Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

anti-Russian bias

Wikipedia should be neutral, not puppets of the Ukrainian government. The neutral way is to call them Ukrainian separatists backed by Russia, not pro-Russia separatists. If you call them pro-Russian separatists, why not call them anti-leukemia separatists because I am sure they are not for leukemia.

This comment could result in both sides hating me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think it would be reasonable to call them simply "Russian" rebels, rather than "pro-Russian", because they fight for Great Russia (including Novorossiya) and because at least 1/3 of them are allegedly Russian citizens, including almost all their leaders. Now, calling someone "Russian" does not mean anti-Russian bias. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is an established guideline on WP (too long to quote it, but if you look at the archives you surely find it) stating by consensus that they must be called either "Pro-Russian" or "Pro-Russia separatists". Not "terrorists", not "Ukrainian" anything (we already know they're Ukrainian, since they live there). "Rebels" and "insurgents" are also accepted, but must be specified in the article first. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

do we 'know they're Ukrainian, since they live there' - I thought it was known a lot of them were Russian. Sayerslle (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"Russian, Ukrainian"... There you go, you break it down by national aspect. In fact, 90% of the rebel possess Ukrainian passports, so it's hard to tell what their real nationality is, and not something WP wants to do anyway. This is why the consensus goes to refer to them as "pro-Russian", neither "Russian" nor "Ukrainian". And, like I said, I think this is fair. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

See Also section

The end of the article, just before the Notes, contains a Portal template and an in-line comment like this:

{{Portal|Aviation|Current events|Disasters}}
<!-- Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink -->

Unless someone objects, I will create a See Also section and replace that with this:

• Lists of accidents and incidents on commercial airliners
• List of airliner shootdown incidents
  • Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114
  • Korean Air Lines Flight 007
  • Iran Air Flight 655
  • Siberia Airlines Flight 1812

Any objections? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: I have no objections. However, per WP:MOSHEAD, the section should use a lowercase "a" in "also". Also, some user keeps on removing a link to List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities despite a discussion in opposition of removal, although it appears that the entire "See also" section has been removed at this point. Dustin (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

List of airliner shootdown incidents is already linked in the lead and so should not be linked again in a See also section. The four shootdown incidents are linked from that article and there is no need to link them either. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities would be a reasonable link. --John (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I actioned this. --John (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that three of the four shootdown incidents are pertinent. I chose them because they have at least one aspect similar to MA17 and therefore you don't have to plow through the entire List of airliner shootdown incidents.

• Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114. Not pertinent; do not include.
• Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Shot down in 1983 by Soviet fighter plane. 269 killed. Many news organizations refer to this incident.
• Iran Air Flight 655. Shot down in 1988 by US warship. 290 killed. Closest to MA17 (active conflict zone, surface-to-air missile).
• Siberia Airlines Flight 1812. Russian airline shot down by Ukrainian ground-to-air missile in 2001. 78 killed.

I would add the first sentence above (e.g., Shot down in 1983 by Soviet fighter plane) to each item. What do you think? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would say yes, but in this case as the cause is still under investigation I would suggest just leaving it to the list article. --John (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Italian journalist claim

The article currently states 'On 22 July an Italian reporter cited a soldier from "Oplot" separatist squadron who confirmed the plane was shot down by his unit after it was mistakenly identified as a Ukrainian airborne transporter' which is cited to the Corriere della Sera article «Così è stato colpito l’aereo» . Can anyone provide a translation of the key claim in the article? The best I can find with Google translate is "We just hit a plane of the fascists in Kiev, we were told". This supports the claims based on intercepts that separatists believed they had hit a Ukrainian plane at the time of the shoot-down. However the claim that the plane was shot down specifically by this soldier's unit seems to be an interpolation not based on the source. We can say that a soldier from the "Oplot" separatist squadron confirmed his unit was told that separatists has shot-down a Ukrainian aircraft. We can't say that it was this soldier's unit that did it. - Crosbie 06:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

AP / Guardian Buk sighting synthesis

The claim that the Buk claimed in the Guardian to have been seen by witnesses in Torez is the same Buk seen by journalist from the Associated Press is Synthesis. - Crosbie 12:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to the following lines in the lead "On the day of the incident witnesses in Torez reported sightings of what appeared to be a Buk missile launcher headed towards Snizhne,[11] where it was then sighted by AP journalists[12]"

You might be right there (it is very likely it is the same, but that would be synthesis unless we have a reliable source claiming that). How about "On the day of the incident witnesses in Torez reported sightings of what appeared to be a Buk missile launcher headed towards Snizhne,[11] where shortly after a Buk launcher was sighted by AP journalists[12]" (although that may still be pretty close to synthesis by implication) Arnoutf (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I think that's fine. Anyway, better synthesis by implication than outright synthesis. - Crosbie 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Every time you have one sentence follow another it's WP:SYNTH according to people who fail to understand that WP:SYNTH deals with claims that are not supported by the sources even though the individual components are. What is the claim here that is not supported? The Guardian says it was spotted en route to Snizhne. AP says it was spotted in Snizhne. That's called writing Wikipedia as editors with brains as opposed to simply concatenating copyright-violating quotes. Your contention is apparently that there are two different systems here in a colossal coincidence, a contention you only arrive at by means of WP:original research. The sources say what they say without playing detective.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you object to Arnoutf's proposed wording? - 13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't, but I object to Crosbie's implied claim about where the burden of proof lies because it'll be used to further create spurious doubt if the argument is accepted as is. To take a hypothetical, a reliable source refers to a "Malaysian Airlines jet that went down over eastern Ukraine" and someone complains that juxtaposing that with another report is SYNTH because it is theoretically possible TWO Malaysian Airlines jets went down in any given month and the second one just wasn't reported. The burden of coming up with some shred of evidence that there MIGHT be more than one in this sort of situation is on the party contending that there is more than one. As editors, we make common sense assumptions all the time about what sources refer to. More than once I've seen people cite SYNTH to say "you are making an unsupported claim by removing some ambiguity" when the ambiguity is totally implausible.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, all it would take to suggest possible ambiguity is for the timing to not line up, for the descriptions to not line up, for there to be a mention in a reliable source raising the possibility that there's more than one in the area, etc. The common sense assumption is that when some guy walks out the door and then walks in again 5 minutes later and looks the exact same, it's the same guy, not a body double who needs to be proven to be same guy. The party contending a body double should point to some reason for believing we are looking at someone else besides just theoretical possibility. For some people, there is never enough "proof" to write anything on Wikipedia they don't want written.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH"--Brian Dell (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

