchick (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I won't have my comments misrepresented by you moving them to where they don't make sense. If you wish to discuss this further start a brand new section. And don't change other people's comments again. Volunteer Marek  01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(reply to tennispompom) Just put however many colons you need in front of the asterisk and I think that should cause an indented bullet point--frankly I use trial and error (and the "Show Preview" button). Ah, ok. Well, I sometimes use primary sources and the article uses a primary source (the DSB report) so I reject the "Must Be Secondary" interpretation. There's even a section in an essay linked as WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD because sometimes editors are a little too opposed to primary sources. But as that essay says, primary sources should be used carefully, and I would add, sparingly. There are some problems that arise from too many primary sources, the most important issue in this particular is notability/weight...just because a primary source exists doesn't tell you how much coverage it deserves. A scientist, for example, that might want to push a particular viewpoint in the field they work in, might be tempted to cite a dozen papers favorable to that viewpoint and disregard less favorable viewpoints, to imply something that his/her colleagues might not agree is a neutral summary of the overall community. A non-expert Wikipedia editor would see the sources but would not know that the sampling isn't representative. So instead it's easier to have a healthy bias against overuse of primary sources. Getting a bunch of quality, mainstream, secondary sources makes it easier for non-experts to write a neutral, or at least mainstream encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reposted Geogene (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this in a new section. This section has been made a total mess by USchick editing other user's comments. Volunteer Marek  01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

---

I just found a reference to WP:5P on Tennispompom's Talk page. To quote from pillar 2:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"

I don't see how anyone can claim that this article "document[s] and explain[s] the major points of view" about who downed MH17. That is why the article in its present state is a farce and does not in the least satisfy "the fundamental principles of Wikipedia". The editors who consider themselves to own this article have clearly decided that "the truth" about the downing MH17 exists, and that it is their job to make Wikipedia telegraph this truth to the world. – Herzen (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Chinese reaction

In the section on Russian media coverage there is a statement "Media coverage of the crash in Russia has differed from coverage by other worldwide media". So, for checking whether this statement is correct, I have searched what Chinese media says about the incident.

One of the most widely reported Chinese statements is this one: "The Western rush to judge Russia is not based on evidence or logic. Russia had no motive to bring down MH17; doing so would only narrow its political and moral space to operate in the Ukrainian crisis. The tragedy has no political benefit for Ukrainian rebel forces, either. Russia has been back-footed, forced into a passive stance by Western reaction. It is yet another example of the power of Western opinion as a political tool." (see e.g. http://chinadailymail.com/2014/07/21/chinas-response-to-the-mh17-tragedy-condemn-the-west/ )

I think that this statement should be added to the lead or reactions section. Also, I think that this statement proves that there is no basis for the separate "Russian media coverage" section.Usernick (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are more sources showing why there should be no separate "Russian media coverage" section:

"Western powers largely alone in condemnation of Russia

In Kiev, Brussels, Washington and Ottawa, the response to the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was angry and almost unanimous: The evidence was seen as clearly pointing at Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine, which means Moscow itself was at least partly to blame.

But while Western powers like to refer to the “international community” when mustering a case they believe in, such solidarity doesn’t really exist. Among Russia’s allies – most crucially, its fellow members of the BRICS club of emerging powers (Brazil, India, China and South Africa) – the initial response to the tragedy was silence, followed by increasing skepticism of the evidence presented by the U.S. and Ukrainian governments." (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/western-powers-largely-alone-in-condemnation-of-russia/article19735260/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernick (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The story of "Russia against the rest of the world", as presented here in the article, indeed is bogus. While it looks like the majority of the world supports the "Western" position, there are several countries which pefer the Russian or a neutral POV. --PM3 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that the majority of the world supports the "Western" position on MH17. The population of China, India, Russia, Brazil, Iran combined is very big. Of course, there is no unity in each of these countries; but there is no unity in the West as well. If I remember correctly, a Czech MP referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods in the context of MH17. And I learnt about this plan from Zeit, FAZ, or Spiegel for the first time.Usernick (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Those two links may be opinion pieces. But maintaining a separate roped-off area devoted to Russian sources is not an ideal practice, it looks like a POV fork and also raises issues of weight. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. If we do a good job of explaining what happened, it won't be necessary to play "he said she said." USchick (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Media coverage of the crash in Russia has differed from coverage by other worldwide media" should probably be reworded. Note that is sourced though. And that's also, as pointed out above, the reason why it makes sense to have a separate section dedicated to the coverage in Russian media. It is something that has been widely discussed in sources (unlike coverage in Brazil, India, China or South Africa). Honestly, there's even enough source attention there to have a separate article there on this topic - and in fact this may be a good idea if this article gets to large. Volunteer Marek  21:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest rearranging the section on Russian media coverage into a section dedicated to the statements concerning coverage differences between various media.

Other sources that may be added to such section are: " "The one-sided accusation [from the West] is not surprising in light of their long-time stance on the crisis in eastern Ukraine, and their attitude towards Russia’s absorption of Crimea in March.” This is broadly consistent with the editorial stances taken by most mainstream Chinese publications." (http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/mh17-china-defends-russia-criticizes-the-west/)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101852007#. , http://time.com/3011538/malaysia-airlines-ukraine-crash-china-response-mh17-russia/

http://www.thewestwire.com/germanys-largest-public-broadcaster-admits-too-little-russian-interests-in-ukraine-coverage/

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/mh17-the-interim-score/ Usernick (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, what you need is secondary sources which talk about how this event was covered in particular media. NOT cherry picked instances of how this event was covered in particular media. We do have such secondary sources for how it was covered in Russian media. I'm not seeing it for other countries' media. Volunteer Marek  01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Several of the sources that I provided indeed talk about the position of the West, Western governments, U.S. and other Western nations, or even U.S. and Australian officials.

However, there is a source saying "The premature trial by Western media is not based on known facts and logic.". Another source says: "Another German TV channel – ZDF, which has also been criticized by its viewers for inaccurate reporting – has lately tried to get off the hook by mocking Western media’s coverage of the Ukrainian crisis. The black-and-white parody presented a German general in the times of World War I, who had to cope with the recent developments in Ukraine. The massacre in Odessa, the MH17 tragedy, the Russian aid convoy – these were the events he tried to get across to an editor of a fictional newspaper, probably inspired by the work of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth." Another source says "Numerous new, potentially troubling aspects of the story have emerged over the past ten days, however, and they should be scrutinized if and when there is an impartial investigation. For now, they remain underreported or simply ignored in the Western media coverage of the event."Usernick (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first "source" is a quote from Chinese state-run media. The second is RT. The third is an opinion piece in a think-tank's magazine. Stickee (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with these sources by default, but I will read previous discussions concerning reliability of these sources when I find time for this. Meanwhile, I would like to ask you to provide more specific rationale for excluding these sources in this specific case. I am not aware of any blanket prohibition.

Yet another source says "The British press has been particularly ready to shoot from the hip (the Sun proclaimed “Putin’s Missile” brought down MH17 well ahead of evidence that it was a missile, or linked to Russia). (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/western-media-coverage-ukraine-crisis-russia)

I remember there were several publications in German mainstream press, but do not remember if they specifically mentioned MH17.Usernick (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, as it is noted in the beginning of this section, there is a problem with the statement "Media coverage of the crash in Russia has differed from coverage by other worldwide media", as it follows from the above quotes on Chinese and BIC's media (see e.g. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/western-powers-largely-alone-in-condemnation-of-russia/article19735260/). Let's discuss what options we have.Usernick (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This wording in the lede

There's a very poorly worded run-on sentence in the lede that says:

According to American intelligence sources, intelligence assembled in the five days after the crash pointed overwhelmingly to pro-Russian separatists having shot down the plane using a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory which they controlled. The Russian government however blamed the Ukrainian Government.

After reading this sentence, it seems that Americans decided that the rebels are responsible, but Russia blames Ukraine. In reality, according to the source attributed to that sentence,

"The U.S. intelligence officials, who included experts on Russia’s military and its relationship with separatists in Ukraine, said they do not know the identities or even the nationalities — whether Russian or possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military — of those who launched the missile from an SA-11 surface-to-air battery." [34]

Does anyone else think this source doesn't quite represent the sentence and that the sentence needs to be reworded? USchick (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead is based upon this from the same source: "the officials said the intelligence assembled in the five days since the attack points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists in territory they control", which is pretty much a complete match to what is said in the lead. Although they don't know the exact identity (eg Steve Jones from 17 Downing Street), they know "overwhelmingly" that was separatists. Stickee (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is that this is a run-on sentence (really?) then just change it to: "According to American intelligence sources, intelligence assembled in the five days after the crash pointed overwhelmingly to pro-Russian separatists having shot down the plane using a Buk surface-to-air missile. The missile was fired from the territory which they controlled. The Russian government however blamed the Ukrainian Government.". And done. Volunteer Marek  01:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

USchick's argument appears to be "there is some other sentence in the source which is different from the sentence in the text. This means the source is being misrepresented. Never mind that there is actually another sentence in the source which matches the text, don't pay attention to that." This kind of thing exhausts one's ability to assume good faith. Volunteer Marek  01:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the source presents many different sides, but for the purpose of this article, editors cherry picked what they wanted it to say. USchick (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The source does NOT "presents many different sides". You're just taking a sentence out of context and pretending that it does. In other words, you're trying to misrepresent the source. Again. The "don't know" part refers to whether the guys who pulled the trigger were actually Russians or rebels. The source also states "The senior intelligence officials said they have ruled out the possibility that Ukrainian forces were responsible for the attack.". So no, no "many different sides". Stop it, these kinds of attempts at manipulation are transparent. Volunteer Marek  18:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"they do not know the identities or even the nationalities — whether Russian or possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military" USchick (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

???  Volunteer Marek  19:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a question? USchick (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant passages have been quoted. Yet here you are sitting pretending that they don't exist. And you continue to try and misrepresent the source. Still. ???. As in "do you really think we're that stupid?". See Stickee's comment above. Volunteer Marek  20:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If relevant passages had been quoted, we wouldn't be having this discussion. USchick (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette (and basic politeness) 101

• Don't move other people's comments around.
• Don't splice together different conversations to make it seem like an editor was responding to something other than they were responding to
• Don't change section titles in midst of discussion, especially in a non-neutral manner
• Generally, leave other people's comments alone. It's extremely rude and quite disruptive to change what someone else said, and it can be taken as acting in very bad faith.
• Keep the discussion focused and on topic, don't insert one discussion into the middle of another.
• If you don't know how to indent, bullet point, etc. ask somebody.

 Volunteer Marek  01:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please stop hatting discussions which you are apart of. Leave them unhatted. Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not choose to be a part of that discussion. I was "made" a part of that discussion by other users moving my comments around and changing the headings. Next time, respect other people's comments and this won't be a problem.  Volunteer Marek  01:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

VM, perhaps you could strike the misplaced comment, or perhaps move it somewhere else, or add a comment after it stating it is misplaced? In any case, this edit doing the splitting and which caused all the confusion probably shouldn't have been done in the first place. Stickee (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That section has become too much of a mess to clean up. I don't like being misrepresented. The only thing to do know is to hat it, note that it's a mess, and restart the discussion in a new section. Volunteer Marek  01:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

An putting everything aside, why is USchick changing section titles in a middle of discussion, started by someone else, to something very biased. Per WP:TPNQ:

Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

Be precise in quoting others.

When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.

Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures.

and

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

 Volunteer Marek  01:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any comments here which have been altered. Can you please give a difflink of what you are talking about? --PM3 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's saying his comment at 18:06 was originally replying to the comment at 16:45, but after this edit, it's now replying to the comment at 20:36. Stickee (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more explicit than that. I can't find any comment at 20:36. And Volunteer Marek doesn't come up in the diff you give at all. USchick just created a new section out of an extensive comment of Tennispompom's, and Tennispompom did not express any resentment at that. So this is a tempest in a teapot, as far as I can tell. – Herzen (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view the whole section 'A variety of efforts used in this article to game the system' is a good example. While you read it in the order that it is now presented in, the time stamp switch between Oct 17 and Oct 18. Which means that you read answers and further comments before you read earlier answers/comments which, as a consequence, may appear out of context, irrelevant etc. while they were not when originally posted. (I think this is what V Malek refers to as splicing). In general I think it is best to only put answers at the bottom of the thread, and if that means your new addition looks out of place too bad, always better than in retrospect misrepresenting someone elses. Arnoutf (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit in the wrong place was inadvertently done. I had been struggling with indenting bulleted lists, previewing and re-editing without success. To make matters worse, I didn't know one can edit a single section - I had been editing the entire very long Talk page where it is extremely difficult to find the right position. Sorry for messing up the sequence, it was inadvertently done.

Having said that, there is no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Volunteer Marek lists a series of injunctions, most of which I did not do, and none deliberately. I have asked for help with formatting, both on this page and in the TeaHouse.

The "hatting" episode and the (seemingly pointed?) creation of a section on basic etiquette, are unnecessary and heavy-handed responses to an inexperienced newbie's formatting error. Coming so soon after the same User's accusation of sock-puppetry on my first day as new user, this new instance of an extreme reaction could give the wrong impression of Volunteer Marek's intentions. He did apologise for "sock-puppet" accusations and I accepted, so I continue to assume good faith on his part. Please stop taking out your frustrations on me and go for a more moderate slap on wrist, if required, on my user talk page.

Can we close this Etiquette section now? Tennispompom (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The other things he's talking about were by another user, not you. It was moreso this edit, which just led to a talking-to by an admin. Stickee (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion will be auto-archived once it has received no comments for a specified period of time, see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archival. @Tennispompom: I have left an additional reply on your talk page. Lklundin (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• In essence, any discussion where someone forged/modified comments by other contributors must be discarded. Therefore, the hatting by VM is appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I caused such a ruckus. That was not my intent. Previously, my comments were also rearranged by other users in the heat of conversation, and I simply moved them to the right location. There were edit conflict all over the place, so I understand how this could have happened. I would like to add to the list of what not to do:

• In the middle of a discussion, please do not put your comment all the way to the left (and in italic) like that's the end of the discussion. Because what happens when people don't want to respond to that comment, and instead, want to continue the discussion, they simply continue, and the new comment to the left is left dangling at the bottom. This happened several times, but everyone was adult about it, until now. USchick (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive us, Netherlands

The following statement is not encyclopaedic and should be removed from the article: "On 25 July, the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch that read "Vergeef ons, Nederland" ("Forgive Us, Netherlands")." Who is in favor? 118.210.196.217 (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "not encyclopaedic"? It's definitely notable and relevant:

MH17 crash: Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta prints front-page asking Netherlands for 'forgiveness'

Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta prints front-page apology for MH17 disaster in Dutch

MH17 Disaster Prompts Heartfelt Apology From Russian Newspaper Novaya Gazeta

Russian Newspaper Issues Front-Page Apology for Flight MH17

"Novaya Gazeta newspaper has published this front page, with the headline translating to "Forgive us, Netherlands""

Malaysia Airlines MH17: 'Forgive Us, Netherlands' – Moving Frontpage Tribute Printed by Russian Newspaper

‘Forgive us’, Russian newspaper appeals to the Dutch over MH17 tragedy

Russian newspaper prints front-page MH17 apology

Russia condoles MH17 plane crash, says 'forgive us'

Plus all the ones in Dutch [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Stickee (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta article was published just days after the event, so they could not have known the truth. Plus given that it is Russian, it is not a reliable source. Playing your game now :) 118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So you now argue to remove all Russian sources/opinions? Please go ahead.; and clean out that section. But don't play games with your interpretation of what is going on just to make a point. Arnoutf (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, please stop playing games.

