Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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 [1] 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)

Can you read what other editors wrote in this thread? Like "This WAS actually covered in reliable secondary sources"? We, and by this I mean Volunteer Marek and I, request that you read what Volunteer Marek has to say and if you dispute his claim then dispute it instead of ignoring it. I'll also note here that you seem to be offside consensus in this related discussion. I'll also add here that the best sourcing for something approaching a quote is straight from the horse's mouth, if the horse is who the horse claims to be. If we are interpreting, analyzing, or commenting on what the horse said that's different, but there's no analysis going on here.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not especially looking for "something approaching a quote"; we're an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and we mainly work by summarising (not quoting) secondary sources. --John (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your sweeping generalizations are not advancing this discussion anywhere except into the weeds. At the top of this Talk page it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article." If you have an objection here then spell it out plainly and specifically instead of hand waving about what strikes you as "a little premature", "[not] a great edit", what you think Wikipedia is "mainly" about, etc. I agree with you that Wikipedia should not be a quote farm. But I then ask, so what? Do you go around WIkipedia deleting not just all quotes but all near-quotes as well because "we're not especially looking for something approaching a quote"? You know what else we "mainly" do? We "mainly" source to sources other than The New York Times. Yes, less than half of Wikipedia citations are to the NYT. Much less than half, in fact. Is it therefore prohibited to cite to the NYT? Allow me to quote from policy here: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense..." Applying your editorial judgment here means generating an argument for why this material is either not reliable or not notable if you don't like it. Reliably-sourced, notable material is, in fact, what we are actually looking for and what we ALWAYS, not "mainly", ALWAYS look for.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Please bring valid secondary sources for this; otherwise there is no consensus for its inclusion. --John (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So your answer is not to reply to my comment, or even acknowledge that you read it, but to just declare that you are resolved to edit war? I'm adding it back, and unlike you'd I'm providing REASONS for doing so, namely, because your opinion does not outweigh that of Volunteer Marek and mine. Gloucester is offside consensus in his SELFPUB construal as per this discussion (a discussion I initiated because I am more interested in DISCUSSING this than in "I've reverted you again" announcements), and "minority FRINGE POV" is simply not applicable to an official Ukrainian agency. You can either acknowledge the fact that Marek has already pointed to secondary sources, or you can continue to falsely insinuate that he did not.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Youtube sources are generally seen as acceptable if they come from an official source that is reliable (Ex: CNN and BBC has their own youtube channels) and are not editorial opinions. I am unsure of the uploader of this video as I can not read Ukrainian but the fact remains that the SBU did release the video, now if it is truthful or not is another story hence why the sentence should mention that it is unverified and reported by Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in here to help stop an edit war. Yes, it is attributed to Ukraine. I don't think a reasonable person can contend this Youtube account is not authentic when the official website explicitly links to it. I'll make another request here of John, and that's to recall my edit summary from last night: "lots of material in this Telegraph piece. Worth calling attn to". May I hereby now invite you, a second time, to take a look at that "Telegraph piece", John? I think you if you can find the time to edit war, you can find a few minutes to take a look at what you find there.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree here with Knowledgekid87 - just need to say where the info comes from (hosted on youtube is not relevant in this case - no copyright concerns). That said to establish its notability (a concern also raised) a secondary source would be best....lack there of is not a reason for removal in this case - as its an official position from some of those involved an can be found reported on. What should be done because there is a dispute is addition of a secondary source that links the videos in-question like www.huffingtonpost.ca or http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ -- Moxy (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy: I saw that source as well, is it the same recording though as the one released on the 25th of July? Or are they two separate recordings? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The embedded link there in HuffPo is to the "Youtube video" at issue here. The edit at issue acknowledges where this comes from with "the SBU released another recording." Moxy, it is not necessary to double cite on Wikipedia, with one cite for the material and another cite for notability. Notability just needs to be demonstrated on a Talk page if its notability is disputed. It's not entirely clear that notability IS, indeed, disputed here since I've asked John that specific question and instead of a straight answer I got a revert with an edit summary that referred to "Youtube" instead of notability. --Brian Dell (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You are corect but we should link the best source....not just the main source. The problem is linking to youtube directly to many people off the bat... because it does not establish notability of said statements. Referencing a news article that talks about the subject and also has the video is clearly best. Why...because it establishes notability and in many cases will give context (its why there is a story in the news to begin with). This approach can only make the encyclopaedia look more reliable. Its about perceptions....got to give the best secondary source when possible over primary source. As has been explained by a few now ... linking to the you-tube page may give the impression of bias sourcing. Best we present the info as detailed from a non bias source even if its the same info, especially when the topic itself or the comments are bias by nature.