I see Crosbiesmith wants to edit war over whether the aircraft was "likely" downed by a surface-to-air missile as Crosbie wants this attributed to the U.S. government. This is like attributing to the U.S. government that hijackers brought down the Twin Towers. Of course it is entirely true that the U.S. government "assessed" that aircraft hijackers did it. But it is not just the U.S. government that believes that "theory" as opposed to, say, internal demolition, meaning that it's misleading to insinuate that the U.S. government is out on its own limb here. It's a WP:FRINGE theory to contend that this aircraft was downed by something other than a surface-to-air missile like an air-to-air attack or an on-board bomb, at least with the evidence we have at this stage. Do the Guardian, the New York Times, AP, and Reuters attribute to the U.S. government when making a statement like "likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile"? If not, then we shouldn't be adding additional language that creates the misleading impression that this is just a "he said, she said" between the White House and the Kremlin and nobody can make any sense at all of what might be more likely.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to edit war. I am not contending that this aircraft was downed by something other than a surface-to-air missile. I want to attribute the statement that MH17 was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists attributed to somebody, ideally to the most credible possible source. What is the change you wish to see made? - 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You know what the change wished for is because you reverted it, Crosbie. Without first coming here first to discuss or addressing in your edit summary the rationale I gave in my edit summary for not attributing to the U.S. govt. If the U.S. government is the most credible source out there then you should not be attributing because we do not require in-line attribution to highly credible sources (we simply use citations to those RS). What does the New York Times say here: "Buk SA-11, the weapon that was most likely used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17". Does we routinely need to attribute to the New York Times? If not, then why attribute? Why pick another source? I'll add that citations are not routinely required in an article lede as per WP:LEADCITE: lede material clearly supported by citations in the body of the article does not need redundant citations.-Brian Dell (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Does the youtube video you link to also mention that the missile likely came from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists? I would prefer a written source; these are quicker and easier to verify. - Crosbie 14:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Just be clear, the part I believe requires attribution is the claim that the missile came from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists, as this is implicitly denied by the separatists' claims that they did not shoot down MH17. The separatists' claims, however improbable you may find them, are not WP:FRINGE because they are prominent. We have them right here in the lead. The claim the aircraft was downed by a Buk I find entirely uncontroversial, and not to require attribution. - Crosbie 14:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well your edit attributed more than that. At issue here is the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT given to the various theories advanced by the separatists or the Kremlin by having Wikipedia insinuate that the U.S. government is out on its own here. "Britain accused Russia on Saturday of making false claims about the Malaysian airliner that crashed in eastern Ukraine and said it was "highly likely" it was brought down by a Russian-supplied missile fired from a Russian-backed separatist area." So right there we see that this is NOT just a U.S. position. The text at issue here does not go nearly as far as the British do, as the British furthermore say the missile was Russian-supplied. More importantly, the fact is that investigative journalists have exhibited far more skepticism with respect to one side than the other here, and that "balance" ought to be reflected in the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If it is according to multiple sources let's say multiple sources, provided we cite those sources. If we have only the US as a source, then I guess we can only say the US. There are other sources, just quote them. Eventually the air accident investigation team, which is not US, will determine the matter. Ex nihil ^(talk) 14:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference if the source is NYT and if the source is government participating in the conflict. I wouldn't assume any statement by US, UK, Ukrainian, Russian government as unbiased. The rebels certainly are not unbiased either. So, if the statement comes from an acting party, it needs to have attribution in the text. NYT is not an acting party, so it doesn't need attribution unless it acts only as secondary source for one of the parties before mentioned.--85.176.254.153 (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I fixed this a little. Introduction only summarizes content of the page. According to the text (see "Cause" section), this is not just an opinion of US government, but something supported by multiple evidence as described in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind stating exactly who claims the missile came from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists? I will examine the cause section as you suggest, but if you could also state which parts of the section you were relying on that would help to avoid your point being missed. - Crosbie 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, it's based on the totality of reliable sources, i.e. not just Western governments (let alone just the U.S. government) but Western media as well. An article lede should summarize the totality of the evidence delineated in the body of the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crosbie. *Who claims? Even rebels themselves, as described in Russian state-controlled media (see "On the evening of 17 July, the lifenews.ru portal released a statement saying that a "Ukrainian Air Force An-26 transport plane" had been shot down by a missile and crashed"). My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• And here is the actual problem in Introduction. It tells: "The two sides in Ukraine's ongoing conflict (the Ukrainian government and the pro-Russian separatists) accused each other of shooting down the plane while denying their own responsibility". No, according to intercepted phone calls, claims about "AN airplane" they hit and the admisson by Khodakovsky, rebels actually admitted (but then denied) their own complicity. Simply telling "they denied" in Intro is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The rebels have never admitted they shot down the MH17. This is what their leader was talking about - media misinterpretation. They only admitted to have shot down "a plane", so the question remains as to whether or not another plane went down the same day. And if it did, maybe it was a small Ukrainian military aircraft that was flying higher than the MH17 and simply crashed on top of it, causing the MH17 itself to crash. 24.201.226.168 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell - after your last edit, the text reads "The aircraft crashed over territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists and was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile." That seems entirely unobjectionable to me. - Crosbie 15:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it a little. The Buk story is actually controversial and now described entirely in 2nd paragraph, whereas 1st paragraph now includes only noncontroversial information. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't 'fix' it - you restored the claim that the missile was fired from separatist-controlled territory *without* attributing the claim to the US government - attribution of this claim to the U.S. government was the reason I undid Brian Dell's change, which led to this whole discussion in the first place. As it stands, we've effectively pre-judged the separatists' claims that they did not shoot down the plane before we even state them. - Crosbie 17:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the need to mention the 'from separatist-controlled territory' claim, and taking into account a comment from Brian Dell above, how about we *don't* explicitly attribute the Buk, but *do* explicitly attribute the separatist-controlled territory claim? "The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. [Basing its claim on intelligence sources,] the US government believes a missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists." The part in square brackets I include to suggest the US is not in the habit of making baseless claims. I don't care if that bit gets included or not. - Crosbie 17:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Either what you posit in square brackets should be included OR "U.S. government" should be replaced with "Western governments". The reason being that the "U.S. government" view here is more consistent with the available evidence or, if one wants to drop some "perceptions vary" cloud over the evidence, nonetheless closer to consensus than the Kremlin view.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is not just a claim by US, Ukrainian, UK, etc. governments, although they indeed claim it. Shooting by the Buk from the rebel-held territory has been described in vast majority of sources and supported by multiple evidence, as described in body of article. Claims about shooting from another plane (for example) are indeed "fringe". My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems initial black box data shows evidence of massive explosive decompression possibly caused by multiple hull ruptures. This is according to the experts indicative of the damage of SA11 missile hit. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-black-box-findings-consistent-with-blast/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/31522/Vliegtuigcrash-in-Oekraine/article/detail/3701161/2014/07/26/Zwarte-doos-bevestigt-raketinslag-MH17.dhtmlArnoutf (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not denying that MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. The thrust of the discussion between myself and Brian Dell above is that the use of a missile is *not* controversial. The controversial claim, at least based on the claims of the Ukrainian separatists, is that the missile was fired from separatist-controlled territory. I have already proposed wording above which would state the SA11 hit is likely without providing attribution. The evidence of an SA11 hit is now irrelevant to the discussion. I can understand why Brian Dell thought I was pushing some novel shoot-down method as I reverted his change without explanation, but I have explained in several ways above that I do *not* think the flight was destroyed by anything other than a missile, but User:My very best wishes and now Arnoutf keep on discussing the missile hit as if I sugested there were any doubt. I do not doubt it. I do not wish to imply any doubt in the article. To keep on telling me there is evidence of a missile strike is to suggest I wish to introduce doubt. I do not doubt MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. The article should state MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. The crux of my point is that we are stating without attribution that the missile was launched from separatist-controlled territory, thus implicitly pre-judging that the separatist claims that they did not shoot down the aircraft are incorrect before we even state them. I know I am repeating myself, but that would appear to be necessary. Brian Dell suggests above we use the form 'Western governments believe'. Yes, that would be be great, at this point, and as Brian Dell points out, to say 'The US government believes' might imply the US government is out on a limb itself. So I propose "The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. Ukraine and Western governments believe the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists". Or something. *Anything* to avoid pre-judging the separatist case before we state it. Otherwise we might as well write in the second paragraph, 'Ukrainian separatists deny shooting down the aircraft, though this is unlikely'. - Crosbie 04:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I made my proposed change. I was wrong here and in my summary when I stated that the lead includes separatist denials of responsibility. It does not. - Crosbie 04:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crosbie: I back your points. The hit by SA11 is so likely that we can consider it to be uncontroversal. The controversal part is the location of the BUK system. Hence, I fully support your edit. --Sydal (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• No, there is no any doubts that missile was fired from the rebel-controlled territory. Please provide any WP:RS (other than claims by Russian government and Russian state-controlled news organizations) which claim that missile was fired from another position, and what exactly alternative position that would be? My very best wishes (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a "What have the Romans ever done for us?" type of argumentation. It is enough that two parties disagree to call it controversal. Excluding the parties that disagree and then say "who else disagrees?" sounds strange. Anyway, this CIA agent says that it was shot from Ukrainian-controlled territory. --Sydal (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.