However, undue weight is an issue here. Why report a headline in a minority Russian newspaper, when the global mainstream publications' views don't get a proper mention? You know my views on this - global media opinions and theories (mainstream only) should be listed in a section titled Global Media Coverage. A separate section on only Russian media, breaches Wikipedia neutrality policy, especially when the article states that the Russian view is the odd one out, which it is not - there are many other global views with far greater weight, omitted in this article. But, as restructuring from scratch is seen as too much effort, let's correct the article piecemeal - I say take it out. Only the mainstream media opinion should be included in this section, or we will be obliged to start including non-mainstream views from other global regions for the sake of being even-handed. Tennispompom (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• This in not a matter of "mainstream views", but reliability of sources. In countries with state political censorship (like the Soviet Union or Russia today) most sources on politically important events are highly unreliable or distribute outright disinformation. There are a few exceptions: some newspapers with independent editorial boards and reputable journalists. Such is Novaya Gazeta. It represents mainstream views - in the worldwide sense. Now, speaking about Ukrainian news organizations, most of them are highly critical of Poroshenko government, indicating their independent position, unlike position of Russian media that relentlessly praise Putin, just as they praised Stalin. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Novaya Gazeta as a source for "mainstream views - in the worldwide sense" in a section entitled Russian media Coverage. It doesn't make sense in two ways:- First, one can get much better (authoritative) sources for that view from the big international media houses. Why scrape the barrel? Secondly, in the context Russian Media Coverage, it is textbook undue weight.

Instead, use mainstream Russian media - happy to look up - something like Pravda, RT, such like. RS is not at all a problem - see WP:NEWSORG for explanation. Tennispompom (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out often enough, that all of the media, you ask for, are actually state controlled and have been extensively used to spread false information or disinformation in the past month. All russian state media together are one, single source - not many different. Which disqualifies them for use in Wikipedia:Exceptional. Alexpl (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The current text states: " the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta ...". Hence it doesn't say that NG represents "mainstream Russian opinion", or that it represents "mainstream worldwide opinion" or anything of the sort. It correctly describes the source. The IPs contention that this sentence is somehow "unencyclopedic" is just an empty assertion. It's just more of this WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire Network How do you like this a s a source? Would that be acceptable? USchick (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this discussion?  Volunteer Marek  19:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking if you accept this as a reliable source. USchick (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm asking what does that have to do with this discussion? Anyway, the answer should be obvious to anyone familiar with criteria for reliable sources. Volunteer Marek  19:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously what's obvious to me is not at all what's obvious to you, and that's why I'm asking. USchick (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong place to ask. But the answer is no. Volunteer Marek  19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexpl, and everyone, Alas, it's been pointed out too often, because state control is irrelevant in this case.

There has been a major misunderstanding on this Talk page re what the Wikipedia policy on current events actually is. Reliable SECONDARY sources are NOT applicable in this context. Here's a very useful and clear quote from WP:PRIMARYNEWS:

However, Wikipedia fairly often writes about current events. As a result, an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources".

The same Wikipedia doc goes on to list examples of Primary Sources, e.g.: Eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, Interviews and reports of interviews, Investigative reports, Editorials, opinions and op-eds. Some of these are Defined as a primary source by policy. What this means is that if one attempts to use them as secondary sources, one is falling foul of rule on No Original Research. Please read the article and follow the link, it takes you directly to the OR policy page.

The Media coverage section doesn't need secondary sources, it needs primary sources - BY DEFINITION! Tennispompom (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No, reliable secondary sources are applicable in this context, like everywhere else on Wikipedia. We don't need primary sources, except in some very limited circumstances. We don't do original research. Volunteer Marek  19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tennispompom Euhm no, it not falling foul of original research, although it claims a level of reflection typical to secondary sources that is unwarranted. Also please do not start something that does not follow from the previous discussion as that is asking for conflicts because you almost force people to place comments at the wrong place. If it needs to be said, start a new thread.

Re Voltaire Network USchick- The policies on reliable sources do mention that for news type sources the reliability should be judged on a case-by-case basis. So without revealing exactly what information you suggest to use from the Voltaire network your question is irrelevant. Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing they want to use an article VN reprinted from Oriental Review [40]. It's junk. Not reliable in 99% of cases. Volunteer Marek  19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(clarify) OR being one source which did a lot to publicize that fake letter from Prof. Hamelink [41]. A website (not a journal) which specializes in bullshit. Volunteer Marek  19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Media coverage of current events is just such a limited circumstance. Did you read the link I provided? It's there in black and white. If you still disagree with what it says on WP:PRIMARYNEWS, we should ask for clarification from the Wikipedia policy makers. Tennispompom (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know that link but I have no idea how you get the conclusion "we don't need secondary sources" out of it. Volunteer Marek  19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and Artnoulf, let me address both your comments: All depends on what statement you want to substantiate. Contrast the two statements:-

"MH17 was downed by BUK", source PRAVDA article

"PRAVDA says MH17 was downed by BUK", source PRAVDA article

If one wants to establish that MH17 was downed by BUK, and are using PRAVDA as a source, then Pravda is being used as a secondary source, and it is necessary to establish that PRAVDA is a reliable secondary source (i.e. not state controlled, etc). Does the Article on MH17 want to establish one particular theory as true? No, that would be original research.

But, if one wants to establish the fact that PRAVDA believes that MH17 was downed by BUK, then Pravda is being used as a primary source, and all that is needed is that any educated reader can go to the Pravda article and confirm that Pravda indeed did write so. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD explicitly states:

"Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True™. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does."

By treating all media views and theories as Primary sources, which we are instructed to do, we are able to include all mainstream theories in a neutral way. : WP:PRIMARYNEWS states clearly which types of media reports are Primary BY DEFINITION, and directs to page on OR for policy clarification.

I've now explained why secondary sources are not applicable in context of media views of current events. We were all mislead by the the statement that "reliable secondary sources" are required for neutrality. Not so. If you still have doubts after reading the links, I suggest that we take it to the Wikipedia policy makers for confirmation, no point arguing amongst ourselves what the words on Wikipedia policy pages mean. Tennispompom (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For now, just note that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is not a Wikipedia policy but an essay. While some essays get quoted a lot and have a measure of support in the community, generally essays are nothing more than glorified talk page comments. The ranking is policy > guideline > > > > essay. Volunteer Marek  22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

After your comment, I've reviewed the core Wikipedia policy docs again, and they are fully consistent with the contents of the references I provided. To avoid a long post here, I'm happy to respond in detail on your user page and include references to the CORE POLICY, showing how they are consistent. Let me know, I have already prepared the extracts. Alternatively, you might be prompted to re-read the core policy again yourself. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are most pertinant in the context, in that order. Neutrality is not negotiable.

It is surprising to see you invoking the relative authority of Policy-> Guideline -> Essay, etc. because you have been quoting references to the Documentation supporting the TEMPLATE:POV source code to override Core policy documents - incorrectly. To give an analogy, that's like quoting a Software Developer's comments on source code of an Online shopping application to override the Laws on Trading Standards.

The Core policy WP:NPOV states

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

In section "Spurious Tag again", User:Volunteer Marek quoted from the Template documentation, to support the incorrect view that only secondary sources are acceptable:

The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

I've raised this on the TEMPLATE:POV Talk page, and the published decision states:-

The policy is WP:NPOV. It is one of the WP:5 pillars of wikipedia. To the extent that the template documentation is useful it is to underscore policy. The precise language of the template is not all that critical, but the precise language of the policy is. Refer to that instead.

There is no requirement for "secondary" in this context. Can you accept it now? Tennispompom (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but (to come back at your earlier example) for a primary source we should quote it as "Pravda states..." (what Pravda may or may not believe we cannot know. However if we agree on using primary sources, suddenly the relevance of the source itself (rather than the content) becomes important. So now we have to determine whether the opinion voiced by the Pravda (a state controlled newspaper from a state according to itself having no involvement whatsoever) is more important then the opinion of a newspaper in Fiji.

In short it shift the discussion from WP:RS to WP:UNDUE and that is not trivial in this case. Arnoutf (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good point. If we reinstate the deleted section on Stakeholders (entities directly involved in the crash), it will become evident whose opinion is important and who is posturing for political gain. USchick (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom Of course there is still a requirement for secondary sources. Primary sources may be acceptable in limited circumstances. This is no different than thousands of other articles on Wikipedia.

@USchick, we are not restoring that WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:NPOV violating section. Even the very word "stakeholders" is a piece of POV original research that some Wikipedian invented out of thin air. Volunteer Marek  17:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

USER:Arnoutf, USER:Volunteer Marek, USER:USchick, I'm so happy I could hug you!!! Consider yourself kissed smack bang in the middle of your forehead behind which intellect resides. Finally argument which is rational, impersonal and by reference to the Wikipedia rules. Excuse the outburst - I had almost lost all hope.

You are absolutely right - the relevance, due weight, no original research rules, etc. all have to be dealt with too. It's not hard - I've worked out how to do it. An article must comply with all the policies, and I have given them some thought (quite a lot of thought and research through the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays library). I can see how to make this article fully compliant with WP and would like to pass the information on, before I bow out. My chest infection is gone, I go back to work tomorrow, and won't have any time to waste on pointless arguing.

PRIMARY SOURCES ARE ALLOWED AND ADVOCATED BY WP POLICY

We've now established that in the context of media coverage, primary sources are advocated by WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:NOR. Thus, diverse global media views can be covered in the article without being excluded on state control et al. grounds. No need for us to prove that what they are saying is true, it is enough to report that they say so. So if China Times (does such a paper exist?) publish an article stating their view on causes, it doesn't matter what they believe and whether they have been coerced into publishing, what matters is that they published it in order to influence their readership and form public opinion. (I.e. they are ACTORS in this media game, not just sources.) In Wikipedia, we are not required to prove that the media source's vision is true (that would be taking sides, a no no in Wikipedia world); we required to report what they said neutrally.

RELEVANCE AND UNDUE WEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS

But we can't report what every media source in the world says, and how they change their story over time, we have to address significant views in a neutral manner, avoiding original research (synthesis) accusations. So which countries views should we take into account, given that we are not allowed to come up with our own lists?

BY POPULATION SIZE

In order to cover multiple points of view, Wikipedia WP:NOR requires that "editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.". English language Wikipedia does not restrict itself to the English speaking world, its domain is global. Therefore, the majority views will be represented by size of population, in sequence:, e.g. China, India, US, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Mexico and Phillipines, all with populations above 100M.

But, the list based on significant populations by population size has a problem in that it excludes media views in countries directly impacted by the event, such as Ukraine (43M population), The Netherlands (17M), which is intuitively unfair, so what other lists do we have which are relevant in the context of MH17?

BY PARTICIPATION IN OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION

There is the list of countries which are participating in the official international investigation lead by Dutch Safety Board (no problems finding a source listing them, e.g. DSB Preliminary report itself). These countries are, in order listed by DSB, Netherlands, Malaysia, UK, US, Ukraine, Russia and Australia.

COMPROMISE SOLUTION

However, if we only include the views of media of countries involved in the investigation, we inadvertently exclude the vast majority of the global population, and thereby the views most likely to be neutral (taxpayers not paying for it, etc.) The total populations of countries involved in the investigation are about one third of the population of China - we can't exclude China if we want to be impartial. Therefore, in my RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL Section, I suggested we have a Media Coverage section in the Article with two subsections 1) mainstream media views in countries participating in the Official investigation and 2) mainstream views in other countries.

To keep the inclusion list manageable, I suggest including only mainstream media, the chances are that the views of the minority press are already covered by one of the other countries mainstream media anyway, and we have to draw the line somewhere. Undue weight applies - and this is not a party political issue within a single country where opposition views are significant, MH17 crash is an international incident.

As for "Other countries list, the line can be drawn at various points, e.g. China and India only, representing two thirds of the world's population, or perhaps the top 5, or maybe only those with pop. over 100M. Not all have expressed a view, so perhaps list could include those who expressed a strong position, e.g. Germany. As long as our objective is neutrality, it should be possible to agree.

MEDIA COVERAGE OVER TIME

I further proposed a lower level breakdown by time period, because as time passes and investigations are concluded, the media views may also change, and it would be sensible to anticipate future article additions. I was prompted by reading an excellent Chinese article published a few hours after the crash, listing almost all theories involved in this blame game. The paper was one which is viewed as a mouthpiece of the Chinese Government - and what better source would one want for a statement showing how China wants to influence it's public opinion, ideal. What struck me was that within 8 hours of the crash, the majority of the cause (blame) theories had already crystallized. I also noticed that after the publication of the report, the media stance changed subtly from constructing their respective theories to justifying them by reference to what the DSB preliminary report said.

I'm open to suggestions re temporal breakdown. On the one hand, the media role in the incident is likely to remain historically important long after the causes of the crash are known, so the changing stance of the media in role of influencing public opinion, also matters. On the other hand, the article could grow to be too big. The decision to restrict to CURRENT Media stance doesn't need to be made now - my inclination is to allow for time breakdown, because too many items already included in the article would then have to be taken out, risking another edit war in a fragile situation, also - in these early post crash days - the article isn't too big yet.

NOTABILITY CONSIDERATIONS

Any suggestions to split off the Media Coverage Section to a separate Article should be strongly resisted on the grounds of notability. The Media section will only have Primary sources within it, failing on notability for independent article. Also, Media Coverage is an important attribute of the MH17 event and should stay with the Article on that topic, where there are no Notability issues.

SIMPLIFICATION THROUGH NEUTRAL STRUCTURE

Arnoutf, you once suggested to me that you thought the article should be much simpler. I agree completely, as long as no one confuses simpler with smaller. Smaller, would be good too, as long as Neutrality is maintained, and that means including only the most important points in a neutral way, which in turn means that we need a neutral structure, along the lines of the Restructuring proposal I made earlier. There is a WP guideline on Structure, I read it, but didn't record the link. it should be easy to find.

ADMIN OVERSIGHT REQUIRED

On a different topic now, this article won't be going anywhere unless ADMIN are appointed to oversee the behaviour of the editors. There is no shame in the "Neutrality Disputed" badge, but oh boy, this Article must be the shame of Wikipedia by the way that it's editors are arguing amongst themselves. The discussions have almost entirely abandoned rational discussion on the topic of how to write the article, and degenerated into very aggressive bickering about the relative merits of one MH17 theory or another. Shame on all who have resorted to this, and they exist on all sides of the opinion divide.

When the ADMIN eventually arrive to keep everyone within the Wikipedia policies, there could be a spin off benefit from the polarized views of the current editors, for example the pro-Dutch editor could take on the Dutch Media Section, while the pro-Russian editor could take on the Russian media section, etc. and they would have an interest to produce highest quality report. Perhaps they also speak the language, which would help a great deal I suspect. I may volunteer to do China and India coverage, unless there are Chinese and indian speakers.