--Moxy (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You earlier said whether "hosted on youtube is not relevant in this case." You've now changed your mind and am taking that back? I wouldn't call the Huffington Post "a non bias source" because it's well known for being biased against the U.S. Republican Party. I would think clarity is relevant here and giving the title of the clip in the citation and "Security Service of Ukraine" as the source is quite clear. When you called attention to that HuffPo article that "also has the video" Knowledgekid87 replied to express some confusion over which recording the source was referring to, no? And didn't you suggest earlier that "an official position from some of those involved" provides notability right there? We may have to get more technical here about how "notability" is a requirement, as it actually isn't a requirement per se: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". When I say this is notable I'm using the term as a common sense shorthand for it not being WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to include. As for "context," an intermediary adding "context" could be adding a "bias", no? It seems to me that if the same article content here were cited to Huffington Post instead of the Ukrainian authority, we risk misleading the reader into thinking the article content is a reliable as the HuffPo it's cited to. That might just generate a different argument about the reliability of the Huffington Post (HuffPo typically looks more like the Daily Mail than the New York Times). In fact this recording is no more nor no less reliable than the Ukrainian authority that produced it. There's value in being transparent about its origins by not trying to launder it through an intermediary, is there not?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your missing the point here - its an example - yes someone should find the video at a reliable secondary source. If they cant this leads most to believe not notable to begin with - notability is not inherent or to be avoid in article content. Its all about perception - the way we are presenting facts and statements. Much better to say the "post" reported that so and so said whatever - over saying look at this long video that I as a Wikipedia editors think says so and so. All we can do here is regurgitate what reliable sources say. If there are two sides to the event or statement represented in the press as you say..then we mention both. Yes because its Official it has credence - but as seen above there is a problem not giving a source with context. As for notability not being about adding content to articles..this is way off in my opinion - common sense tells us that notability is tied up with verifiability. -- Moxy (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that User:Bdell555 has added this poor source for the third time. Rather than edit-warring on this, it ought to be very easy to find secondary sources which back this up, as Volunteer Marek suggested. Again, rather than hand-waving about the existence of other sources, bring them here so we can discuss them. Otherwise this material will need to be removed. --John (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a "poor source" then you can raise it on the RS noticeboard. Are you going to discuss it there before you edit war over this (again)? No one else here has agreed with you that this is a "poor source" simply because it is hosted on Youtube. As for you and your demands, Wikipedians are not to here to sastisfy your demands. They are here to satisfy the demands of POLICY. See the difference? There's no reason to believe that satisfying your demands is going to make a difference anyway, because THREE different editors have ALREADY pointed to THREE different sources that have called attention to this recording IN THIS THREAD but despite the fact they have been brought "here so [you] can discuss them" you continue to pretend that this hasn't happened. It's pretty obvious you have little respect for me, or for the facts like the fact that I referred you to the London Telegraph, but how about showing a little respect to Volunteer Mark and Moxy by acknowledging that not only did they call attention to Buzzfeed and the Huffington Post, respectively, but they provided direct links for you right here in this discussion.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If we have a three-way choice between YouTube, the Huffington post and Buzzfeed, that's easy. We leave it out. When the BBC, the Guardian, or the New York Times picks it up we can discuss it again. If you wish to go to a noticeboard, you are heading the right way, but it may not be the one you mention. --John (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sniffing at the Telegraph, John? Not up there with the Guardian? You're a hard man to please! Did you know that the BBC says there are two "papers of record" in the UK, one of which is the Telegraph, and neither of which is the Guardian! Anyway, this recording is in the Guardian too, so you can "discuss it again" right there, by which I mean, of course, you'll want to move the goalposts again!--Brian Dell (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I would accept the Telegraph as a decent source. It makes it harder to work with you when you continually assume bad faith like this, you know. I have no intention of moving the goalposts; I just want to ensure this article has proper sources on it. --John (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If the Telegraph is "a decent source" then why did you declare "this material will need to be removed" AFTER I wrote "May I hereby now invite you, a second time, to take a look at that 'Telegraph piece', John?" There was no ambiguity in my instructions as to where to find it and you never indicated that you had any trouble following those instructions. I then reminded you that I had called attention to the Telegraph, and you again ignored that in favour of calling for a cite to the Guardian. Why did you not ask for the BBC, the Guardian, or the NYT back when you were simply asking for "secondary sources" if you were not going to subsequently move the goal posts? I might add that your fellow Wikipedians do not need to satisfy your particular demands anyway if they have satisfied Wikipedia's demands.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Help me out here Dingly, your eyes are obviously sharper than mine. Where in the Guardian does it mention YouTube, or give a link to it? Is it the . . .If the Ukrainian security services, the SBU, are to be believed . . . plus . . . According to the recording of a phone call allegedly made . . . that are the clues we are to follow here? Montenegroman (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In an effort to get you out of this apparent impasse, Brian, why not simply get the story planted in the MSM? Just use a freelancer. Maybe have a word with Natasha Culzac (freelance news, travel and lifestyle journalist with a love for photography, the saxophone, and edamame beans). It's a win-win because she'll get a few quid for selling it to the Independent/DailyMail/Express/Metro or whatever and you get your RS. It's how journalism works. Her email address is: natashazac@gmail.com (publicly available from http://blogs.independent.co.uk/author/natasha-culzac/). Happy to help, as always: Montenegroman (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm surprised to see a link to loose tubes on such a high profile article, even if it is entirely convincing and easily the most damning evidence against the separatists. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