The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.

• No alternative sources was provided that missile was fired from another position. I fixed this accordingly. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You strangely ignore evidence and even posts contradicting to your prior believes. Once more I point you to this reference http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ that clearly references American intel suggesting that it might have been Ukrainian soldiers that shot the plane. --Sydal (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

'User:My very best wishes' - you ask above 'Please provide any WP:RS (other than claims by Russian government and Russian state-controlled news organizations) which claim that missile was fired from another position'. For future reference I provide the following RIA Novosti link MH17 Flight Crashed Within Ukrainian Missile Systems Firing Range - Russian Military "The Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed within the operating zone of the Ukrainian army’s self-propelled, medium-range surface-to-air Buk missile systems, the Russian military said Monday." This is a Russian state-controlled news organization reporting on the claims of the Russian military so it doesn't fit your criteria. However, the views of the Russian military are not WP:FRINGE. If we write the article to deliberately exclude the views of pro-Russia sources then I agree, there is no controversy. However, there is controversy and we can only avoid acknowledging this by deliberately excluding the views of pro-Russia sources. - Crosbie 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• The claims by Russian ministry of defense are now essentially dismissed as fringe by vast majority of WP:RS. Yes, they are properly mentioned in the body of text. But I do not think they should appear in intro/summary. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The views of the Russian ministry are not WP:FRINGE. I do not care if the views of the Russian government appear in the lead. I am not asking for the views of the Russian government to appear in the lead. What I am asking is that the claim that the Buk which destroyed MH17 was launched from rebel-controlled territory is attributed in such a way that the impression is not given that there are no prominent sources which do *not* believe that the Buk which destroyed MH17 was launched from rebel-controlled territory. The views of the Russian government are prominent. The Russian government is accused of supplying a missile which was used to destroy MH17 from rebel-controlled territory. For that reason alone, the views of the Russian government on where the missile was launched from are prominent. As it stands, the article states that the location of the launch in rebel-controlled territory is something which is believed, without making it clear who holds this belief. As I understand it, you are not prepared to accept that the article should include *any* attribution of the belief that the missile was launched from rebel-controlled territory, and you insist that this claim should appear in the lead. Is that correct? It is difficult for me to see how we can reach a mutually agreed form of words at this point. - Crosbie 16:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