REFERENCES TO OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES

This leads me to something I have not checked, but which should be checked carefully to stay within the bounds of Wikipedia neutrality rules. By providing references to other Wikipedia articles, e.g. to provide the wider context, we should be sure that there are no circular and other references where the editors involved here, are also editors of the Referenced articles. There is potential for mischief, whether or not it is happening and there are Wikipedia rules covering it. When reputation of Wikipedia is at stake, Wikipedia rules should be observed rigorously.

Arnoutf et al., due to it's size, you (or anyone else) may want to copy my comments to a new section within the Talk page, I have no objection if you do.

Wikipedia editing has been quite an experience, but now I have to go back to work and won't have as much time. I'll remain a Wikipedia User, and will contribute from time to time. I will certainly be following this page with avid interest! Good luck, Tennispompom (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is too long too read in full. I stopped when I got to: "We've now established that in the context of media coverage, primary sources are advocated by WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:NOR. ".

We have not established this. WP:NOR most certainly does not advocate using primary sources. Quite the opposite. I guess under some readings WP:PRIMARYNEWS might (though even there the reference is to "breaking news" and such, and this isn't that anymore), but that's just an essay not a policy or even a guideline.

There are very good - almost fundamental - reasons for an encyclopedia, any encyclopedia, to eschew usage of primary sources as much as possible. One way or another it almost always leads to synthesis and original research. And that's not what encyclopedias are about. This is especially true in an encyclopedia which is written by volunteers rather than hand picked experts (since at least with experts you'd get half way decent original research, here even that won't be the case). So at the end of the day we really need "sources which talk about how sources cover this event". In other words secondary sources. Volunteer Marek  19:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is only one answer to the above Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf and User:Volunteer Marek, as you din't have time to read my comment, why did you spend time in replying to it? Your answers to a comment you didn't read are meaningless. Tennispompom (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I read it up to the first majorly flawed premise. Volunteer Marek  20:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There are headings, includes structure and sequence, you can read it one step at a time when you have time to think. Tennispompom (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Volunteer Marek for reading part of the way. I do appreciate it.

Re your 1st point - Yes it does, it's in Core Policy NOR, section WP:PSTS, Primary Bullet point, which says: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. That's what a media opinion, report, etc is - BY DEFINITION!

Re 2nd pt, you say: "So at the end of the day we really need "sources which talk about how sources cover this event". True, when writing about an event which is in the past, and the facts are known, e.g. an article on the battle of Waterloo, but on an evolving current event, where even the investigation isn't complete yet, let alone any court trial, reliable secondary sources (i.e. authoritative analysis) do not exist yet, however much the media from all parts of the world, would like us to believe. All media are jumping the gun, trying to influence public opinion. Wikipedia isn't in the business of rubber-stamping media speculation, which - at this stage - is what it is. I.e. stay neutral, use as Primary source - report what the media say, not that they are right. We simply don't know. Tennispompom (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that "the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch...". As such, there is no issue here about the reliability of sourcing, unless someone wishes to contend that we all cannot believe our own eyes.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, but the problem is due weight, as I've explained yesterday. Please read the top few entries. Tennispompom (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that no one has argued back re my undue weight comment on 19 Oct, and take that as tacit agreement (i.e. consensus). I therefore intend to remove the item from the article over the weekend, so as the old adage says, speak now or forever hold your your peace. Tennispompom (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I read it up to the first flawed premise. Volunteer Marek  07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Being the last person to comment doesn't mean your comment is "correct". Especially when there's multiple comments above it that disagree. Stickee (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this article

Since sources are considered on an individual basis, can we please get agreement on whether or not the following sources are considered RS for this article. USchick (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

New Straits Times

• Yes. it's the oldest newspaper in Malaysia that predates the formation of the government of Malaysia. They have an editorial board and this source has been critical of Mlaysian government. USchick (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should be decided on case by case basis depending on topic Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we already know the topic, can you please clarify what else we need to consider? USchick (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No we don't as a column in that newspaper, or a personal opinion, or a letter in the discussion section may not be reliable in a specific context. So we need the actual article you want to refer to for that decision. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just a regular article, not an opinion, not a special column. It's buried somewhere on this page and I will link to it later. If someone can link to it now, I will be most grateful. USchick (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Here it is [42]. It quotes Robert Parry an Associated Press reporter. If Global Research is a problem, Robert Parry is not. The newspaper has an editorial board, and they chose to cover this story. It was picked up by another independent source Malaysian Digest [43] Then later on the same day NST changed the headline on the same story (probably to make it more neutral). [44]. USchick (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

No discussion has taken place only disapproval without a reason. We have already been to ANI to determine that discrediting Malaysian sources for no good reason is unacceptable. USchick (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the conclusion of ANI. The conclusion was that calling people "racist" and saying people that people "slander" is unacceptable. Stickee (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion to talk about ANI. This one is about the source. USchick (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You brought up ANI. ANI discussion was about you making bullshit accusations of racism, not about the source. You almost got blocked, the only thing that saved your butt is that you retracted the false accusation. This whole farce is so absurd it's almost funny. Volunteer Marek  03:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion to talk about ANI. This one is about the source. USchick (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no objections to these Malaysian sources, I take that as consensus to include. USchick (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no clear arguments where to add for what reason, which was the request and this has ended up in the middle of a long thread, so I am pretty sure that this silence should not be interpreted as consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to play games. There's obviously objections. Volunteer Marek  18:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify what the obvious objections are to using this source. Maybe then we can move on to discuss how and where to use it. USchick (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You already know that. WP:Games. A Blogger and an OSCE guy are the source for the "New Straits Times" article, who are accepted as experts. Which they are not. Haisenko is not worth mentioning again and the Michael Bociurkiw interview is on youtube, and he says there, that he is not trained to identify damage. The article just has no base. Alexpl (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The New Straits Times published an article about MH17 in its print version which it did not post on its Web site. Graphics of the front page of the relevant edition of the newspaper and of the MH17 story are available here. The first paragraph of this story states:

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

Haisenko, Bociukiw, and Robert Parry are not mentioned in this story, but "experts" are, although the nationality of the experts is not identified. But in an interview, one of the authors of the article says, "on that basis [examination of photographs of MH17 fragments, Malaysian investigators are working on the alternate theory." A segment from the interview can be viewed at the video found here:
International Business Times: MH17 News Update: Pilot Was Targeted Right In The Stomach – Expert Alleges (The relevant segment begins at 18:35.) By the way, the way I came to this International Business Times story is that when I did a Google search for "mh17", that link was the third one to come up.
So, we have a reliable source reporting that Malaysian investigators are pursuing the alternate theory. Sorry, that means that Wikipedia cannot treat the alternate theory as a "conspiracy theory" or FRINGE. – Herzen (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this NST story by Haris Hussain (the same guy you see in the video) keeps being brought up demonstrates just how fringe this really is. Also that IB Times link isn't working. Stickee (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone please provide a source that says this is a fringe theory, because according to several reliable sources mentioned above, this it an alternative theory. I'm sorry that some people don't like the individuals in the reports, but I don't like Strelkov and his VKontakte page, but that information is still in the lede. USchick (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they took it down. Don't see what the point is, since the article just reports what's in the RT report, which isn't going anywhere. The article is still cached by Google; don't know how log that's going to last. As for "this NST story by Haris Hussain … keeps being brought up", I don't see your point. By "this NST story", I take it you mean this. That isn't the story I brought up. Somehow I don't get the impression that you read what I write very carefully. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire Network

• Yes. It's an international organization in Paris. They publish online in 8 languages. USchick (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should be decided on case by case basis depending on topic Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Analysis by Ivan A. Andrievskii, an engineer [45] USchick (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, after a certain point it becomes extremely disruptive and yes, it will get you blocked.
• No. More wacky conspiracy fringe crap (among other things). Volunteer Marek  19:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

See how this comment is off by itself? Is this supposed to be the end of the discussion? Please don't complain when the discussion continues and this comment is "misrepresented." USchick (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Leave my comment alone. And read WP:POINT. Volunteer Marek  20:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no discussion on the topic. Just a seemingly endless line of accounts, trying to redeem the russian federation by repeating the same arguments. The "New Straits Times" article [46] is based on info from the bloggers Robert Parry and Peter Haisenko. So as reliable and old that newspaper may be, this particluar info is not so good, or just rubbish. So quote the "New Straits Times" if you like, but tell the reader that the story is taken from two bloggers who had no access to the crash site or additional info and who are just speculating. Alexpl (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@VM Please read WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT USchick (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

MST has an editorial board. If they choose to cover information they consider relevant, that's their responsibility as a newspaper. I would like to point out that in the lede, we have information from a credible source about a Russian social media profile, which is also rubbish. Somehow that information is still in the lede and no one is willing to consider removing it. USchick (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that that has been done for this specific article? Many good newspapers allow space for personal opinions of readers and opinion leaders that they think are relevant to show, but NOT agree with the content. Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that was all a bluff to free Girkin/Strelkov from blame - again. Wikipedia:I just don't like it But if you insist: There was a post on vkontakte, in his name, so short after the crash, that can be considered to be part of the main event. Nobody says here in the lede, that he actually did write that himself. I see no problem. If you dont bring up anything new, further posts on that matter shall be removed per WP:Forum. Alexpl (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're not even claiming that that social media post was done by Strelkov. Thus you effectively admit that it was black propaganda. So what is it doing in the lede? I have to agree with what editors have said before, ending their work on this article in frustration: never have I seen such a biased article as this one. – Herzen (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Both this and the preceding comment by Herzen are made later in time than the next comments. Any disruption of flow and misunderstanding becayse of these two remarks is fully due to the later addition of these remarks. Arnoutf (talk)

Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we bothering you? Are stopping you from doing anything? Please stop telling people what they're allowed to discuss on a talk page. USchick (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As someone who cares about the neutrality of this article, yes, you are bothering me. By wasting my time. By repeating the same nonsense, even after explanations have been provided multiple times. Even after it's been shown with direct quotations or text that you are completely misrepresenting sources and editors. By engaging in tendentious and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are intended to discuss concrete suggestions for article improvement. This talk page has long since degenerated into bickering about interpretation of wiki policies and a lot of wikilawyering. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf, I did propose a specific approach, please see section "Proposal - Article Restructuring". The arguments for and against the proposal should be discussed in terms of Wikipedia policies on the Talk page before changing the article, but - you are right - if arguments degenerate into bickering about what the written Wikipedia text means, then it needs to be referred for clarification upwards. Tennispompom (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that this Wikipedia pillar must be observed but isn't in this article:

we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".

Any attempt to implement WP policy in this article by "document[ing] and explain[ing] the major points of view" gets trashed. If that stopped, the bickering would stop, too. – Herzen (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is a good example of the wikilawyering I was talking about where User Herzen left out the opening sentence of that pillar which state we report: the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. in favour of lines further down in the text. Also Herzens quote actually starts with "in others" clearly implying this is not a 'must' as Herzen claims, but a solution that can be used in some specific situations. Arnoutf (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If the only two theories that Time magazine considers are that the rebels shot down MH17 and that a Ukrainian fighter plane shot it down, then due weight requires that Wikipedia consider both theories. Doing anything else is a clear case of holding that there is a best view. Please stop the lawyering and admit the obvious. – Herzen (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Above, I made this "concrete suggestion for article improvement": to use this unimpeachable source to add the following to the end of the "preliminary report" section:

According to Time Magazine, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.

Yet editors continually shoot this proposal down, because hate the theory that a fighter plane shot down MH17, defiantly holding to their position that there is a "best view", thus unambiguously and flagrantly violating Wikipedia's second pillar. – Herzen (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Time Magazine, in regard to "other theory" "This hypothesis, a favorite on Russian state television, does not fit well with the audio recordings taken from the cockpit of the plane." Why aren't you quoting that part of the article?  Volunteer Marek  22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Does not fit well" does not negate "vague enough to leave room for". Your compulsive insistence that there is a best view is not encyclopedic. Please make a minimal effort to be collaborative, instead of viewing Wikipedia as a battleground in which you can push your POV with wild abandon. – Herzen (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, as someone who's accused others of "hating Russians" or of holding particular views simply because they are of some national background, you got no room to lecture others about "battleground" and "collaborations". Or POV pushing for that matter, seeing as how I just showed that you were selectively quoting from the Time article in order to make it seem like it was about something else than what it really was about. Volunteer Marek  22:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17. That is what the article is about. No qualifications, hedging, and regretting that investigators had little chance to visit the crash site changes that. And as I recall, Time doesn't say that audio recordings "fit well" with the theory that a Buk missile shot down MH17. So that Time says that the audio recordings don't "fit well" with the theory that a fighter plane shot down MH17 is not probative. There simply is no getting around the fact that editors who want to keep this article out (as a compromise, one could add the qualification about the audio recordings, but they don't even propose that) are blatantly advocating a best view, violating the second pillar. – Herzen (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: Yes, you and whoever you deem to be part of your 'we' are bothering me and wasting my time. I did go away for a while to actually contribute only to come back and see that you are still preventing any meaningful discussion about this article. Lklundin (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: "The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17" - are we reading the same Time article? That is not at all what the Time article is about. The Time article is mostly about how, quote, "Pieces of the downed Malaysian airliner were pillaged after the crash, contaminating the work of investigators who published their preliminary findings on Tuesday". You know, there is a reason why they put that blurb right at the top, it's called a summary. The article however does discount the Russian government propaganda story about the plane being shot down by a jet, by noting that, among other things, it doesn't fit in with voice recorded data. If that's the source evidence you've got for why "multiple theories" should be included in the article, well, you don't really have anything. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how editors who insist on preserving the egregious systemic bias in this article at all costs cannot refrain from personal attacks. A reminder: In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible.You managed to use "you" or "your" four times in just two sentences. Also, note that "Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia, making up less than 15% of contributors." Your accusations do not help close the gender gap. – Herzen (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who went around accusing other editors of "hating Russians". And as far as the gender gap... huh?  Volunteer Marek  00:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you, since you apparently do not understand the Wikipedia policy onsystemic bias: "The gender gap has not been closing over time and, on average, female editors leave Wikipedia earlier than male editors." – Herzen (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What on God's green earth are you going on about?  Volunteer Marek  00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Systemic bias is an essay, not a policy. Please, if only to save yourself from looking silly, stop citing it as though it were. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Time article

@Herzen: "The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17" - are we reading the same Time article? That is not at all what the Time article is about. The Time article is mostly about how, quote, "Pieces of the downed Malaysian airliner were pillaged after the crash, contaminating the work of investigators who published their preliminary findings on Tuesday". You know, there is a reason why they put that blurb right at the top, it's called a summary. The article however does discount the Russian government propaganda story about the plane being shot down by a jet, by noting that, among other things, it doesn't fit in with voice recorded data. If that's the source evidence you've got for why "multiple theories" should be included in the article, well, you don't really have anything. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Regarding your wish to cite the Time article that a Ukrainian fighter jet had intercepted the airliner and sprayed it with chain-gun fire, I think this should be one of several items in my already proposed new article: 'Russian propaganda regarding MH 17' - along with details on the until now secret and super-capable Ukrainian SU-25. Lklundin (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is Western propaganda about MH17; I am not aware of any Russian propaganda. Unlike Western coverage of MH17, Russian coverage is fact based, not unbridled speculation. To quote from an interview with Edward S. Herman, an expert on American propaganda and hence a reliable primary source:

This is an amazing story, with Obama, Kerry, Power and The New York Times and company, immediately and indignantly accusing the rebels and Russia of responsibility for downing the plane before any investigation had been carried out. And this was accompanied with furious accusations and with a quick retreat to silence without the presentation of any evidence supporting the US-Kiev-NATO party line by either Kiev or the United States. …

The rebels and Russians had absolutely no interest in destroying MH17. The Kiev government and the U.S. did have an interest, if it could be turned into a successful "false flag" operation with blame successfully placed on the enemy. It has been so treated, with the help of the Western propaganda system, which made the enemy guilty based on no evidence, and protects the likely real killers with protracted silence.