[2][3][4] - interpretrmag discussing it , the first link dsicusses the SBU audioSayerslle (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

. . . Powered by Pressimus Montenegroman (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

- 'In a leaked audio tape released on July 25th, Bezler is heard talking about a “birdie” that’s “really high.” The tape was reportedly taken just two minutes before MH17 was shot down. The voice is the same as the previous releases, and as stated before Bezler admits that this is his voice.' - james miller interpretermag - I don't think james miller would publish any old rubbish at interpretermag , powered by pressimus or not. serious journalists at interpretermag. Sayerslle (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Interpreter: A special project of the Institute of Modern Russia (a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy organization—a think tank—with offices in New York and Washington DC.). Also publishers of Ukraine Liveblogs using Pressimus, tagline: Find useful snippets of content. Weave them into your stories. ((Press)) to share with the world. [5]. Well I suppose that's good enough for some people. Montenegroman (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

whats wrong with 'useful content' and 'weaving [that] into stories ' - better than useless lies and planting them everywhere. but, well I suppose useless planted lies are good enough for some people Sayerslle (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Go on then, I'll play your silly game: what is wrong with finding useful snippets of content and weaving them into your stories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really get your point here -anyhow I didn't add the interpretermag articles as a ref for this Bezler on audio tape 2 mins beforeSayerslle (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This link was discussed before, kept for a long while, and I do not see consensus to remove it right now. Restored. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Where was it discussed before? --John (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the hell are people still fighting over the link ..why hasn't the secondary source been add yet over the primary source or in addition to the primary source? What is the problem? Please do what is best for our readers- Moxy (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