are you arguing about this sentence in the lead? 'The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.' - certainly the three refs that follow don't seem to me to be reflected exactly by that sentence. the first ref isn't even about the same incident I don't think. the others talk about differing beliefs about what caused the downing of the plane Sayerslle (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think FRINGE really applies, but per policy we don't give anything more weight than it is given by RS's. There are some exceptions — e.g., in certain contexts we allow people or organizations to make unfiltered views/claims about themselves via SPS — but even then we don't give those views/claims as much weight as what appears in RS's. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence I prose changing is "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists." I propose changing this to "The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. Ukraine and Western governments believe the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists" There are several national governments with an interest in the shoot-down, including Russia, Ukraine, The Netherlands, The United States, and Malaysia. Of these, I am only aware that Russia as yet does not believe the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists. I do not propose giving Russia's views equal weight. I do not propose stating Russia's views in the lead. I am asking that when the non-Russian views are presented, they are not presented in a such a way as to suggest there is no dissenting or undecided viewpoint on the question of where the missile was fired from. - Crosbie 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The third RS (AP)says "Ukraine says a passenger plane carrying 295 people was shot down Thursday as it flew over the country, and both the government and the pro-Russia separatists who have been fighting in the region denied any responsibility for downing the plane." Montenegroman (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

personally I would just axe the problematic 'The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.', and , start the paragraph straight out with the Ukrainian view - then have about the Buk sightings in Torez etc- and end up the paragraph with separatist and Russian beliefs that Su-25s or whatever , might have brought the plane down. or is that too biased. Sayerslle (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The body of this page includes already the attribution of the belief that the missile was launched from the rebel-controlled territory. The summary/introduction should only briefly summarize this. Ideally, this should be simply a summary without any additional in-line references. I do not see anything problematic with statement "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists." since this is something described in practically any current WP:RS on the subject.My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The body states and attributes the belief of Ukraine and Western governments that the missile was launched from rebel-controlled territory. The body also notes the Russian claim that Ukrainian army launchers were close to the territory controlled by the rebels on the day of the crash. The current lead selectively summarizes the view of Ukraine and Western governments in a way such as to appear that no other view exists. Therefore it does not summarize the body effectively. - Crosbie 18:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So we have:

KIEV (Reuters) - Pro-Russian rebels shot down two Ukrainian fighter jets on Wednesday, not far from where a Malaysian airliner was brought down last week in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers on board.

+ BBC: Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was travelling over the conflict-hit region when it disappeared from radar. A total of 283 passengers and 15 crew members were on board.

+ AP: Ukraine says a passenger plane carrying 295 people was shot down Thursday as it flew over the country, and both the government and the pro-Russia separatists who have been fighting in the region denied any responsibility for downing the plane.

= Wikipedia: The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists. Montenegroman (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• These three refs are irrelevant and can be simply removed from introduction. The phrase simply summarizes part of content from "Cause" section. As I said, no need to provide refs in intro if they are provided in body of article. This is per WP:MOS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• As you missed the reference prior already, here again the link of a famous American journalist that cites American intel suggesting that Ukrainian soldiers shot down the plan. http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ --Sydal (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

consortium news, like globalresearch isn't an RS I shouldn't imagine - wp would do well to steer clear of these pro-Kremlin propaganda journalists- Robert parrys folly Sayerslle (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm open for arguments for and against consortium news, but citing a cite called the "The Unrepentant Marxist" I refuse to take as indication for either side. --Sydal (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Parry/consortiumnews is a dubious or at least fringe source, per discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Parry_again--Brian Dell (talk)

As the discussion was started just after my comment, I suggest we wait until it is concluded before deciding the matter. --Sydal (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The article you linked is essentially an opinion piece on a blog by biased author without refrences. Surely Wikipedia would define such a source as unreliable? 14.201.137.3 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Claim the ground support aircraft was able to fly at a higher altitude than it is capable of

The source for this is "Pressimus" http://pressimus.com/site/page/about. Surely this can't be considered a Reliable Source. Montenegroman (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

".. weave your own stories, pulling in the real-time snippets of content that you find, adding context, your own point of view, and any commentary you want to add, and ... " ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's actually one of the Russian claims, propagated on other websites as well. It refers to the so-called dynamic ceiling, which is allegedly 10,000 metres (33,000 ft) for a Su-25 aircraft. Brandmeister^talk 18:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, according to STATE COMPANY "UKROBORONSERVICE" (3a, Rossoshanska str., Kyiv, Ukraine, 02093[1]), http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 says that the "Practical ceiling,m" is "7000-10000". Though maybe this is subject to change without notice. Maybe someone could archive this - I don't know how or I would (Saturday night and too lazy to Google?) Montenegroman (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Good call, I have removed that. It doesn't seem like a reliable source. --John (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

experts seem to find it all pretty implausible [2] - (the source is maybe biased but presumably the expert is reliable on what he says about the planes capabilities) Sayerslle (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless a clear cut quote from a reliable secondary source backs this up..I say leave it out.Juan Riley (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Juan Riley. Find even a half-credible source before re-submitting this Montenegroman (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That looks a good source, Sayerslle. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

better than pressimus anyhow - if I introduced that source I'm sorry. Sayerslle (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe? Surely we can do better than that. David Gleave [3] is wheeled out by so much of the media. "Specialties: Prevention or investigation of accidents associated with mid-air collision, loss of control after wake-vortex encounter, controlled flight into terrain, collisions on runways/taxiways, runway/taxiway excursions, windshear, pilot error, air traffic control error, procedure design mistakes, jet-blast and propwash, bird strikes."[4] OK, so maybe not so much experience with military aircraft but whatever. Montenegroman (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Getting back on topic, the sentence that John deleted was: After a Russian held press conference alleging a Ukrainian Su-25 flew close to flight MH17, a Russian government related IP edited the Su-25's Russian Wikipedia page to claim the ground support aircraft was able to fly at a higher altitude than it is capable of. Nice though the Radio Free Europe source is from Sayerslle, it doesn't make that deleted sentence any more valid: 'charges that a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet may have shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 are "fairly incredible." . . . conceivable, although extremely unlikely . . . the Su-25 -- "is a particularly bizarre choice of airplane because it's purposely designed to fly at very low levels and be agile down there," Gleave said.'