If there is a section on Russian propaganda, there must be a section on Western propaganda. To proceed otherwise is to promote grave systemic bias. – Herzen (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time article is about the DSB preliminary report, as its title clearly indicates. And here is what the article says:

According to the crucial part of the report from the Dutch Safety Board, “The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from the outside.” This could be consistent with the West’s prevailing theory of what brought down the plane, namely a BUK surface-to-air missile launched by the pro-Russian separatists over the territory they control. …

But the wording of the 34-page report … was also vague enough to leave room for one of the more common theories among the rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the disaster on the Ukrainian government on the night of the crash; and in the days that followed, some of the separatists claimed in interviews with TIME that a Ukrainian fighter jet had, for some reason, intercepted the airliner and sprayed it with chain-gun fire.

Time magazine could not express itself more clearly. The West has one "prevailing theory" or POV; Russia and the rebels have another theory or POV. Both are equally consistent with the report. Thus, this article favoring one theory over another requires OR, and holding that there is a best view or even the truth. And note that I'm not even asking that equal weight be given to the Russian theory. All I'm asking is that the article mention that the Russian theory is consistent with the DSB report in just a single sentence. But editors are fighting tooth and nail to suppress even a single sentence mentioning that the only reliable information we have to go on, the DSB preliminary report, favors this possibility no less than the US government's conspiracy theory that the rebels shot down MH17 for some unknown reason with weapons they most likely did not have. This is getting really tedious. – Herzen (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Herzen. Even Time, one of the most reliable sources, admits that DSB supports multiple theories. Yet only one of these theories is discussed in detail here. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever needs to be told about conspiracy theories has been described already in "Russian press coverage" section. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are presenting this information as alternate possibilities, and this is confirmed by the investigation. To label them Conspiracy Theory would be OR. It has been discussed previously why having a section on "Russian press coverage" is problematic. To jump to conclusions before the investigation is complete is also OR. USchick (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen. Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick. Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion ended in VM announcing that there will be no discussion. One more comment like that, and we're going back to ANI for being disruptive. USchick (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The case is watertight. There is an impeccably reliable secondary source clearly stating that the theory that the rebels shot down MH17 and the theory that Kiev shot it down with a fighter plane are equally consistent with the DSB preliminary report. Thus, for this article to utterly exclude one theory as anything other than a crazy conspiracy theory is to seriously violate Wikipedia policy against OR and editors writing as if there is a best view or even the truth. So you might as well drop your battleground attitude and the IDONTHEAR in this case. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to POV push our pet theories. – Herzen (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. There is no majority or significant minority view that the plane was shot down by Kiev. According to sources, such view or claim was propagated by Kremlin, but this is already reflected in "Russian press coverage" section and other parts of this article. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It was never "discussed to death". You have claimed in the past that discussions had been held regarding a content dispute with consensus being reached, when in fact there had been no such discussion. In this case, when reasons for excluding this source were put forward, I rebutted every one of them. The reason I stopped participating in those discussions was that it was obvious that some editors were not willing to abandon their battleground attitude. This time, I am more inclined to pursue this further, because I found out about the five pillars, with their principle that we do not describe one particular view "as 'the truth' or 'the best view'", which gives opponents of the inclusion of this article no leg to stand on. – Herzen (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading that quote from the Time was also vague enough to leave room for -- Does not say the Time supports those theories. In fact the wording strongly implies the opposite: The current evidence is too vague for any theory to receive support. I find the argumentation that lack of evidence is construed as strong support for adding a theory problematic (there is also lack of evidence for an alien deathray; meteor strike; Goldeneye satelites etc etc. - yet we do not mention those). Arnoutf (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Time is not in a position to support a theory. They report. Just like WP editors are not in a position to support a theory. There is also a lack of evidence for the prevailing theory. There's a reward (the largest in history) for anyone who can produce evidence, but no evidence has been produced. The US has satellite data, but they won't release it. USchick (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What USchick said is absolutely correct. Time is not in the position to "support" any theories, and neither are editors (although there's a lot of supporting of one particular theory going on; hence all the bickering); what Time does is report the news, and what it reported is that the DSB preliminary report is consistent with both of the two most prominent theories of who shot down MH17. Readers coming to this article will most likely be curious about who shot the plane down. Time reported, on the basis of the DSB report, who the main suspects are. This issue is notable, and on the basis of WP policy, there are absolutely no grounds for excluding what Time reported from this article. Since this is a new section, I will copy the sentence I proposed here:

According to Time Magazine, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.

That sentence accurately represents what Time reported about the implications of the DSB report as to who the perpetrator might be. This is just one sentence. Why some editors are fighting this one sentence tooth and nail is beyond me. – Herzen (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not fighting the sentence at all. The sentence claims that the Dutch safety board report does not support nor rule out any theory, and that is indeed the case. It can not and should not be interpreted as a sentence that supports the SU25 theory. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: That's very nice to hear. But I wouldn't call the second theory "the SU25 theory". As far as I know, the idea of an SU25 came up at the Russian military briefing, where it was just offered as a suggestion of what the military jet might have been. Bloggers instantly went crazy trying to prove what the operational ceiling of an Su-25 is. But as the Russian engineers' report indicates, the radar signature of a SU-25 is very similar to that of a Mig-29. A Mig-29 is a fighter; an Su-25 is an attack aircraft, so it would have made more sense for the former to have been used. – Herzen (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Area of the crash site

The area of the crash site is given in most international sources as (an estimate of) 35 km² and/or 13 mi² (earlier sources said 30–35 km²). I had added it that way to the article, but this has been edit-warred to 35/14 [47] by using a template, which contradicts any sources I am aware of. As a consensus workaround I now changed it to 34/13, which is given by a few sources which probably converted 13 mi² into km. But this number suggests a precision which is not there, the numbers are not that precise. Therefore I strongly suggest to change it back to the original 35/13, which best fits the majority of most recent sources and – as 35 resembles a rounded-to-5s-number – best fits the fact of inaccuracy. "About" may also be added. --PM3 (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Would saying "an approximate X km² area" solve anything? Although if the conversion template gives a different number than the sources, then perhaps don't use the conversion template. Pinging @Ymblanter:, @Andrewgprout: since you guys made an edit relating to it. Stickee (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, the convert macro shows itself as being imperial-centric, since it produces 'square kilometres' (similar to 'square miles') while the SI notation is 'km²' (and 'square kilometres' is how you read that out in English (when the magnitude is different from 1)). So while the macro should ideally be fixed, that is another reason to leave it out for now. Lklundin (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with just writing 35 km². Don't know how the habit is here, in Continental Europe we only use SI units. Will look for a source for "approximately". --PM3 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This article in other languages

With the help of Google Translate I have checked every version of this article in other languages. Nearly every big article in other language covers this event considerably better than the English version. Namely, no single party is blamed and alternative theories/viewpoints are discussed. The English version is pretty much an exception and I believe it is due to its editor's POV pushing and reluctance to accept non-Western theories. Articles in the following languages present multiple theories of this event: German, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, Dutch, Swedish, Ukrainian, Korean, Croatian, Czech, Bosnian and Urdu. Go ahead and read them if you don't believe me. If we are going to use other languages as a basis for the English version, then in my opinion the best ones (most detailed) to use are the following: German, Spanish, French, Russian and Ukrainian. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia in whatever language is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I will argue the other way. The Russian propaganda primarily attempts to promote the impression that MH 17 was downed by an SU-25. However at Talk:Sukhoi_Su-25#Global_Service_Ceiling I notice that a good dozen languages list a service ceiling of just 7km for the SU-25, making it impossible for it to intercept an airliner crusing at 10km. Consequently, for the propaganda to work the service ceiling of the SU-25 needs to be higher. And lo and behold, the Russian version (last I checked) lists a service ceiling of no less than 14.9km, while the Arabic and Georgian versions list a service ceiling of 10km. I find that rather telling. PS. Anyone with knowledge about wiki-bots are welcome to comment on my idea for a global-bot on the aforementioned talk page. Lklundin (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There are diffent versions of the SU-25 with different service ceilings. And almost all articles in the WP on that plane have been heavily manipulated or "worked over" after the russian federation blamed an SU-25. Alexpl (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line remain that Wikipedia in whatever language is not a reliable source. So can we close this thread. Arnoutf (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we cannot. Why do you rush to closing threads? The point is not about Wikipedia (in other languages) being a reliable source. The point is that the English version of this article is poorly written, biased and not neutral, unlike articles in other languages. Also, if a source was used in other languages then surely it can be used here. The other languages use the same Wikipedia, with the same rules, with the same definition of a reliable source. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We heard that before. Did you read the archive of this discussion? There is nothing new in your request - I remember user Herzen asking for the same thing as you do. Then he asked to include a dubious statement from a retired russian colonel who said a BUK strikes only "from above", to claim it must have been an attack by an aircraft. So why is this article "biased"? Is it, maybe, Girkins vkontakte post in the lede :)))) Alexpl (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case the argument is two sided. If we decide not to use a source, surely Wikipedias in other languages should not use it either. Arnoutf (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the decision about using/not using a source should be black and white, and well defined. IMHO the decision rules haven't been properly followed in this article. Otherwise why would so many articles in other languages differ in their sources from this one? 118.210.196.217 (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Different Wikipedias actually have different rules and different sources. And they're all tertiary sources (and even that is really being generous). Crowd-sourced sources are generally not reliable. Volunteer Marek  17:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously that argument hasn't been settled, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion (I remember the previous request from Herzen). Guys you have to be more accommodating and make more of an effort to understand us. You cannot say no to EVERY single request that we make. We are not actually asking all that much. All we want is a little neutrality and coverage of other theories. You can still keep all the current content (about BUK), as long as you provide alternative explanations like in articles of other languages. Is this really asking that much? 118.210.196.217 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to include relevant information from any reliable, non biased neutral source. But accepting fallacies as reason like you ask us to do in this thread is indeed asking too much. Arnoutf (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexpl wrote: 'Then he asked to include a dubious statement from a retired russian colonel who said a BUK strikes only "from above"'. FYI, the preliminary report from the DSB states (as a caption to figure 10): 'Cockpit floor with floor parts showing puncture holes (red circles) coming from above the floor'. So the radar guided SAM worked perfectly: The proximity fuze went off as it was right next to and slightly above the cockpit, denying the pilots even the slight protection from the cockpit floor and their seats to instantanously incapacitate them thus preventing even a mayday to be sent. So in this case the retired Russian colonel seems to have gotten his facts straight, thus only his agenda is off. Lklundin (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Without exact knowledge of the planes alignment to the horizon in the moment of impact, thats impossible to say. But I really dont think that the BUK is a SAM that has been designed to target the crew - in order to down a plane... Alexpl (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The flight recorder shows that MH 17 was flying straight and level at the moment of impact, leaving little room for roll/pitch. Further, the article quotes a ballistics specialist explaining that 'since it struck the cockpit rather than an engine it was probably a radar guided, rather than heat seeking, missile'. That is not quite the same as saying that a radar quided missile is designed to hit the cockpit, but it is close - and actually hitting the cockpit follows the standard military doctrine of also trying to kill the expensive-to-replace personnel, rather than just targetting the hardware. So I will stand by my statement that the SAM worked perfectly (against this wholly defenceless target). Lklundin (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alexpl: PM3 convinced me that the interview with that Russian officer was not worth pursuing. I can change my mind in response to valid arguments made by other editors. If only the same could be said for editors who think the truth is out there about who downed MH17. Since this bickering is going to go indefinitely, perhaps, for the sake of brevity, I should start referring to editors who are not willing to make the article indicate that more than one theory exists about this subject as "MH17 truthers".

By the way, that Russian officer, Mikhail Krush, is a major general and he is not retired. – Herzen (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Mixed that with the ret. east german colonel. Alexpl (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiegel on German Secret Service report

Der Spiegel is reporting that the German secret service (BND) has reported on their analysis. Apparently has concluded that it was indeed a BUK missile and that it was fired by the rebels; and that all other reports were false. Should we mention this, or wait for more reliable sources to confirm/analyse. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reuters has it now too: Report: Germany blames pro-Russian rebels for MH17 crash. Here's the English language Der Spiegel article: [48]. Stickee (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, they said the ukrainian audio recordings were fake, and the russian presented evidence wasnt useable either. But the pro-russian readers started to cry for foolproof evidence in the commentsection of that article, so better leave it aside here, to avoid the same reaction, until we have more. Alexpl (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's wait how this developed. We may hear more of this over the next few days, as Dutch parliamentary parties have asked this evidence being reported to the Dutch parliament, and apparently German parliament has been/is to be briefed as well. Better to wait until more details are made public.Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Spiegel says the German briefing occurred on 8 October, and that information is only being published now. Spiegel was only released a few hours ago, but over the next 24hrs the other news agencies will pick up on it probably. Stickee (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This is all consistent with indisputably "majority" view about the event: the plane was shot down by a BUK missile fired from the rebel-held territory. However, it still remains a mystery who exactly (which person or team) operated this BUK, where this BUK came from, who issued the order, and why they did it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article said what My very best wishes just said, we would have a balanced article. The majority view is that the plane was shot down by a BUK missile fired from the rebel-held territory. However, it still remains a mystery who exactly (which person or team) operated this BUK, where this BUK came from, who issued the order, and why they did it. USchick (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased that you do not require the mentioning of the super-capable SU-25 in order for the article to be NPOV. Lklundin (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This has been my position all along. Can we work toward consensus in this direction? USchick (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what MVBW means. No surprise there. The title of the Der Spiegel piece is, quote: "German Intelligence Claims Pro-Russian Separatists Downed MH17". So as far as German Intelligence is concerned there is no "mystery" as to who, broadly speaking, shot down the plane. Pro-Russian Separatists. Now, what *is* a "mystery" as to who actually "pulled the trigger"; the actual rebels, Russian mercenaries, Russian soldiers or special forces units (if so, which ones)? And whether the BUK was one that the rebels captured, or one directly supplied (and operated?) by Russia.