How does it serve our readers to obscure the fact that the very first appearance of this recording anywhere was on Youtube? Some readers reserve the right to disbelieve anything that originates on Youtube (like some involved in this very thread, apparently). Why deny them that right? It's like the "I don't believe anything I read on the Internet" types back in the 90s. If the first appearance of a news story was in the New York Times online edition as opposed to its print edition, for those people who insist on believing that the medium matters as opposed to the messenger, why obscure the info about the medium that they believe to be relevant? Eventually these types will come around to realizing that one SOMETIMES can cite to "Youtube" just like one SOMETIMES can cite to "the Internet" (because not everything on either Youtube or the Internet is equal), but they may not realize that today.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you show readers that it was the "very first appearance"? That would be original research, and just linking the video doesn't show that anyways. (Readers don't need to know it was the very first appearance, anyways, and if they do, then find sources that say that.) We need a secondary source. The current text also says "... said to be of insurgents", which should really have a secondary source backing up that Ukraine said that (rather than using a primary source and performing more original research.) 9kat (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed ref had some useful info (you know, the kind you get from a secondary source), so I added that info along with the reference. I think we should only keep the YouTube ref if another secondary source can't be found. (Couldn't readily find one myself.) 9kat (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD: "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source"--Brian Dell (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not one of those instances. If you'd read the full essay, you'd see why. Do you see the Ukrainian government as a "third party" to this situation? RGloucester — ☎ 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Off on your SELFPUB notion again, I see. That idiosyncratic notion of yours was debunked in this discussion, particularly by editor WhatamIdoing.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "self-pub", whatever that is. I said that secondary sources are used to determine the importance of what primary sources say. That's in the essay you cited, so you should've read it. If it doesn't appear in reliable secondary sources, then it is most likely either not important, not notable, not factual, or otherwise flawed. If it does appear in these sources, then cite those sources. It isn't our job to decide whether this video is relevant. Secondary sources do that for us. Taking primary sources at face value is foolish at best, dangerous at worst. The same principles apply. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You never said "it must be eliminated per WP:SELFSOURCED"? Yes, it is our job to decide what's goes into an article and what doesn't. Trivial material stays out. This isn't trivial. Your contention that primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia is just plain wrong. If something is "not factual" that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. You are overgeneralizing. in this case, the primary source is unfettered by any accompanying third party editorializing (like Mashable's "He is a fearsome man with a persona as dark as his actions, ruling Horlivka with an iron fist" line) or doubt about its origin and is accordingly best. That said, I'll grant that reasonable people can disagree over which citation is best. What I was strongly protesting in this thread was John's deletions of any mention in the article of this recording.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Unfettered by any accompanying ... doubt about its origin". What? If there's doubt about its origin in RSes, then we should use those RSes. Mashable, while editorializing some, does note they couldn't authenticate the call. Why wouldn't we provide the reader with a ref that has appropriately, well, done reporting on that? Also, they provide their own translation (they note a small difference, but it's important since the average en.wiki reader doesn't speak Ukrainian thus has to rely on the Ukrainian government translation otherwise). They also point out that the SBU's text intro suggests the new evidence shows Bezler "coordinated" the attack, but that isn't supported by the rest of the recording. The primary source is absolutely not usable here; it needs interpretation, analysis, and independent translation, as these RSes have done. 9kat (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, 9kat. This is an information war going on. We are not here to do original research, deciding for ourselves whether a video is worthy of inclusion in this article. No. We rely on secondary sources to establish notability of the video, do the research as to whether it has any authenticity, do analysis as to what it means in context. Presenting every statement by the Ukrainian and Russian governments without any context (which must be provided by secondary sources) in this situation would be pure madness, and totally useless if one is writing an encyclopaedia. "Unfettered by any third party editorialising" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We want to report what could potentially be propaganda at face value, with no analysis, no verification? Idiocy, pure and simple. When I cited WP:SELFSOURCED, I was citing it in principle, rather than practice. That is to say, I was saying that for the same reasons why self-published sources must be taken with caution, government-issued videos must be taken with caution. That is all. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There's two different issues here: what the article should say and which citation to use. What Ukraine said should be cited to Ukraine, at least in my opinion. In-the-article analysis of what Ukraine said, on the other hand, of course requires a secondary source.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need the primary source at all now that we have two RSes, which properly discuss the video? (I would like to see better RSes than Buzzfeed and Mashable, but those are good-quality articles for those outlets.) 9kat (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't, and I'd like to thank you for adding secondary sources. I was merely trying to explain to Mr Dell that primary sources are to be used sparingly. RGloucester — ☎ 03:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• @John. It was discussed here and later (I do not have time to check right now). The source is BBC - qualifies as WP:RS see here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see, thank you. That is actually a different YouTube source from the one we were discussing above. --John (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just so I can get this clear in my head: is the conclusion to this discussion that a link from Buzzfeed and (or?) Mashable is all that is required to insert a YouTube video into this article? Montenegroman (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe it is and it's just me that doesn't think it's a very clever idea. So, moving on: if both these sources link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emfVpkBKoow is it OK to use a link to a different source such https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnuHxAR01Jo (an upload to an anonymous YouTube account)? Montenegroman (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Does it make no difference that the BBC webpage, noted by My very best wishes above, links to the Служба безпеки України source? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Only in that it ref's to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyZYgSXdyw (ie: not the same as the Article ref for the External Audio). At the moment, the BBC is not used as a citation for the statement On 25 July, the SBU released another recording, which they said was of pro-Russian-separatist leader Igor Bezler being told of an approaching plane two minutes before MH17 was shot down. - Buzzfeed -Mashable - Guardian Montenegroman (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The BBC said The veracity of the recordings cannot be confirmed - hardly a glowing endorsement. To any outside observer, this talk page might look as though we are trying to fit the facts around the narrative here. Montenegroman (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The second para now looks so much like a cite-farm (maybe not helped by this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=619339961&oldid=619299734 ) that the YouTube references are neither here-nor-there anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 21:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• As far as this Youtube record was mentioned in BBC and other secondary WP:RS, we can use it here with appropriate attribution, i.e. without claiming it to be "the truth" but merely a conversation of rebels intercepted by Ukrainian security services. Making one link to external source does not make anything "quotation farm".My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are prepared to go back and read what I actually said and amend the comment accordingly then I will respond. Just in case you still miss it I'll say it again in a different way:

The BBC is not currently used as a citation for the statement: On 25 July, the SBU released another recording, which they said was of pro-Russian-separatist leader Igor Bezler being told of an approaching plane two minutes before MH17 was shot down.

Even if if was, the ref for the External Audio refers to a different video. Don't take my word for it - check it out.

The cite-farm reference is to the entire para - not this single statement (though this particular sentence/statement (backed up by two citations that are worthless and one that doesn't really match what is said here) doesn't help the para a whole lot. This stuff wouldn't get past a sub on the Hicksville Weekly Advertiser, even if it were minutes before going to press. Montenegroman (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of Children

Can there be independent confirmation of the number of children on the plane. Logically 80 seems too many. Given 298 deaths and 15 crew makes 283 people. 283 divided by 80 makes 3.53, which makes every third and a half person a child. This is too many statistically unless there was a class flying. Can an independent link be produced citing the number as credible, preferably not a newspaper article but an actual source as there has been too many mistakes in the media recently?203.219.152.104 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The flight manifest doesn't specify which passengers were children and it seems that neither does Malaysia Airlines statement, but ZN.ua cites Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights Valeriya Lutkovskaya who said there 80 children aboard. Dutch Prime Minister reportedly mentioned the same number. Brandmeister^talk 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Julie Bishop said "“Seeing these flowers and tributes and toys reminds us that there were 80 children aboard that flight... ”: [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would that be too many statistically? In a family with 2 children every second person is a child. At the beginning of the Dutch school summer vacation many families were going to holidays in Asia. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As to why, the reason for me quite simple. Given that I fly relatively often there tends to be less children on international flights. I guess what can be done is to check the newspapers for the ages of passengers. I know that Australian media has already published the ages of Australian passengers, the only problem with Australian media is that everyone seems to be saying that there were 37 Australians onboard not 27.203.219.152.104 (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Australians, the Australian media is counting all citizens and residents. Everyone else is counting only Australian citizens who boarded with their Australian passport. There seem to have been 28 Australian citizens on board. 27 boarded with an Australian passport (one dual citizen with a Malaysian passport). And 9 non-citizens residing in Australia. Courts in the European Union are more protective of privacy, so a complete detailed list of all Dutch passengers might never exist. What you want to do is anyway wrong in WP since that would be WP:OR. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Children and Dual-nationals

If all under 18 are considered children then its likely there were that number aboard, its also mentioned somewhere almost 20 were under the age of 12, by the way Dutch authorities chose to acknowledge all dual citizens even if they were not legal as in the case of Malaysia and Vietnam which dont allow such an arrangement, with respective flags flying at half mast at Eindhoven base, heres a photo of it http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140727134818-02-mh17-netherlands-horizontal-gallery.jpg not that the deleted column should be restored but maybe they can me mentioned in prose. 64.40.147.101 (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what I had assumed. But maybe it needs to be made explicit in the text? For most airlines the definition of a "child" for ticketing purposes (i.e. price of seat) is often much lower at 12 or 13 years. The youngest travellers are usually classed by airlines as "infants" and these are usually under two years of age. But airlines, and ticketing agencies, seem to vary. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I never thought anyone would quote politicians talking about children and then assume ticketing rules for the definition of children - all under 18 was obvious to me. If someone finds a source saying "80 under 18" that should be clarified in the article. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are thoe flags intended for dual citizens only? I would have thought they'd be intended for all countries with victims rather than only those dual citizens. Remember all the remains are going there for now. I don't know about Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure some of the Malaysians were not dual citizens. Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No all respective country flags are represented in the photo including Dual national ones, three Vietnamese had Dutch passports as did one Malaysian, these were counted amongst the 193 Dutch citizens, none of the other Malaysians were dual citizens. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

um, flags? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

he is referring to the flags in the photo link in my post. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2014