I agree with him actually - but it doesn't support the deleted sentence. Montenegroman (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

the sukhoi.org page for the plane , it says 'service ceiling 7km' [5] - (anyhow I see above you've cited something that says it can act at 10000 (does that supersede the companys own ideas)- so maybe that's what happened- it was just a coincidence the BUK going walkabout that day - who knows - Sayerslle (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle: the sukhoi.org page quotes the Service_ceiling#Service_ceiling Above that, it will struggle to climb at more than 500 feet per minute Montenegroman (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

oh - (the expert still said he found it all pretty unlikely whatever - I know nothing, as you can gather, about planes) - I read this on a blog by Bill Sweetman, Senior International Defense Editor , Aviation Week & Space Technology , ' - using a Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot carrying an R-60 Aphid air-to-air missile (the only AAM normally carried by the Su-25). This would require some remarkable timing and a pilot immune to nose-bleeds, because the Su-25 can manage Mach 0.82 flat out, on a good day, and a 777 can do 0.89, and furthermore the Su-25is unpressurized and has a normal service ceiling of 23,000 feet. No doubt coincidentally, on the day this claim was published, a Wikipedia editor with a Russian address was found trying to insert a 33,000-foot ceiling on the Su-25 page. As for the R-60, the 3 kg warhead's ability to assure a kill on a large aircraft with highly redundant systems is dubious at best.' [6] Sayerslle (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There must be something wrong here

Site: Near Hrabove, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine 48°8′17″N 38°38′20″E

by Flightradar24 was at 13:21 and placed it at WikiMiniAtlas 48°02′25″N 38°46′22″E / 48.0403°N 38.7728°E / 48.0403; 38.7728

The plane was already east to the crash area! Franz Scheerer (Software) (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussed before. May be due to many reasons, most likely lack of precision by Flightrader24. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

For ref, prev discussed at Map and timeline for final minutes. Nurg (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Eradicate original sourcing...such as at Flightrader24. Only quote secondary RS...even tho these may change. Juan Riley (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Franz 'The plane was already east to the crash area!'. Correct. [7]. The Malaysia Airways statement said "Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint" [8]. This is even further to the East. ". . . Discussed before. May be due to many reasons, most likely . . . . . (Arnoutf: please complete this for me) Montenegroman (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dutch military police

The Netherlands has sent 40 unarmed members of the Royal Marechaussee to Ukraine to aid with the investigation: [9][10] – Editør (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but I think we could better wait filling out the details of the investigation team until it is clear how it all goes. Otherwise we would have to create a long list with daily tallies. (originally X people from Y country, but after Z days the team consisted out of A people from B, C people from D, another W days later..... etc). If and when a police protection detail is sent (armed or not) I would definitely add something as that would be the next stage where the control over and arbitrary access of investigators to the site is taken away from the Ukranian separatists. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the Dutch contingent will be the largest and most significant. So I'd agree to include this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf: that until or unless this becomes part of the story, it is a detail which will lead to more details. Note: no pun meant on "detail". Juan Riley (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott plans to send "190 armed Federal Police officers and an unknown contingent of Defence Force personnel" to aid in the humanitarian mission of recovering further remains, as reported by the largest print news paper in Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbotts-mission-to-ukraine-branded-nuts-20140726-3cm8r.html - The plan has reportedly been viewed in a negative light by senior Defence personnel, so its unclear if the deployment will happen and wether or not they will be armed may change. 14.201.137.3 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Anons response is one of the reasons why I would suggest to wait it out. The Netherlands have now sent 40 MP's but there is talk about sending in many more, and sending in armed protection detail (Air Mobile Brigade has been consigned to barracks). But until something happens the coming and going of people from different organisations/countries will go on for a while. Let's wait till the dust settles and write it in a more definitive version in one go. But that is my preference - if others want to keep it closer up to date, feel free. Arnoutf (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is difference though, these unarmed military policemen are already in the Ukraine. Sending them is no longer just a plan or possibility such as the sending of Australian or Dutch armed forces is. – Editør (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Relatives at crash site

First relatives arrive at crash site, in search for their daughter [11]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This might be notable, but the source is not a good one: [12]. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

YouTube ref

What do we think of the YouTube reference? Inserted here by User:Bdell555. I think it may be a little premature and would rather see proper secondary sources. What do others think? --John (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "Youtube reference" any more that referring to a New York Times article online is an "Internet reference." It's a reference to the Security Service of Ukraine. If the Security Service of Ukraine uploads something it's got whatever credibility the uploader has (unless it can be seriously contended that the account is bogus). Would it make any difference it the citation were to sbu.gov.ua? It shouldn't.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it must be eliminated per WP:SELFSOURCED. We don't use primary sources, we use secondary sources, especially when a primary source is making a claim about a third party that advances its interests. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So, according to you, we can never introduce "a State Department spokesman said..." into any article if it is cited to state.gov, like the Daily Press Briefings, because it's "self-published" by the U.S. State Department? If you want to apply this principle, then apply it consistently, and start removing everything claimed by RT, Ria Novosti, etc because those organizations are effectively the Kremlin's own publication house.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If it is reported in secondary sources, we can also provide a link to primary source. If it isn't, it falls other under WP:SELFSOURCED. It is quite clear that such a statement by the SBU could "advance their interest", and involves a "third party". I didn't write WP:SELFSOURCED. Are you going to deny that these are contentious claims? All you need to do is find that this appears in a secondary source. That is not that difficult. If it doesn't, there is probably a reason. RGloucester — ☎ 00:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You indeed did not write WP:SELFSOURCED because if you had, you wouldn't be referring readers to Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business and writing "Anyone can create a personal web page..." and then coming over here to contend that that's the situation with gov.ua. And, yes, I'm going to deny that "On 25 July, the SBU released another recording..." is a contentious claim. Are you denying that the SBU did indeed release another recording? If not, why are you objecting to Wikipedia noting that fact?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm objecting to including a potentially spurious claim that does not appear in reliable secondary sources. If it does, you can include it. At present, it doesn't. The same principles apply. RGloucester — ☎ 01:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• If secondary reliable published source do not mention the information that is found only at one place that has a vested interest in said topic, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include, because it may be a minority fringe POV that the world (media -historians) at large have ignored. -- Moxy (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This WAS actually covered in reliable secondary sources. It shouldn't be hard to find. Then, problem solved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For example, it's mentioned here, but I also recall it being discussed in other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. If it is agreed here that there is a better source, we could restore it. --John (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added it back per Marek. Nobody has contended that Ukrainian officials have not claimed this and neither has anyone claimed that it is not notable. Yes, some have misconstrued policy to say there is a RS or a notability issue. However policy is in fact quite clear and I furthermore raised the issue of policy interpretation on the relevant policy Talk page. If you want to argue the policy at hand then see the conversation over there. If you want to argue this particular case, then explain just exactly why it is believed that Ukraine did not say this and/or why it is not notable. As a direct party to the background conflict, it is presumptively non-neutral to declare official statements by one of those parties "minority fringe POV", particularly when there's no evidence that contradicts what the party is claiming.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It was unwise to restore the claim with the same source while consensus here seems to be against it. Please provide a better source, or undo your edit. --John (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe consensus is, in fact, with you given that I have yet to see someone reject "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted." as a guide. Is there a reason why you decline to answer my question above, which is just why you believe Ukraine did not say this and/or why it is not notable? If you concede that a Ukrainian agency or ministry did say this and that it's notable then just what is the point of this back and forth?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Very well, let's continue the discussion. We are talking about this edit, which restores: "On 25 July, the SBU released another recording, said to be of insurgents referring to the aircraft just minutes before it was shot down." The source is [13] which claims to be the Security Service of Ukraine. I would rather see a better source used. At best it's a primary source. I don't think that anyone is disputing that this material is genuine, but in writing Wikipedia articles we have to be discriminating. Not every government press release needs to be put into the article, especially if secondary sources have not discussed. it. Several other editors appear to agree with me. It has been suggested that better sources exist. We request that you bring them here and discuss them before adding this material or material like it. Can you do that? --John (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Investigating Dutch police seeking pictures, video related to MH17 crash