The error is in the phrase "from rebel-held territory". MVBW is probably assuming good faith and wrote that with the expectation that editors would take that to mean the same thing as what Der Spiegel said "by pro-Russian separatists". But this has not been a good faithed discussion. USchick immediately jumps on this ambiguity to pretend that "we don't know who shot down the plane". Volunteer Marek  19:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: I would have no problem with this being mentioned in the article now. I wanted to add a previous Spiegel article about the German government saying something about MH17, the Keine "gesicherten Erkenntnisse" story, but that was blocked because it didn't support "the truth" pushed by editors. As for how this is "developed", the FAZ is ignoring this thus far, which suggests that this is just another one of those accusations against Russia or the rebels that der Spiegel regularly makes. Since this crisis began, der Spiegel has followed the most anti-Russian line of any major German media outlet. A little crystal balling: this is meant for internal German consumption (Merkel taking a hard line against Russia is unpopular in Germany), and the US intelligence community will not confirm any of this. By the way, Spiegel now has an article about the rebels denying this latest accusation from der Spiegel, saying that they do not have the expertise to operate a Buk system, which of course they don't. WP should mention this, too. – Herzen (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

False statement by Herzen. FAZ has the story right here and I note that it had been there on faz.net for more than 12 hours before Herzen came along to claim it wasn't there.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It was not on the FAZ's Ukraine page and still isn't, so I assumed the FAZ is ignoring this. Funny how holders of "the truth" cannot desist from making personal attacks and assuming bad faith. (The edit summary says I should "start telling the truth".) – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why not tell the whole truth then and say, here, that you ASSUMED something instead of presenting your (false) assumption as fact? Funny how the Kremlin crowd here just shrugs its shoulders and complains about another editors when their claims are proven false.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Der Spiegel and Reuters are both excellent, high-quality sources used frequently on Wikipedia. That's not to say theirs is the definitive take, or that German intelligence is infallible in this (or any) case, but it is unquestionably notable and should be presented in the article with due weight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Due weight requires mentioning that the BND believes that the rebels used a Buk system they took from the Ukrainian military. That contradicts the countless stories about Buk launchers crossing the Russian border. Also, nobody ever claimed that the rebels ever took more than a single Buk launcher from the Ukrainians. A complete Buk system consists of a launcher, a command and control vehicle, and the primary radar unit, and as far as I know, nobody ever claimed that the rebels took the latter two from the Ukrainians. – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine...what's your point? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The story is being re-reported in other outlets: [49] [50]. Even RT has it, though the way they put it German intelligence actually blames a "Ukrainian militia" (you know, Right Sector or something. Just when I think RT can't get any worse, they surprise with a new low of dishonest scumbaggery). This should go into the article. Volunteer Marek  21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's just your "Anglo-Saxon POV" that finds "Germany’s intel agency says MH17 downed by Ukraine militia" a misleading title, Marek. All reporting, in fact, can be explained in terms of the presence or absence of an "Anglo-Saxon POV". Or so we're told.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The RT's chosen title makes perfect sense since they had to accentuate that Spiegel is not accusing Russian army. The RT's report is completely clear. Usernick (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What's perfectly clear is that RT removed the "prorussische Separatisten" association between Russia and the militia that was in the original Spiegel report and misleadingly replaced that association with an association to "Ukraine". It's the sort of intent to muddy the issue that must a reader interested in accuracy must always be on watch for when reading RT.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell, I think that Spiegel did not have a right to use the expression "prorussische Separatisten" because they did not know the state of minds of the persons who supposedly operated the Buk. There are people in the east of Ukraine who fight for control over whole Ukriane, including Lviv, i.e. not all fighters there are separatists.Usernick (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It was the head of German intelligence who used the expression. Does Spiegel "not have the right" to quote someone?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The article in Spiegel does not even mention that they have talked to this guy; apparently, it is based on hearsay, but it is bad reporting that they are not completely clear on whether they quote this guy directly or indirectly. In any case, please notice how DW has titled their article: "Spiegel: Review finds rebels shot down MH17 in Ukraine" (http://www.dw.de/spiegel-review-finds-rebels-shot-down-mh17-in-ukraine/a-18006712). You see, rather many people consider Poroshenko's army as rebels against the legal president, Mr. Yanukovich. It means that for them this title would mean smth different. I mean, RT has not reported worse on this story when compared with Spiegel and DW. Usernick (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiegel uses quotation marks and there is no ambiguity about that. If you don't think Der Spiegel is a reliable source then take it up on the reliable source noticeboard. You really are shameless when you misrepresent DW as suggesting that "rebels" could possibly refer to "Poroshenko's army". There is no way DW would agree that they imply that in any way.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I understand your use of the word "shameless" as an abuse. Second, your accusation is unfounded: I did not state that "DW would agree that they imply that "rebels" could possibly refer to "Poroshenko's army" ", but I stated that there are people who consider "Poroshenko's army" to be rebels. Hence, your accusation of me in misrepresentation constitutes another count of abuse. Also, your misrepresentation of my words is an abuse. The reports on the Poroshenko's army are indeed not inspiring http://www.newsweek.com/evidence-war-crimes-committed-ukrainian-nationalist-volunteers-grows-269604 . With regard to Spiegel, I wrote what I wrote, you can try understanding this again. Usernick (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate the work you have been doing here, but I follow Novorossiyan Web sites and news fairly closely, and I have to say that I have never seen anyone on the Novorossiyan side think about "Poroshenko's army" as rebels. So I know of no people who consider "Poroshenko's army" to be rebels. The thinking is that even though Yanukovich is the legal president to this day, the violent coup was successful, so that soldiers in the Ukrainian army are not rebels, but soldiers in the new government of Ukraine. (And before someone accuses me of pushing POV or engaging in OR: I am just trying to explain how the rebels think, something which it is useful for editors to understand.) – Herzen (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw this expression used as I said in some discussions on facebook and also heard from a Chinese friend. In many cases Poroshenko's army people still wear masks, as rebels would do. Usernick (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alexpl: They did not say that the audio tapes were faked. From the context, I think they are referring to the sattelite images which the Ukraine presented to refute the Russian satellite images and says that both are fakes. --PM3 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't clear on what that referred to either, but I just figured my German wasn't good enough to understand and I'd have to wait for English source. But what you're saying makes sense. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. I´m not a fan of secret service officials as sources. No matter from what nation. Alexpl (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alexpl: So you suppose to remove all intelligence sources from this article, including US and Ukrainian sources? This would also mean to remove the phone audio recordings, they were published by Ukrainian intelligence. --PM3 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we keep it. Phone recordings, German intelligence, Russian stuff. Just make sure to properly attribute everything. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: I take it that you mean the recordings in which rebels allegedly discuss the downing with their GRU handler. Those are obviously fake, if for no other reason that the recordings indicate that the rebels thought they had shot down a Ukrainian military plane, whereas the SBU's current story is that the rebels wanted to shoot down a Russian airliner. So I actually would appreciate you removing those. – Herzen (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not "obviously fake". We've been over this a dozen times. There's one guy in the SBU who thinks the ultimate purpose was to bring down a Russian airliner in a false flag operation. Who knows if Girkin was in on it? Who knows if the rebels on the phone were in on it? There's no contradiction here, unless one tries really really really hard to find one. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: You just violated the administrative restrictions for this page with your "obvious fake" thing, because it is OR which straightly contradicts the souced information in this article ("one of the involved persons acknowledged that these conversations took place"). Please stop that. --PM3 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see how I violated anything. I just looked at the top of this page, and all it mentions is the article itself, not the Talk page. I think I've mentioned before that it would be impossible to carry on discussions in Talk if one were not allowed to engage in OR. OR is prohibited from articles, quite rightly, but not Talk pages. If my use of the word "obviously" is construed as combative, my apologies, and I will try to be more careful. I was just honestly expressing my opinion, and I don't see how anyone can find that objectionable without dropping the assumption of good faith. Volunteer Marek's points are accepted, and I will try to avoid bringing this up in the future, although I think that to call the director of the SBU "one guy in the SBU" is a bit tendentious. – Herzen (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have good reason not to trust intelligence officials. Here in the US, intelligence officials perjure themselves before Congress with impunity. But their being untrustworthy does not mean that what they say is not newsworthy. By the way, a reason not to trust them in this case is that they did not release any photos. Nor did they release any evidence that Russia faked anything, something which it has no reason to do. Russian intelligence does not usually employ such crude methods. – Herzen (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen anyone use the term "Anglo-Saxon". The terms used are "Anglophone" and "Western". (Maybe I shoould start using "Atlanticist".) – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny how you bother to see if RT has it but I don't. Of course RT has it. It is very careful not to appear biased about such things. Now if the NY Times and the Wash Post pick this up, things will get more interesting. So far, not even the Guardian appears to have picked it up (judging by a cursory Google News search). – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"(RT) is very careful not to appear biased about such things" - I'm sorry, but this is straight out of some Bizarro Upside Down Alternative Reality World. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Guardian is not expected to quickly pick up on stories - rather they are known for bringing not previously reported information. Just a small example in relation to MH 17, the Guardian was the first to actually get a Dutch prosecutor to clarify the details on the victim with the oxygen mask. (The big deal being of course the story on Snowden). And yes, RT generally picks up on stories brought in Western media, but they are sure to spin it to the opposite effect. Consequently, one needs to read RT in order to discuss with a Russian, in order to understand their view of the world and how they got it. As for the BND report, I hope it contains some specifics (not just "the pro-Russian separatists did it") to stifle the conspiracy theorists. Lklundin (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

German Google News currently gives a count of 218 sources for this story, English Google News gives 47. Not all are of them are reliable sources, but I think the big impact in the media is indisputable. --PM3 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What "BND report" are you referring to? I am not aware of any report; the Spiegel article only mentions a briefing. And the Spiegel article is sloppy, as I said below. If what appears in the printed version is longer than what is in Spiegel online, then a German Wikipedian should get it and read it and tell us if it contains anything interesting besides what is at Spiegel online. And finally, I think I have made the case conclusively that the prevailing Russian theory should not be called a conspiracy theory in the "Time article" section. Time does not use the term "conspiracy theory", unlike the editors here who know the truth. Good points about RT, though. – Herzen (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

the Spiegel article is sloppy, as I said below Original research. Not a forum. Etc.  Volunteer Marek  23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Why did you put the Spiegel report in the lede? I was the first to say that the report should be placed into the article immediately, but nobody said anything about putting it in the lede. Sorry, but it would be different if US intelligence was making these allegations, but so far it hasn't. And the Spiegel report is sloppy, because it does indeed speak of a "BUK air defense missile system", but a Buk system consists of three components, of which I have not seen anyone claim that the rebels had more than one. Finally, these are just the usual allegations made by intelligence officials without providing any evidence. So due weight most certainly does not justify putting this in the lede. At the very least, this should get major coverage in the Anglophone press, which it hasn't thus far. – Herzen (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not put it into the lead but move it downwards there. It nicely fits to the previous sentence on the same topic regarding Malaysia. I have no strong feelings on where in the article it may be placed, but I think the different intelligence and prosecutors' statements on this issue should be grouped. --PM3 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It was Bdell555 who put it in there. And yes, it fits nicely where it is now. Stickee (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a relief, because I like to think of PM3 as a neutral editor. I do not dispute that it "fits nicely" there. But reading the lede, I noticed this zinger: "after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement" (which could be SYNTH; I am too lazy to check the sources), because as I point out periodically, according to the SBU, the rebels always believed that they were shooting down a civilian aircraft. Sorry for the digression. – Herzen (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The way that RIA Novosti reports on this story is an even bigger hoot than the way that RT does [51]. Their headline is "German Intelligence Agency Chief Says Kiev Falsified Data on MH17 Crash". They do say at the end of the article that BND (which they just gloated about saying Kiev "falsified data") blames the rebels for downing the plane, but then they quickly follow up with that usual bullshit line about "but no evidence has been provided". Nothing about the fact that BND says Russians falsified data. If there was ever any doubt that RIA Novosti and RT are just simply NOT reliable sources, this right here makes that crystal clear.

Reading between the lines though, from the RIA Novosti article, it does look like "faked evidence" refers to some photographs, not to the phone conversations. Volunteer Marek  23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the separatists already refused the Spiegel story. For the case someone wants to mention that (translation by me):

The separatists in Eastern Ukraine refused the BND assesment that they were responsible for the crash of flight MH17. They had not the military experts needed to launch the "Buk" air defence system which alledgedly was used for the shootdown, separatist leader Andrej Purgin on Sunday told in Donezk according to the agency Interfax. He said operating such a system was very complicated. [52]

--PM3 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I put a copy edited version of that in the lede? As I said above, due weight required that this be included, but of course, I was ignored. – Herzen (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's called spin. Everything RIA reports there is true. Nobody has ever claimed that RIA does not put spin on stories. So this report making "crystal clear" that RIA is not a reliable source is not the case at all. It's clear from the German Spiegel article that the photos reported as fake were ones produced by Kiev; I hadn't noticed that before. Also, Spiegel doesn't report that the BND claims that Russia faked anything: all it says is that the BND's position is that "Russische Darstellungen … seien falsch." "Darstellung" means presentation or account. English Spiegel translated it as "claims". As I said above, Russia has no reason to fake anything. – Herzen (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's called spin. Nah. It's called lying. Volunteer Marek  00:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Kindly quote a sentence or passage from that report which is not true. – Herzen (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Look. If it helps you sleep better at night to imagine a distinction between "spin" and "lying", that's your business. But it's pretty obvious RIA Novosti is lying their asses off here. The Spiegel article is about how German Intelligence concluded that the rebels are responsible for murdering the civilians on this flight. But RIA Novosti re-reports this: "Ukrainians faked their evidence!". It's like some bad Radio Yerevan joke gone horribly wrong. And honestly, it's indecent. Although that word is probably not strong enough to describe it. It's down right evil. But hey, like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Volunteer Marek  04:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly not the case that everything from RIA is true. June 2014: "300 тел без внутренних органов" (300 bodies without internal organs [harvested by Kiev's forces]). Now click on "тел" (bodies). It's a hyperlink to a graphic image that originally appeared in an account of Chechnya atrocities, in particular a 2001 operation for which none other than then President Putin can take responsibility. A RIA editor had to have generated that bogus hyperlink because no mere source, however dubious, controls their website.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

When did I say that everything RIA reports is true? I was talking about this specific article. And I ignored the stories about the 300 bodies, btw. The NY Times has published plenty of stories that it had to retract, so RIA occasionally making a mistake means nothing. Who knows who linked to that photo or why? The problem is that exaggerated claims about the number of bodies in common graves were published, not some link, which is a relatively obscure matter. – Herzen (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the "problem" is not "exaggerating" claims about the "number of bodies", the problem is disseminating a conspiracy theory about Kiev forces engaging in organ harvesting. It isn't just the sort of inflammatory falsehood you find in an indisputably unreliable source like Globalresearch.ca, it IS "reported" at globalresearch.ca! The fact a false photo was hyperlinked just highlights how deliberate and un-"mistake"-like it is. Pravda at least allowed that it is "possible that such messages are fake propaganda news bits aimed at denigrating the Ukrainian authorities."--Brian Dell (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to defend or even read this particular article, however I would like to note that not all terrible stories are conspiracy theories. For example, the Ukrainian problems with organ harvesting were reported in http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-01/organ-gangs-force-poor-to-sell-kidneys-for-desperate-israelis.html and http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-corpses-harvested-in-multimilliondollar-trade-20120717-2278v.html . Also, in the context of MH17, you can study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods , noting that this plan was developed and approved on so many levels in the US government. Usernick (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The reaction of Abbott, as well as of China or other BRICS countries, may be added to the lede "Germany's intelligence service believes Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels using a missile taken from a Ukraine military base, a German newspaper has reported. The finding contradicts previous claims – including by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and US Secretary of State John Kerry – that the missile was supplied by Russia.". Abbott said "I am going to be saying to Mr Putin [that] Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment – we are very unhappy about this" http://www.smh.com.au/world/prorussian-rebels-using-seized-ukrainian-missile-downed-mh17-passenger-plane-says-germany-20141020-118i9u.html Usernick (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Abbott's claims certainly do not belong in the lead. But mentioning that the BND contradicts Abbott's claims where those claims are currently stated might be viewed as SYNTH. Personally, I am not sure if anything needs to be done, since Abbott is a politician, and people tend to take what politicians say with a grain of salt. – Herzen (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that Abbott's words show Australia's initial position. I suggest adding them to the lead because they have been cited more and more in recent days in connection with Putin's visit to G20 meeting. I did not mean that it should be added that they contradict Spiegel's article. Rather, I find it kind of funny that they do, but it seems to me that the Spiegel's article is there for a certain purpose of the German government, this is why it is "semi-official": someone told us that the head of BND told to the commission that etc. A smart reader will notice the differences anyway. With regard to the Chinese position, it also should be added because they are in the UN Security Council, there are so many Chinese people in the world and because Putin is going to the G20 meeting due to the support of BRICS.Usernick (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting speculation as to why Spiegel published this story now. But bringing up the G20 meeting in this article seems like recentism to me. – Herzen (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, possibly. The Australia's POV seems to be very close to that of the USA and Ukraine, so I am not completely sure that adding it would illustrate the spectrum of POVs better. Chinese and BRICS POV(s) may be close to the Russian POV, but even if they are, then they may need to be added to satisfy the Weight policy. Usernick (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. We can't say "this source contradicts this source". We say "this source says this" and then "this source says that". We assume readers are smart enough to judge for themselves whether or not there's any contradictions there, not ram conclusions and OR down their throat.