Not sure if it could be incorporated in article or not, but might be worth while on a temporary basis

http://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/flight-mh17.html#upload------------------

StuB63 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this a usual procedure as part of Dutch police investigation or major crimes? Or is it unprecedented? Either way, I guess we'd need a (possibly also Dutch) secondary source to tell us. Of course, if it did produce something solid, that would indeed be very notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Specifically searching for pictures/videos is not very common, from what I know. It seems important enough for several Dutch sources have made mention of the police seeking pictures/videos (nieuws.nl; nd.nl (Nederlands Dagblad, a Dutch nation-wide Christian newspaper); RTV Utrecht (Radio-television Utrecht, regional radio/tv-channel of the province Utrecht); metronieuws.nl (Metro, a free Dutch newspaper); nrc.nl liveblog about MH17 (mention in the MH17 liveblog by NRC, the shared site of NRC Handelsblad and NRC Next (two closely related nation-wide Dutch newspapers)); zakenreisnieuws.nl ("business travel news", part of internetpublisher Reismedia BV; serious mention in an article about NH17); I believe there is also a mention on the site of the Reformatorisch Dagblad, but that one's currently inaccessible to me (rather religious newspaper and they feel strong enough about Sunday being a day of rest and devotion to God that they make it impossible to access the articles on their website on Sunday); quite possibly more), but I believe none of them have specifically made mention of it being common or uncommon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2014

Please change "Unnamed US intelligence officials stated that sensors that traced the path of the missile, shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, and photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile.[15]", as there's no real proof that it was actually shot down by a pro-russian separatist SAM, as all the information provided by the province of Donetsk and other countries show that the missile was shot somewhere in Kiev borders, while the manipulated-by-government West news channel blame Russia for "helping the separatists with advanced weaponry" when Donetsk hasn't got any SAM cappable of reaching such altitude, and neither any Aircraft other than the civilian ones, for the artillery from Kiev. [14] U.S. admits its MH17 ‘evidence’ is based on YouTube clips and social media posts.

FenixValor (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you actually verify that last part with multiple mainstream reliable sources? Wikipedia does not balance between things with little support and things with much support; it follows the sources. WP:FRINGE Dustin (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done. Feel free to come back when you have a source. When you do, you should propose a new wording along with the source that backs it up. --John (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

It reads "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile, which Ukraine and Western governments believe to have been fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.". I suggest changing that to "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile, which Ukraine and Western governments claim to have been fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.". As we can't look into there brains guessing what they believe is only hypothetical and, indeed, there is some intel that suggest that they actually don't believe their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydal (talk • contribs) 08:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is something about the word 'claim' which conveys the impression the writer doubts the claim that is being made. 'According to' avoids the need to impute belief, without that effect, I think. I note that I added the current wording, and am comfortable in implicitly suggesting Ukraine and Western governments are *not* lying, though I suppose I see your point. However, from a practical point of view see the discussion Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#WP:FRINGE. Even to impute this belief to anyone at all, rather than leave it as a statement of uncontroversial fact, is unpopular. By the way, it is usual to add new topics at the *end* of the page. - Crosbie 08:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I see your point on the word 'claim'. Unfortunately, I'm not native speaker to it is difficult for me to suggest better fitting words. What about 'blaim' which I figure sounds less biased? --85.176.254.153 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Blaim sounds more biased as it suggests there is someone to blame; while claim relates to the statement of US/Ukrainian govt where it came from and not necessarily who is to blame. (as a non word blaim of course is not biased in itself, but I guess you mean blame). Arnoutf (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a highly questionable "improvement", and it must be fixed or reverted (see my previous comment above). My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It was only a suggestion that never made it even to the article. --Sydal (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion, if English isn't your first language and you can't even spell the words you're advocating we use, perhaps you are not well-qualified to comment on subtleties of the English language on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Going from the citations we have we have:

KIEV (Reuters) - Pro-Russian rebels shot down two Ukrainian fighter jets on Wednesday, not far from where a Malaysian airliner was brought down last week in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers on board.

+ BBC: Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was travelling over the conflict-hit region when it disappeared from radar. A total of 283 passengers and 15 crew members were on board.

+ AP: Ukraine says a passenger plane carrying 295 people was shot down Thursday as it flew over the country, and both the government and the pro-Russia separatists who have been fighting in the region denied any responsibility for downing the plane.

= Wikipedia: The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists. Montenegroman (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and I believe that our current formulation works. Should a rewording be considered necessary, though, a more neutral alternative for saying "the USA (and others) claim something" would be "the USA (and others) state something". AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

European officials

The (current) last line of the Investigation section says: On 27 July, European officials stated that data retrieved from the flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion and that “massive explosive decompression” had occurred. It is sourced to The Age in Australia. Seen as The Age quotes its source as CBS, would it not be better to use CBS itself for the citation? It appears to be derived from here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-black-box-findings-consistent-with-blast/ - Montenegroman (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Black box: Regardless of which citation version, the data retrieved from the flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion part isn't obviously attributed to European official(s). Some tweaking needed? Montenegroman (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing - if the story originates with CBS, better to link CBS directly. The CBS source says the data was 'consistent' with shrapnel damage, not that it actually demonstrated shrapnel damage, so the text would have to change too. I don't mean to suggest doubt that there was no shrapnel damage - but it would surprise me if the aircraft instruments recorded that directly. It sounds to me like the age version is a garbled version of the CBS story. - Crosbie 12:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And there's enough evidence of shrapnel damage on the airframe anyway - why look for evidence in a Data Recorder? If CBS have managed to get a sneak-preview of Unreleased data from a black box, could they not have least found out something we don't already know? Isn't that part of what news is supposed to be? Montenegroman (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

CBS version (unknown journo): Unreleased data from a black box retrieved from the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in Ukraine show findings consistent with the plane's fuselage being hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion.

The Age version (Caroline Zielinski [15]): Data retrieved from the ill-fated MH17 flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion.

WP version: European officials stated that data retrieved from the flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion

Montenegroman (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How does one get hold of "unreleased data" from a Flight Data Recorder? of indeed any data, before it's officially published? Surely this is a leaked comment from an investigator? One that would never be corroborated. Even the CBS journalist here is anonymous. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally baffled by this, coming so soon after analysis has started, and from a US news source, written anonymously and with no official corroboration. Even a British or European news source would have been surprising. Why would CBS have any access to AAIB at this stage? All very odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that flight recorder data would take weeks to analyze? What is it written in, Klingon language? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the FDR downloading might take 24 hours: "While downloading the information should be a speedy process, it is likely to take weeks for it to be analysed in tandem with examination of the remnants of the aircraft." The CVR might be transcribed in a matter of hours. But I'm suggesting that before any official comment was made, we'd see a press conference or an interim statement, maybe released via Dutch TV or BBC, after a few days. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The other baffling thing thing is why someone at AAIB would would risk their entire future to leak info to CBS that doesn't add any info what's not already known: shrapnel damage to the aircraft. Montenegroman (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Not even whistleblowing. Just jumping the official gun, as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• What the (single) Official said: Seems to me that all that can salvaged from this appalling piece of journalism is something along the lines of: a European air safety official told CBS News that being hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion caused "massive explosive decompression." (with a bit of OR leeway). Is that even worth saying? Montenegroman (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, IMO. Translation: "an anti-aircraft missile blew up its target in exactly the expected manner". We knew this already. (Well, maybe such missiles aren't ordinarily shot at a giant air bubble like an international commercial jetliner, but... /shrug...)

Can't we just say that black box data confirmed the jet was downed by the missile as previously thought? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it now so it's no longer an issue. Unless someone else wants to try to make some sense out of this source. Montenegroman (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "appalling" about this "piece of journalism." It's traditional journalism: reporting the inside story. At least in the West, the media does not just attend press conferences with official government spokesmen and repeat the talking points offered. They try to investigate and get the inside story. That's how the Wall St Journal first reported that U.S. officials believed MH370 had diverted west to fly over Malaysia again towards the Indian Ocean. It's called journalism and CBS News is a journalist organization. If you don't think so, take it to the RS noticeboard and try to generate a consensus view that CBS News is not such an organization. In the mean time, it's presumptively a reliable source, and under the way I added this back, I furthermore used attribution to CBS News.--Brian Dell (talk)

Um, did we all miss that press conference, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, where do you see in Wikipedia policy a requirement that anything that appears here first be announced at a "press conference"?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't. And I wasn't suggesting any such thing. I was expressing my surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian: creating one version that matches the citation then "moving" it whilst changing it to an OR version doesn't fool anyone Montenegroman (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Who "created" the first version? Me? Here? Such that, according to you, I then "chang[ed] it to an OR version"? My first edit is here:

On July 27 CBS News reported that according to a European safety official, unreleased black box data was consistent with shrapnel from a missile explosion bringing down the aircraft.

My second edit, when I indeed moved it, is here:

On July 27 CBS News reported that according to a European safety official, unreleased black box data was consistent with shrapnel from a missile explosion bringing down the aircraft.

You see a difference do you? A difference that proves that I am trying to "fool" people? Well, I don't see a difference. I suggest you ask others if they see a difference, never mind an effort on my part to mislead.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Aplogies they are the same - it was only when you moved it that I noticed how bad it was. It just doesn't match the citation. If you read from the start you'll see why. Montenegroman (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian: you said: "the media does not just attend press conferences." And again, can you explain to me what "unreleased data" is? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You want an example? How about the Snowden documents? Or did the NSA "release" all of those documents? If you are worried about Wikipedia reporting on "unreleased" material, when are you going to get started on rolling back everything on Wikipedia that refers to what Snowden got a hold of?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I was asking for an explanation of ""unreleased data from a FDR". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No comment on whether to include the material. But is there some confusion here over what is meant by unreleased data from an FDR? All CBS is claiming is that someone who is at least partially aware of the data from the FDR, but hasn't been authorised to release it has told them what they are aware. (I'm lazy to check the CBS source but from what was said here, I'm not sure it's been revealed what sort of role this person has. It could be an investigator. It could be a politician or someone else who was informed. It could be someone else who isn't supposed to know but "found out" somehow like an intelligence services agent.) There's no suggestion the data hasn't been recovered, simply that it hasn't been official released. Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian: how come you didn't include the other scoop from this masterpiece of investigative journalism: that being hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion can cause "massive explosive decompression." Some poor European air safety official has put his future at risk for this - isn't it worth a mention? Montenegroman (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You want to include more from CBS News? I have no objection to your including more. May we divert from what you are NOT edit warring over to what you ARE edit warring over, namely, ANY reference to this CBS News story?--Brian Dell (talk)