And I take it the "official line" has changed from "the Ukrainians did it, the rebels are innocent!" to "the rebels might have done it but Kremlin had nothing to do with it"? A step in the right direction I guess. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense.Usernick (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Did you look at the Sydney Morning Herald article? The most interesting thing it seems to find in the Spiegel article is that the BND's briefing contradicts claims that Kiev and Abbott have made. – Herzen (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the "official line", but I am under the impression that the Kremlin and I think alike, and I can assure you that I do not believe that "the rebels might have done it". It is obvious that the Kremlin wants to distance itself from the rebels; Russian interests are of immeasurably greater importance to the Kremlin than the interests of the residents of Donbas. So the Kremlin has a significantly higher interest in it being clear that Russia had nothing to do with the downing of MH17 than it does in Western opinion not holding the rebels responsible. Russia only supports the rebels insofar as it does not view this support to harm Russia's own interests. This is a constant subject of discussion in the Russian blogosphere. – Herzen (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I still do not see this covered by any American paper, so I still see putting this in the lede as a case of WP:UNDUE and recentism. Funny how when I tried to put a Spiegel story about how NATO had no information from radar of a missile launch, editors found that that was not worth mentioning, but then when Spiegel reports that the BND thinks rebels downed the plane, that instantly gets put in the lead. – Herzen (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

---

PM3 has changed "an analysis which concluded that the Ukraine had published forged evidence, that Russian had made false claims" to "an analysis which concluded that both the Ukraine and Russia had published forged evidence" with this edit. His edit summary was

The reference here is the German original Spiegel article, which says "russische Darstellungen". "Darstellung" may be "pictures" or "claims", but in the context it must be both, as it can only refer to the Russian press conference of July 21.

Four points. (1) The reference here was the English Spiegel article. PM3 added the German Spiegel article as a reference with that edit. (2) This is English Wikipedia, so, since Spiegel bothered to translate their German article into English, we should go with Spiegel's translation. Spiegel translated Darstellungen as "claims". There is nothing in the English Spiegel article about any Russian photographs or Russian forged evidence, so that is all OR on PM3's part. (3) Here is the German text: "Ukrainische Aufnahmen seien gefälscht… . Auch russische Darstellungen … seien falsch." So what we have with the Ukrainians is gefälschte Aufnahmen (faked photographs), whereas with the Russians it is falsche Darstellungen (false claims/presentations/representations/interpretations). So PM3's assertion that the BND director said that both the Ukraine and Russia forged evidence is preposterous. (4) Here is how Australian Associated Press presents what Spiegel reported:

Schindler said Russian claims the missile was fired by Ukrainian soldiers and that a Ukrainian fighter jet was flying close to the Malaysia Airlines plane were false, according to Monday's edition of Spiegel.

He also said Ukrainian photos had been "manipulated", the magazine reported but did not elaborate on what the pictures showed, who had provided them or altered them.

I have to say that I find it absolutely mind-boggling that some editors accept without a moment's thought that Russia would falsify evidence, especially in such a grave matter. As I've said several times, Russia has no reason to fake evidence. The only reason people think it would do so is this idea that some editors have that they know the truth, so anything but the official US account of events (the US being the country which habitually starts wars and interventions based on false claims and evidence) must be a conspiracy theory. – Herzen (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to who falsified or manipulated what evidence, that can go in the article, but please, stick as close to the source as possible, rather than running away into original research. Probably be best to wait for a clarification as to what exactly has been falsified or manipulated. (Apparently Ukraine manipulated some photographic evidence but I'm not even aware of any Ukrainian photographic evidence). Likewise, let's leave whether or not this contradicts anything out of it, until we get a clarification. Volunteer Marek  21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I really don't see what is wrong with my edit which you undid. The lede says "The Ukrainian government says the missile was launched by 'Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia'", so my addition of "This finding contradicted claims that had been made that Russia supplied separatists with the missile." is relevant and provides some NPOV to the lede. The source for that sentence is the Sydney Morning Herald, which as I noted above seems to find this finding the most interesting aspect of the Spiegel report. PM3 self-reverted the change with which he deleted this sentence. So what do you find wrong with it? If the lede has accusations against Russia, NPOV requires noting that reliable sources qualify Russia's involvement.

As for my addition of "that the Ukraine had published forged photographs, and that Russia had made false claims": what do you find wrong with that? I practically wrote an essay above explaining why that is what the Spiegel article says. Your edit summary says: "Consensus with regard to these issues is to wait for more info." Nobody said anything of the kind. Some people said that we should wait, but that was about the whole Spiegel article, not two of the three points it makes. Why is it that we don't have to wait to report that the BND believes that the rebels shot down the plane, but we do have to wait to report that it believes the Ukrainian government forged photos and that Russian claims are false? This is a clear case of cherry picking if there ever was one. Please respond to the substance of my points, instead of dealing in vague generalizations.

There are multiple threads going on about how this article lacks balance and suffers from major cherry picking. So what happens when a new report emerges? Allegations in the report against the rebels instantly get put into the article, but something making the Ukrainian government look bad or exonerating Russia gets left out.

The edit you reverted was perfectly valid and completely supported by reliable sources. Please provide a cogent argument justifying why that edit needs to be reverted, instead of just making false claims in your edit summary. Another thing you said in your edit summary was "This doesn't reflect what's been discussed on talk." But note that PM3 did not reply to my long comment explaining what the Spiegel article says. So yes, my edit did reflect what's been discussed on talk. – Herzen (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Translating a foreign language source is not OR. And I don't see why why you want to leave the "contradicts" out of it. Both AFP and SBS pointed out that "Kiev and the West have previously charged" Russia with supplying rebels with the missile. Is adding the word "contradicts", which is not used by either secondary source, OR? I dont't think so. That merely adds clarity to the article. But I can leave that word out, if you insist. But there is nothing to wait for, since everybody agrees that the BND said the rebels got the missile from the Ukrainian military, and everybody knows that "Kiev and the West" charged Russia with supplying the missile. – Herzen (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The publication by Spiegel is vague. This is your interpretation of publication by Spiegel. According to an independently published interpretation of the same [53], "Russian claims the missile was fired by Ukrainian soldiers and that a Ukrainian fighter jet was flying close to the Malaysia Airlines plane were false", which could be mentioned as something basically consistent with majority of other sources. It also tells that Ukrainian photos had been "manipulated", but "the magazine reported but did not elaborate on what the pictures showed, who had provided them or altered them." Without such details, I think this is not worth inclusion on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits have mentioned that the BND finds Russian claims to be false. If you want me to say what claims, based on secondary sources, fine. As to the "manipulated" photos, I explained above that the word used was "gefälscht", which is German for "faked". Here is what Spiegel's English translation says:

BND's Schindler says his agency has come up with unambiguous findings. One is that Ukrainian photos have been manipulated and that there are details indicating this.

If Spiegel saw fit to report this in a very short article, and other reliable secondary sources have picked this up and mentioned the "manipulated" photos, why on earth shouldn't Wikipedia mention this? The only reason I can find is you don't like it. Saying that "I think this is not worth inclusion on the page" is of no help at all. You have to provide a rational argument for why it is not worth including. That Spiegel doesn't specify what photos were faked doesn't matter. That the Ukrainian government falsified some photos, no matter which ones, is noteworthy in itself. To repeat, not mentioning that while mentioning that the BND thinks that the rebels shot down the plane is a blatant case of cherry picking. – Herzen (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Given how you were excusing the cherry picking engaged in by Kremlin-controlled media when Marek was objecting to it I wouldn't get on too a high a horse about how outrageous it is to cherry pick. I think people are missing an important element to this Spiegel story and that's that we are far more reliant on Spiegel than if the BND held a press conference. Reading the article, and the way people talk about it on this Talk page, you'd think that not only did the BND hold a public press conference but they came down from Mt Sinai with the Final Verdict. If the Americans made these claims would you nod along with them so readily? Yet the Americans have far more intel (e.g. satellite data) than the Germans could have. The article text should be attributing to Der Spiegel here given the fact no other media outlet has access to the original source. While it seems quite clear that the BND ultimately blames the rebels, for the other stuff when you are reduced to having to argue translation of language that is already third hand, you're pushing the envelope of "must include". The sense of conviction should be proportionate, and that's why it is not as "blatant" a form of cherry picking as you contend: it's unlikely Spiegel got it's headline wrong, it's more possible that other elements, mentioned apparently in passing and not repeated or not stated emphatically, are inaccurate. Again, it is not necessarily cherry picking to take the headline or key takeaway from a source and not also take every other detail. One's motive is relevant here.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The battleground attitude here is really getting out of hand.

Given how you were excusing the cherry picking engaged in by Kremlin-controlled media

RIA Novosti is a wire service. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Because it is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to maintain NPOV. Because RIA Novosti is not an encyclopedia but rather is a wire service associated with a particular government, nobody expects its articles to have a NPOV. Is that really so hard to understand?

The only reason I had to bring in translation was that instead of using the English Spiegel article as the source, PM3 used the German article, falsely representing what it said. As for your apparent claim that the cherry picking going on here is acceptable, this ploy of pulling justifications out of thin air (the only thing that Wikipedia can mention from an article in a reliable source is the topic that is mentioned in that article's headline) for the purpose of POV pushing is getting very tiresome. It is obvious to everyone that what is going on is that some editors are using any pretexts, no matter how flimsy, to put anything that puts Russia and the rebels in a bad light into the article, and to keep anything that puts the current Ukraine government in a bad light out. This has gotten so out of control that we even had someone who had never edited here before get a user account so she could help fix this. I'd never before seen someone join Wikipedia all on account of one single article being so utterly biased. – Herzen (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got the biggest battleground mentality going, Herzen, as demonstrated by your frequent tirades that fail to address the particular content issue at hand. What was your rant about Echo of Russia readers being "only pro-Western, anti-Putin 'liberals'" supposed to be about if "nobody expects" a source "to have a NPOV"? What's in fact a false representation is your contending that I ever said or implied "the only thing that Wikipedia can mention" is what the source title says. I instead disputed YOUR apparent contention that one can never call attention to JUST one thing in a source, a headline matter, and not also call attention some other non-headline thing in the same source. It is only your battleground mentality that transforms selectively taking the most important, least ambiguous, and best sourced element from a source to the exclusion of other elements as necessarily bad faith editing. This particular content matter is grey rather than black and white such that I am certainly not about to edit war over it.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm two minds about this. The main message of both the Der Spiegel piece and the BND report is that the pro-Russian separatists were responsible for the shoot down of this plane. That's what the report is about and that is the essential point and that is the one thing that should be in the article. However, the report also says that there's been some monkey business by both Russia and Ukraine in terms of presenting the evidence. We already knew that as far as the Kremlin is concerned so that's sort of NOTNEWS. But it does say that some Ukrainian evidence has also been "manipulated". I would very much like to see exactly what this is referring to because it's not clear from the sources. One source talks about some photographs. Another re-reporting of the story talks about the recordings. Another one says that there was some of it and "details can be provided". I'm not gonna revert the addition of this again - unless more info becomes available - but I do think that whether or not to include the auxiliary parts of the report is a judgement call and hence subject to editor consensus. Volunteer Marek  06:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The nature of the faked evidence was not exactly given. Remember, the story is based on an internal speech only, not something for the public. @Herzen: Come on. Ria is not NPOV any more. Controlled by Dmitry Kiselyov, it has become a tool to manipulate the public as Moscow demands. The idea that the Ukrainians executed large amounts of people near Donezk / a possible CIA link to the recent Ebola outbreak / or the fake news about the death of Gorbatshev last week - come to my mind without further research. Alexpl (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. What I wrote was "nobody expects" Ria to be NPOV. And I was never under the impression that Ria was ever neutral, not that that means much, since I'm not really that familiar with Russian news media. I don't think it's especially eccentric to believe that no news media are neutral, which is what I believe. To be honest, I trust Western and Russian blogs more than I trust Western and Russian corporate media. And the blogs I trust are ones that have a similar POV to my own. But blogs are deprecated as sources by WP policy (I do not believe that that policy is bad, because I would not like blogs which have POVs that I don't like to be used as sources), so I don't bring up blogs at WP. The idea that a newspaper can be unbiased is relatively new. It used to be that different newspapers adhered to the POV of particular political coalitions. You still have that to a certain extent today in Britain: the Guardian is associated with the Labour Party, and the Telegraph is associated with the Conservative Party. – Herzen (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Now we've got a reliable source using the word "contradict":

The new findings by BND contradict the existing claims of Ukraine and the West that the rebels fired on the MH17 jet with an advanced surface-to-air "Buk" missile, supplied by Russia. The German agency also said the photos and other images supplied by Ukraine was manipulated.

It appears that the International Business Times doesn't find the Spiegel story to be any more vague than I do, and it also finds the same aspects of the story to be noteworthy as I do. Finally, it also only speaks of the BND "refut[ing] Russia's claims", and makes no mention of Russia faking any evidence. I really don't know how PM3 got the idea that the Spiegel story said that Russia faked evidence. The story is minimalistic, but it is not murky or ambiguous.