• Just rephrase the sentence staying as close to the source as possible.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Montenegroman (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think restoring this was a great edit either, Brian Dell. What does it really add? --John (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Cause

It currently reads "On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference and said that just before the crash, a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft approached to within 3 to 5 kilometres (1.9 to 3.1 mi) of the Malaysian airliner. The Ministry also stated that satellite photographs showed that the Ukrainian army moved a Buk SAM battery to the area close to the territory controlled by the rebels on the morning of 17 July, hours before the crash. They said the installation was then moved away again by 18 July.". I think this is somewhat imprecise and partly misses the point. It should read: "On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference and showed radar images that showed that just before the crash, a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft approached to within 3 to 5 kilometres (1.9 to 3.1 mi) of the Malaysian airliner. The Ministry also released satellite photographs that showed that the Ukrainian army moved a Buk SAM battery to the area close to the territory controlled by the rebels on the morning of 17 July, hours before the crash. They said the installation was then moved away again by 18 July.". For me, the main point in the press conference was that Russian statements were backed up with some evidence. We should be cautious to derive causation from the correlation presented, but we should not neglect the fact that evidence was actually published. --85.176.254.153 (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How strong is the evidence? How did they decide the BUK was Ukranian? And the SU at 3-5 km would have been directly below the Boeing as the flight level of thar plane was about 3-5 km above the service ceiling of the SU. This has all been discussed before. Arnoutf (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal judgement of the strength of the evidence provided by the Russians is not important here and so isn't yours. We are not on a fact-finding mission here. We only report what happened. The Russian did present satelite photos to underline their claim. We may well not believe their story that are based on the photos, but so far I saw no source that actually claimed that the evidences were weak or even fabricated. And even if so, we should just report that fact along with the source, too. It would hint to a highly relevant cover-up action of the Russian government. --Sydal (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not "reporting what happened", we're just reporting what various sources claim happened. And how do the Russians prove that any photograph, or radar image, that they produce, was taken at any particular time? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"I saw no source that actually claimed that the evidences were weak or even fabricated." Well it has been challenged. From The Aviation Herald:

On Jul 21st 2014 Russia's Ministry of Defense claimed they have compelling evidence... that an Ukrainian Air Force SU-25 fighter aircraft was within 5km around flight MH-17 at the very same altitude at FL330 and shot down MH-17.... [However, the] SU-25 fighter jet aircraft have a service ceiling of 7000 meters (FL230) clean and 5000 meters (FL160) with maximum weapons. .... From an aerodynamics point of view it is impossible to reach 10,000 meters of altitude with a service ceiling at 7,000 meters unless energy of substantial excess speed is being converted into altitude. To have the SU-25 climb 3000 meters above its service ceiling would require supersonic speeds, that the SU-25 is not capable of"--Brian Dell (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, according to STATE COMPANY "UKROBORONSERVICE" (3a, Rossoshanska str., Kyiv, Ukraine, 02093[16]), http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 the "Practical ceiling,m" is "7000-10000". Though maybe this is subject to change without notice. Montenegroman (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The manufacturer on the other hand lists a service ceiling of 7 km (7000m) without any external ordnance (ie without the AAM missiles mounted). http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/ Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Russian government's own English translator says the Su-25 was flying at the "same level". Bill Sweetman says the idea that a Su-25 shot down this aircraft is implausible. A British aviation expert also finds it implausible. Any claim that is demonstrably false like this should not be included without also referring to the fact it's false. As alternative, remove the Russian allegation from the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think whatever story the Russians are trying to pass off, or the Ukranians or the Donetsk group, should be documented and attributed. At this moment in time, we are not the ultimate knowers of the truth. As this story continues to develop the credibility of any or all of the warring parties and their information system will then be exposed publicly as lies are debunked. Hiding the falsehoods of any party ultimately serves their efforts at disinformation both now and in the future Trackinfo (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

It's not been "proven false", it's been commented on, by experts, as being implausible. Even if it were proven false, that fact that it was made by the Russian Government seems rather notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is like deja vu - all over again [17] 'charges that a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet may have shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 are "fairly incredible." . . . conceivable, although extremely unlikely . . . the Su-25 -- "is a particularly bizarre choice of airplane because it's purposely designed to fly at very low levels and be agile down there," Gleave said.' I agree with him actually - but it doesn't support the statement that it's NOT possible Montenegroman (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian state/territory

Is there any sense in mentioning Australian passengers by state and territory in the note C? IMO, all of them are Australian citizens anyway and the flight manifest doesn't indicate such info. Brandmeister^talk 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't be upset if it goes. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian sources made a point of breaking it down by state, and therefore Wikipedia should too. If the source was simply an after-the-fact "oh by the way here are the states" I would take the opinion of WWGB. But in this case Australian newspapers published articles explicitly centered on the breakdown of Australian passengers. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian media would break it down for a local audience but it is not notable or encyclopedic in this article so agree it can go. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

MH is now avoiding Ukranian airspace

MH made a point of stating that it's entirely avoiding Ukranian airspace:

• http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/content/mas/my/en/travel_advisory/eu-flight-status.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6RNdZjo2Z

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The text need to be revised! Wrong statements and conclusions.

Just take this paragraph for example:

Shortly after the crash, Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, was reported to have posted on social media network VKontakte, taking credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. The separatists later denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been destroyed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude.[112][113][114] On 22 July a soldier revealed to an Italian reporter that fellow separatists had told his unit the plane had been shot down under the assumption that it was Ukrainian.[115]

US officially declares no involvement of Russia on 22.7.14 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-22/u-dot-s-dot-no-direct-russian-involvement-in-mh17-crash

Also the article of the Italian reporter has been proofed to be not correct.

So please if Wikipedia want to be serious change the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.145.94 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"US officially declares no involvement of Russia" isn't an accurate summarization of what appears in content of that BusinessWeek (Bloomberg) link. What, exactly, is the problem with what was reported by Corriere della Sera?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, where exactly is that report "proofed to be not correct" or any similar such thing? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that you should find a direct government source for any "official" government claims. Also, Wikipedia isnt here to make conclusions. 14.201.137.3 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)