A little piece of OR and crystal balling: that the BND lets Russia off the hook might be why the NY Times and Wash Post are ignoring this story: Washington wants all economic sanctions on Russia to be kept indefinitely, and the downing of MH17 was used as a pretext to put another round of sanctions on Russia. (Writing that paragraph made me look for the word "sanctions" in the WP article. The word does not appear. That should probably be fixed.) – Herzen (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You searched long enough for a crappy source to turn the orginal story 180° around. Even the pathetic russian state media didnt manage to do that. No value for our article, but entertaining none the less. Alexpl (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That comment contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. There is nothing there but IDONTLIKEIT. The editors who, unlike some of us, know the truth about MH17 should make a little more of an effort to hide their battleground attitude. A news story may place several parties in a bad light. The idea that "the orginal story [is turned] 180° around" shows that one is looking at sources strictly in terms of how they support one's POV. Thus, one is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push one's POV. – Herzen (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one could include that Ukrainians and separatists debunked already the German intelligence claim. Official Ukrainian representatives asserted that none of their operational BUKs was ever taken by rebels, and a representative of rebels stated that they never had specialists capable of operating BUKs. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If it would be for the purpose of improving this article then it should better quote a RS for the conclusion to forgo WP:SYNTH. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Several RS, including Spiegel, have reported that rebels responded to the Spiegel article, saying that they don't have the expertise to use it. I wouldn't say Ukrainians "debunked" the claim that the rebels stole a Buk launcher from them, since the BND obviously doesn't believe them. No reports I've read have said that Kiev has responded to the article. As a side note and a little OR, the BND's saying that Russia's claim that a Ukrainian fighter plane was flying near MH17 is false sounds fishy, because the German government said in September that NATO AWACS lost contact with MH17 half an hour before it crashed. Of course I am not proposing putting that into the article. Just reminding people that intelligence agencies don't reveal something they know in order to promote transparency. And the laconic nature of that Spiegel article is remarkable. I've asked German Wikipedians to tell us if the article in the magazine is different or longer, but none have done so. – Herzen (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RS reported all that long before the Spiegel article. Many of the responsible Federation people left Ukraine weeks ago, I see litte reason to repeat the claims they made back then again. And I certainly dont want to read that AWACS crap again. For the AWACS rubbish you - again - chopped the old Spiegel article to the most useless bit of information and ignored the fact, that in the same article, they had written that they had more info on the MH 17 crash which they couldnt give to the public. I start to see a pattern in your activities here, which I call "counterproductive". Alexpl (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Atlantic [54]. It does say that the German results contradict the claim that the BUK was supplied by Russians. Rather, it was stolen by the separatists. It also says it was some photgraphic evidence which Ukraine monkey around with. And that Russian claims were false. It also says: "Gerhard Schindler, was extremely direct in his accusations, simply telling Germany's Der Spiegel, "It was pro-Russian separatists.""  Volunteer Marek  23:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tlsandy, whose account was created in September, undid this edit of mine. Tlsandy has not made a single comment in this Talk section, so I consider that to amount to edit warring. I was really hoping my edit would not be reverted. I think it's fair to say that we had reached consensus. Volunteer Marek said

But it does say that some Ukrainian evidence has also been "manipulated". I would very much like to see exactly what this is referring to because it's not clear from the sources. One source talks about some photographs. Another re-reporting of the story talks about the recordings.

It is clear what the evidence is: photographs. All the sources say this, and the original source is quite clear. Marek says he saw a source that said that the evidence in question was recordings, but did not give a link. The Atlantic has now published an article abut this:

Schindler said there was evidence that Ukrainian photos had been manipulated. (The photographs were presumably of the missile-launch site, though the exact images were not specified to the public.)

So there is no question that the evidence was photographs; what is unclear is what they are photographs of. Marek agreed that evidence being manipulated is notable. The Atlantic also says this:

Thus far, it has been widely believed Russian forces provided the separatists with both the missile and the launcher, but the new report suggest the rebels actually stole the launch system. German intelligence officers believe the separatists "captured a BUK air defense missile system at a Ukrainian military base and fired a missile on July 17."

Thus, multiple reliable Anglophone sources have found everything I added to the article to be notable, so that the main point of the Spiegel article is that the rebels did it is irrelevant.. I really don't think there is a case for not including this material: there is only IDONTLIKEIT. Tlsandy's edit summary was "Does not go here". Who is an editor who has been here less than two months to tell other editors where something goes or doesn't go?

Since I wrote that Marek made a comment directing us to the Atlantic article. From his comment, I think that I can have some confidence that I have not misunderstood his position. (Sorry for duplicating some quotes from the Atlantic.) – Herzen (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Would you object to my reverting that edit to restore this material? – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You're close. I still have some problems with how this is worded: "This finding contradicted claims that had been made by Ukraine and the West that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile". Why not just say something closer to the source, like "it contradicted previous theories that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile". Also, AFAIK US, UK and Ukr, all said that they're sticking to the "Russia-supplied-it" story (if I understand them correctly). In the second sentence under contention I would change "forged" to "manipulated". Otherwise I'm fine with that going in. Volunteer Marek  23:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. As you might have noticed, I changed "forged" to "manipulated" in my comment above. "Forged" is an emotive term. The English Spiegel uses "manipulated", even though that's not really a proper translation of the original. I accept all your suggestions. I'll put the material back in in a little while.

I'd like to thank you for our congenial collaboration on this. Your support is very importat. I am probably more outspoken in Talk than any other editor about having the Russian POV on this, but I hope that you have noticed by now that when I edit articles themselves, I adopt a different mindset, and really do try to maintain a NPOV. And I have learned from you and Iryna Harpy about WP terminology. I never really became conversant with it until after this crisis started. – Herzen (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed and I appreciate it. Volunteer Marek  01:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that someone is edit warring when you've added in the same content 4 times is a little bit rich. I'm not sure that sentence should go in. So far there hasn't been any analysis of what contradicts what, so why do it now? Plus it already says that when it says it's a stolen system. Stickee (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring if you engage in sustained discussion of your proposed edits in Talk. So please stop the personal attacks. There were tons of news stories about Buk systems crossing the Russian border, so as several Anglophone sources have found, the BND's finding in this regard is notable. I don't know why you don't like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herzen (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I already said why: the article so far hasn't explained what contradicts what, even though sources have said it. Instead the article just states them without analysis. If we started to do that the article would be twice as long. It's already clear that it contradicts when it says it's a stolen Buk system. Stickee (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What don't you understand from this sentence from my last edit to the article:

This finding contradicted claims that had been made by Ukraine and the West that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile.

The finding in question is that the rebels stole the Buk system from the Ukrainians. Nobody has claimed that the rebels have more than one Buk system. Thus, either the Russians gave it to them, or they stole it from the Ukrainians. Both can't be true. So my edit did "explaine what contradicts what". Is this really so hard to understand? Sorry, I can't figure out why you're getting upset. – Herzen (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Or wait. Volunteer Marek addressed this problem with his suggestion for a change in the wording. – Herzen (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand exactly what that sentence said. The article already says that the BND findings contradict that the missile came of Russia when it says "stolen Ukrainian Buk system". Stickee (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant about this? If reliable secondary sources find it worth pointing this out explicitly, why is it so important for Wikipedia not to do the same thing? Also, it's conceivable that the rebels could have more than one Buk system, so not stating this explicitly is just misleading. – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see how that is misleading. The article states that rebels "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system", which already contradicts that a Russian Buk had been used. Stickee (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article also says "The Ukrainian government says the missile was launched by "Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia"." "Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski warned about the dangers posed by the continued Russian military support for pro-Russian separatists, especially ground-to-air missiles." "Associated Press journalists reported that the Buk M-1 was operated by a man "with unfamiliar fatigues and a distinctive Russian accent" escorted by two civilian vehicles." "On 23 July, two Ukrainian military jets were hit by missiles at the altitude of 17,000 feet (5,200 m) close to the area of the MH17 crash. According to the Ukraine Security Council, preliminary information indicated that the missiles came from Russia." "On 19 July, Vitaly Nayda, the chief of the Counter Intelligence Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told a news conference, "We have compelling evidence that this terrorist act was committed with the help of the Russian Federation. We know clearly that the crew of this system were Russian citizens."" And even if the article did not repeat allegations of Russia being involved in the downing of the plane, several Anglophone reliable sources point out that "Ukraine and the West" had claimed that the Buk system was provided by Russia, so that this claim was made is notable for that reason alone. You have not answered my question about why you are so adamant about this. – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that still doesn't explain why the current wording of "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" is "misleading". Would you mind elaborating? Stickee (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hertzen. It is still widely believed that Russian military forces provided the separatists with both the missile and the launcher or even with a military team who accomplished the launch. This German report is just one of many sources. It does not provide any details and therefore not especially reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It was reliable enough to point the blame at the rebels, and that aspect got put into the article instantly. Der Spiegel is a reliable source. You find this article (or rather some points that it reports) to be unreliable because you don't like what it says. We take major Western news outlets to be reliable, period; we don't decide on a piece-by-piece basis which articles are reliable on the basis of whether we like what they say or not. The advocacy of cherry picking here is unbelievable. Reliable anglophone sources find the aspects of the report that I am trying to put into the article to be noteworthy, but some editors don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to POV push for the Kiev government and against Rupssia and the rebels. And what does what "is widely believed" have to do with anything? How many times do I have to repeat that Wikipedia policy is to present the relevant points of view, not to present "the truth" or the one "best view"? – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess most people really dont care for the Kiev government, or share the wierd Russian gov. obsession for everything from Kiev. The Spiegel article quotes a high ranking german operative who blames the Separatists and at the same time accusses both, Ukraine and Russia, of false play in terms of evidence they provided. Thats all. To quote WP rules, which you may just not fully understand, doesnt change that. Maybe ask Iryna for some coaching. Alexpl (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your finding Moscow's concern that a neighboring country is immersed in an armed conflict, with the central government using artillery and air strikes against its own people, "weird" is itself weird. And the BND official (a director of an intelligence agency is not an "operative" did not accuse Moscow of anything. He just said Moscow's claims were false. And Iryana thinks I understand the rules well, thank you. Your condescending tone is uncivil. – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Were you not going to respond to my 00:18 comment? How does "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" mislead? Stickee (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying that "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" is "misleading". I used Volunteer Marek's wording for the phrase in question. Everything I added faithfully represents what reliable sources say and find notable, yet you reverted my edit. I really don't understand at all what your problem is with this edit. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Vadim Lukashevich

I am doubtful about this edit. In the source [55], this "military expert" says that the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown. That's OR which is not backed by reputable sources. Also, he overstates the Boeing model number error (778 instead of 787) -- even the DSB got those numbers wrong and wrote A330 for a 787. Regarding the Su-25 maximum heights, I read many different statements. There are different Su-25 models with different versions out there.

So I assume that this is no reliable source and suggest to remove it. --PM3 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Kravietz:. Stickee (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a blog, and a Russian one at that. I thought WP policy was not to consider blogs to be reliable sources. There are plenty blogs I wouldn't mind using as sources, but it wouldn't occur to me to cite one in an article. I even refrain from mentioning blogs in Talk pages. Incidentally, the word used in the title of that blog post, "врет", is much more emotive than "lies", so the very use of that word makes the reliability of that source dubious. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, Lukashevich missed flaws in the Russian source which are more important than the plane type number and need more expertise, e.g. a self-contradiction regarding the flight route. This makes me even more sceptic. --PM3 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Sorry for asking you this instead of looking back in the archives, but what is your opinion of the Russian engineers' report? After I saw the discussion about primary sources (which I take that report to be) not being verboten, it occured to me that that report may be worth revisiting. I ask you because you are effectively our resident aviation expert. – Herzen (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As you can read German and it is offtopic here, please see [56]. --PM3 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"That's OR which is not backed by reputable sources." What's OR is your contention that CBS News is not "reputable". Just to make things clear: OR is only something that a Wikipedia editor can be guilty of, not a source.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course an external source can be WP:OR - when it publishes a theory which was not reviewed by any reliable second source. The CBS article says that the findings are consistent with a missile blast. The findings are es well consistent with a shoot-down by aliens. Though it would be OR if someone says that the FDR data shows that it was an alien shootdown. Agree? :-) --PM3 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Taking a look at what WP:OR says about itself: The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be...' Is an external source adding material to a Wikipedia article? No? Then how could it be guilty of of adding material that doesn't satisfy the "must" part? As for your "aliens", why are you objecting to "the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown" as some sort of contentious claim if that could be caused by aliens? If nothing is implied about responsibility then who is the victim here?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is what the DSB report says:

All engine parameters were normal for cruise flight. No aircraft system warnings or cautions for this flight were detected on the flight data recording until the recording ended at 13.20:03 hrs.

PM3 politely politely calls that OR; others would call the claim you quoted a lie. – Herzen (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

PM3 did not say "That's OR which is not backed by the DSB report", he instead claimed "That's OR which is not backed by reputable sources." If "the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown" is a lie then CBS News is lying because that's effectively what CBS News says: "massive explosive decompression" is CBS quoting "a European air safety official", an official who furthermore explicitly draws the link between the "missile" and shootdown causation with "It did what it was designed to do, bring down airplanes."--Brian Dell (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: This "official" was Andriy Lysenko [57], spokesman of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council. I.E. someone representing the Ukrainian government POV. And the Independend writes: His source however, is under scrutiny after the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) confirmed they did not give the information to Ukraine. [58] Poor research by CBS. --PM3 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Now THIS is classic OR. The Independent is RS. CBS News is RS. But neither source says Lysenko and "a European air safety official" are the same person. That's your OR. Now OR that is confined to a Talk page is actually fine, but it has to be convincing, which your OR is not, since there doesn't appear to be any evidence Lysenko has ever had anything to do with "air safety" such that anyone, including CBS, would recognize him as an "air safety official."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This story was published in the end of July by many media, including the Independent and CBS, all citing the same phrase "massive explosive decompression" and attributing it to an "Europaen official" or "Ukrainian official" or "Andriy Lysenko". WP:OR does not prohibit us to use common sense when evaluating sources. It's very likely the same news message, so it's safe to assume that it is no reliable information, as the origin very likely is the Ukrainian government. Of course we must not write into the WP article that CBS was talking of Lysenko, that would be OR. But using this own conclusion to discard the CBS article is no OR, as OR only applies to what is added to the article, not what is left out. (We might use the Independent instead, becaus it looks like a more reliable source for this issue.) --PM3 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My common sense tells me that Lysenko using the CBS News story as his source is far more likely than CBS News using Lysenko as their source and then misleadingly describing him as an "air safety official." Given that Lysenko is a professional spokesperson for the Ukrainian military, CBS would be arguably colluding with the Ukrainian government to render him anonymous. It'd be like using the White House Press Secretary as one's anonymous source and calling him a Western air safety official. It's an unfounded allegation of conspiracy. In any case, the issue here is whether Lukashevich is a reliable source, not Lysenko, and with CBS News backing up Lukashevich, to undermine the CBS story you need better proof that their source is a professional Ukrainian spin doctor than your unlikely speculation. CBS News is presumptively RS until demonstrated otherwise.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The term "OR" (original research) does not refer to the process of adding material but to the added material. Adding is no research; the research was done by the person how constructed the material.

As well as claiming "the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown", you could claim "the flight recorder data confirmed a sudden implosion and an alien shootdown". While the latter one is less likely, both is not covered by any reliable sources. --PM3 (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to the material. WP:OR applies to how it's added, and WP:OR exists because it is possible to edit in such a way as to write Wikipedia text where each element satisfies verifiability but is put together in an "original" way such that there is a conclusion suggested that is "over and above" what the sources support. As for your continued effort to sidetrack and confuse this discussion with aliens, I will bring this back again to what I told Herzen, namely, that "the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown" is "effectively what CBS News says" (meanwhile, that story effectively says NOTHING about aliens). As such, "not backed by reputable sources" is not true.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bdell555 is correct. "OR" applies to editors, not sources. Sources are supposed to do OR. Volunteer Marek  04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OR: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. There are no reliable sources for serveral things that Vadim Lukashevich wrote, therefore these things are OR. --PM3 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but this is in reference to actions by editors. Lukashevish here would be THE source for the info, so it's not OR. Having said that, I think this is not a reliable source, so should be excluded on that basis. Volunteer Marek  04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The action by an editor was to copy Lukashevish's OR into the WP article. --PM3 (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If this was a reliable source, that would've been fine. But it's not a reliable source, so yes, we should remove it, if it hasn't been removed already. Volunteer Marek  04:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done – Herzen (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what happened there. I thought I undid the edit that PM3 linked to at the top of this section, but it's not showing up in the history. No matter. Volunteer Marek undid it. – Herzen (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lukashevich PhD does not need to cite any sources if he, himself, is a reliable source which I think he is (to the standard required for use with attribution) and I accordingly dispute the removal. If he's unreliable, "flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown" is not the point on which he is unreliable, backed up as it is by CBS News. There is no blanket prohibition against "blogs", WP:BLOGS instead says "exercise caution" about "self-published sources." It would be more accurate to say that this is published by the Echo of Moscow Club. According to WIkipedia, "Among the site's authors are [several prominent individuals] and a number of other experts, who have sustained national and international acclaim in their areas of expertise. The Echo of Moscow site is an authoritative source of information, and its publications are regularly cited, relied on and reproduced by major Russian internet publications and other media sources."--Brian Dell (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

An edit war! Somebody said, after I got referred to ANI for edit warring exactly a week ago, that edit wars happen on weekends.

@Bdell555: If three editors agree that something should be removed, I don't think that you, the sole editor arguing for its preservation, should undo that removal. Also, you don't hear what PM3 wrote about the CBS story. – Herzen (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the party to originally add the material so it's 3:2 at best for removal and Marek agrees with me concerning the validity of PM3's OR argument. I read what PM3 wrote about the CBS story and have noted that it's editor speculation that fails to undo the presumption of reliability to which CBS News is entitled to. I've provided reasons here for considering Lukashevich a reliable source and absent any disputing of those reasons I edit. Instead of trying to shame me or intimidate me with talk about ANI you could address those reasons for deeming the source reliable that I just provided above.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First, a Blog posting which has not been replicated by reliable secondary sources ist not usable for this topic. Second, Vadim Lukashevich's posting is unprofessional, as can be seen

• by the wording (see Herzens comment to the word "lies")
• by the fact that he replicates the story of "flight data recordes show that it was an explosive decompression", which has never been confirmed later and is unplausible - as to the DSB the recordings just stopped without showing any anomaly
• by the fact that he missed flaws like the contradicting information on the flight route in the Russian material which an expert easlily wourld detect

So it is very questionable if he knows what he is talking about. --PM3 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, as you noticed, I've moved the passage in question to the "Russian media section". It certainly belongs there, because the blogger talks about how he appeared on a Russian radio program and about other Russian media coverage of MH17. (Incidentally, one uses the word "delirium" to describe the thinking of someone you disagree with much more often in Russian that you do in English. "Delirious lies" was incorrectly translated in that passage by "absurd lies". Russian has the exact same word for "absurd" as English does, and the blogger did not use that word. – Herzen (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Is "military expert" backed by the source? --PM3 (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

At the Web site, he's described as a "candidate of technical sciences", which Yandex (the Russian Google) translates as a PhD. He's also described as a historian and a writer. Doesn't sound like a military expert to me. He seems to work for some kind of steel construction company. Wikipedia says about the media outlet his blog belongs to that "some observers describe [it] as 'the last bastion of free media in Russia'": that does not sound to me like a place a military type is likely to be associated with. By that I mean that Echo of Moscow must be a bastion of the liberal anti-Putin "fifth column", of which I do not imagine there are very many in the Russian military. By the way, I looked at the comments to that blog post, and they almost universally trash Putin and Russian generals. So much for Russia being a totalitarian society. You never see that level of criticism of authority at any American news site. My guess is that only pro-Western, anti-Putin "liberals" go to that Web site. Oddly, it is owned by Gazprom. I think that shows how convoluted Russian power structures are. (Sorry for the digression.) – Herzen (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So if a source is Russian, it's only reliable if it is anti-Western and pro-Putin?--Brian Dell (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't saying anything about the reliability of secondary sources. I was merely answering a question by PM3, and giving reasons why it is unlikely that the blogger in question is a military expert. – Herzen (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You try to declare russia a liberal country because one guy is bold in his blog? Please remember WP:Forum. Alexpl (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you accused me of using WP as a forum, I am not going to answer that question. – Herzen (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. Sole reason why I added Lukashevich's article is that he is indeed recognized expert in Russia and was frequently speaking on various topics related to MH17 and Ukraine in Russian TV (just have a look here[59]). Also, the reason why I described him as "military expert" is that it's how he's presented in the Russian TV programs I watched. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This source says that Vadim Lukashevich is "Ph.D., a well-known Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of the aircraft systems, along with the world's intelligence agencies believe that Malaysia's plane was shot down by system Buk and he does not deny the catastrophe has not been without the "aid" of Russia." (Translated article note: automatic translation with low technical quality).PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just based on principle - we want to have only high quality sources in the article - I'd still exclude this. Even if he is a recognized expert, it's still a blog. If this was picked up by some other sources I'd be ok with including it. But including this can potentially open up doors to inclusion of all kinds of sketchy stuff. Better to set the standards high to begin with and work from there rather than playing wack-a-mole with sketchy sources. Volunteer Marek  06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Andriy Lysenkos statement

I have separated this from the previous section because it concerns another part of the article. --PM3 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Do you think this should be kept in:

On 28 July, Ukrainian security official Andriy Lysenko announced, at a press conference, that black box recorder analysis had revealed that the aircraft had been brought down by shrapnel that caused "massive explosive decompression." Dutch officials were reported to be "stunned" by what they saw as a "premature announcement" and said that they had not provided this information.

This paragraph is misleading, because it only mentions that Dutch officials "had not provided this information", whereas the fact of the matter is that the DSB report directly contradicts Lysenko's claim. So either that fact should be mentioned (and no, that would not be SYNTH, it would be avoiding readers getting misinformed), or the whole paragraph should be deleted as UNDUE. (I did not start a new section because this claim was discussed above.) As far as I can tell, the Independent story which is the sole source for this paragraph was obsoleted when the DSB preliminary report was released. The article preserving information which turned out to be false just leads to confusion bloat and confusion. – Herzen (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"DSB report directly contradicts Lysenko's claim" No, it does not. A sudden termination of the recording is consistent with explosive decompression. I note that you keep insisting on pretending the CBS News report does not exist, but it does exist, and you haven't provided any evidence the presumption of reliability there should be overturned. The DSB is officially less than forthcoming when it comes to what they think the evidence means, at least at this point. Someone affiliated with the DSB is more forthcoming as an anonymous source to CBS News. Using the additional sourcing is consistent with WIkipedia policy.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And people accuse me of conspiracy theorizing. – Herzen (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. The DSB report does not directly contradict. On the one hand the information presented by Lysenko has not been confirmed afterwards by any experts, on the other hand it was cited in lots of reputable sources. In the German article we discussed if after it was added to the English article and decided to discard it because it's just rumour. But the German article has other policies than the English. --PM3 (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think he wants to point out the absence of any "explosive decompression" in the DSB report. The aircraft simply "broke up". Alexpl (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You replied quicker than I did. My problem isn't with absence of "explosive decompression" (as I recall the alternative theory of the Russian engineers postulates explosive decompression), but whether the FDR revealed anything useful to investigators. – Herzen (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't one conclude on the basis of the DSB report that the statement "black box recorder analysis had revealed that the aircraft had been brought down by shrapnel that caused 'massive explosive decompression'" is false? The report says that the flight data recorder revealed no information on what led to the destruction of MH17 or how it occurred. Yet the passage as it currently stands in the article asserts that the FDR did reveal some information about this. We know more now than we did when that Independent report appeared. – Herzen (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you cannot conclude that as you do not have the evidence to do so. See what I said above.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"A sudden termination of the recording is consistent with explosive decompression." - Is that based on a reliable source? Hard to imagine. If "high energy objects" just cut all cables to the recorder in the same moment, the recording would stop without "explosive decompression". Alexpl (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think sudden termination of FDR is consistent with explosive decompression, but does not necessarily imply it. On the basis of the FDR suddenly terminating, it is possible that there was explosive decompression, but it's also possible that there wasn't. – Herzen (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fake Recordings

The voice recordings that were used as evidence by Ukrainian military have been shown to be fake. http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/741521 This should be added to the article. Why would someone fake evidence, unless they wanted to frame someone? 118.210.196.217 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Already there "The SBU released another recording, which they said was of pro-Russian-separatist leader Igor Bezler being told of an approaching aircraft two minutes before MH17 was shot down. Bezler said the recording was real, but referred to a different incident.", section "Cause of crash". Alexpl (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As above. Already mentioned. Stickee (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian State TV and radio company caught editing Russian Wikipedia entry about MH17

The Russian government has edited the Russian Wikipedia of this page. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/18/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article Tlsandy (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of improving this article, wikipedians have to be on the look-out for suspicious editing - also after the Russian government learns to spread its propaganda via VPN or named accounts. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the account of Tlsandy, most of whose edits are of this article, was created after MH17 crashed, on 10 September. Also, Tlsandy is one of the most aggressive editors making sure that this article states as little as possible but "the truth" about who downed MH17. Just yesterday, he reverted my edit eliminating cherry picking of a news report that was being extensively discussed in Talk without making a single comment on Talk himself. In short, what we appear to have here is a single purpose account. And it is interesting that nobody has posted a welcome note on Tisandy's Talk page, which suggests that he does not produce the impression of being a new editor. Also, the creation of this new Talk section is Tisandy's first contribution to an article Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

LoL. You are a premium member of Crimea/Novorossiya/KickUkraine-Club, having paused WP for 4 month, before coming back in April to help out Mother Russia whereever necessary. So I guess you have great expertise on SPA´s. Alexpl (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had an account for many years, gone through phases in which I edited articles on different subjects, and I only started editing Russia-related articles after the February coup. So your accusation is nothing but an utterly unfounded, malicious personal attack. Your battleground attitude is of no help at all in building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Alexpl (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen is right, Alexpl, you are being unnecessarily aggressive and you are not showing good faith. You are not being compliant with Wikipedia, Alexpl. --Mondschein English (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I'm not taking any action here because the next headline will read "US Government blah blah blah" but can you please take a look at the conduct in this thread?--v/r - TP 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The policies must the adhered to. With that said, I will add that showing good faith is only possible for so long. Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to see though that Herzen first accuses Tlsandy of being a single purpose account; and when accused in a similar way by Alexpl refers to wikipolicies. In my view a clear case of WP:POT. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you subjecting me to more scrutiny than this new user? In the summary of this edit, Tlsandy accused me of editing his comment. But I didn't touch his comment: what I did was edit the section title so it does not make a false claim. (As I said in my edit summary, in English Wikipedia "Wikipedia" refers to "English Wikipedia". The article Tlsandy linked to says "Russia" edited Russian Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia.) To quote from the Talk page guidelines: "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed". In his edit, Tlsandy deleted my comment. That is a clear violation of the guidelines. How have I violated the guidelines? So how am I exhibiting WP:POT? – Herzen (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic, this news has been around for a long time. We decided not to mention it in this article for several reasons (not this Wikipedia, not central to the accident itself). So can we please let this rest. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the records, an example of Russian government edits in the German MH17 article: [60]. The IP belongs to the Federal Protective Service (Russia). There were Ukrainian propaganda counter-edits around the same time, but they were more clever in hiding their identitiy, e.g. [61][62]. Both stopped soon, we have not seen such edits for months. --PM3 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. If you look up that IP with IPlocation, you get

95.173.130.218 Russian Federation Moscow City Moscow The Federal Guard Service Of The Russian Federation

I had never heard of the Federal Protective Service. I guess it is not one of the more elite Russian intelligence agencies. Actually, after reading that article, it sounds more like the Russian equivalent of the American Secret Service than an intelligence agency (разведка). In any case, this is certainly more notable than the subject of the thread, since a Russian government IP was used, whereas the IP mentioned by the Wired UK article belongs to a Russian TV network, and that network is no more the Russian government ("Russia") than the BBC is the UK. – Herzen (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm the edits seem fairly minor, and this is very obvious. I would not be surprised if this were an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break or so. In any case, we need a reliable secondary source to report on this to even consider it for the article. And even then, it is still another Wikipedia, and not about the crash itself, so I doubt it should be in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that this is notable or should be included in the article. What I said was that it is more notable than what Tlsandy saw fit to create a thread about, a case, it seems to me, of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Tlsandy said nothing about the merits of including this boring story in the article. All he said was that "Russia got caught".

I agree that this was probably a case of something like "an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break". Hopefully Russian officialdom has briefed its bureaucrats by now that using government IPs for editing sensitive subjects reflects badly on Russia. As PM3 noted, that has apparently stopped. – Herzen (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as no analysis of all Ip adresses of all contributors in this article is conducted, there is no way to tell. Alexpl (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

CESI on BND report

Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence claimed that the original, classified BND report had much more details pointing to Russian origin of the "Buk" but it was sanitized prior to delivery in Bundestag.

• "German intelligence service report on MH-17 flight crash was altered". Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence. 2014-10-22. Retrieved 2014-10-24.

Ok now we have a statement from some center that is self published. What do you suggest we do with this? Arnoutf (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The center seems to be a small anti Russian think tank (see their own website: [[63]]) so I think we should not take this as a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure who these people are [64] (no opinion on inclusion), but if they are right, the report by BND was partially a fake. This is not surprising, given it provides no details and contradicts many other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A report can't be fake, even partially. (Of course you say "partially" because you think that some parts of the report are true, namely those that support "the truth" known to you and others with your POV.) Only evidence can be fake. – Herzen (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

True a report is a report (it is, cannot be fake). That draft reports are sometimes changed to highlight or reduce claims for political reasons is very common; so nothing spectacular there. Arnoutf (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for inferior English. I linked word "fake" (see above) to disinformation - that is what all intelligence services do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not even sure this is intelligence service or government in general. A lot of draft reports are edited or reframed to avoid political issues. In this case placing no emphasis on Russia's role would fit such an action. Disinformation is something else i.e. the spreading of false information. Arnoutf (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed "This finding contradicted previous theories that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile and launcher." Besides the fact that one can argue that this is original research when the BND did not clearly say that their findings contradict a "theory" circulating in the "West", what exactly the BND said is coming to us third hand and this particular source furthermore disputes it. When you are going to lead readers by the nose and present a "contradiction", one's sourcing needs to be of a very high standard. It is simply NOT the case that the BND held a press conference and announced that they've disproved something that got considerable circulation in Western media. If the third hand reporting is good, this was not the point the BND highlighted anyway. The bottom line is that reliability is not black and white with the report of testimony to German politicians that no one else reported on or had access to pure white and this CESI report pure black. What Wikipedia says should be appropriately qualified. That means not declaring, in the lede, not only "using a captured Ukrainian Buk system", but then using Wikipedia's voice to further highlight for the reader "contradiction" as if the reader could not come to that conclusion without Wikipedia's help.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)