Add the following to section "See also":

Iran Air Flight 655 - An iranian passenger jet shot down by US Navy in 1988. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

91.153.192.118 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about this - see "See also consensus" section above. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Photographs of Crash Site

The OSCE webpage [7] has a gallery of crash site photographs. These should be assumed to be copyrighted by OSCE. However, since they're not a commercial agency, we could use one of these under a Fair Use license if such a photograph cannot be replaced by a free equivalent, and if we think that no free images of the site are likely to become available. Geogene (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No. They would clearly fail criteria 8 of WP:NFCCP. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Criterion 8, I'm not sure that a photo of the crash site wouldn't increase the readers' comprehension of what happened, or that the absence of one in the article doesn't cause a deficit of their understanding. I know of non-free crash site images being used elsewhere on WP--the Pan Am 103 is a Crown copyright image that went up right after I nommed the previous one for deletion (as being an agency photo). Geogene (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Pan Am 103 image is not non-free, Crown copyright is licenced under the free Open Government Licence. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OGL applies to Crown copyrighted materials that are "expressly released" by the owning government authority. Okay, granted I hadn't visited the file page for that image in a while. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Investigators finallly reach crash site

Investigators finallly reach the crash site, if only temporarily: [8], [9]. And a claim that there are still 80 bodies at the crash site: [10]] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's impossible. 274 bodies were already repatriated. There might be 20 max, but not 80! Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement referred to "remains of up to 80 people". It is likely that these include further limbs and parts of bodies previously recovered. Bodies don't fall neatly intact from the sky in such incidents. WWGB (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A bit odd that the headline is "Up to 80 bodies still at MH17 crash site, says Australian minister." And that the reporter opens with "The bodies of 80 victims may still be at the crash site.. " Martinevans123 (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Politicians have been known to speak before knowing all the facts. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite so. But it's a bit fuzzy. Who knows how many "body parts" there might be. What counts as "a part"? or as "a fragment"? Impossible to say, I would have thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe better to wait till we can say something like "Investigators reached the crash site on . . . where they discovered/recovered etc?" It's not like were competing with CBS and need to get something out regardless. Montenegroman (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The separatists claimed to have recovered something like 275 bodies, the Dutch claim it was something like 200, that's in the article. It's not surprising at all that there are still 80 or so still unaccounted for, because the original number has already been disupted. I wouldn't mind if all references to the current number missing/accounted for were removed until better supported facts are available. Geogene (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

[11]: ".. the final shipment of 38 coffins for Amsterdam would bring the total to 227 coffins ... there are a lot of coffins with one body in one coffin, but there are others with only human remains... Some of the coffins held several body bags containing body parts." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 10

Where's Archive 10? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. It (the Cause section) vanished while I was working on replies to you and Sayerslle. I'm taking the liberty of reposting the first part and the last part here (Cause section). Sure hope that's all right with the rules and all! Thanks to everyone.JPLeonard (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the archive rate should be reduced a bit. Otherwise we are likely to get dicussions duplicated?! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, might also increase the chances of a question being answered before it gets buried away. Montenegroman (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• The bot currently archives threads "with no replies in 24 hours." That parameter (24h) can be changed if you think it would benefit the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest 2 or 3 days at least. But where is Archive 10? Ah, it's now appearred where I was expecting it. Not sure why that happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been changed to 2 days now, that should help a little bit. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:24, 1 August 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)

This is the actual status of evidence shown:

-Russia has shown radar images of a jetfighter approaching the airliner - the translation only says "presumably" a Su-25, so the Su-27 is not ruled out either.

-Russia has said it has no satellite images of a Buk being launched.

-Kerry has said the US has such images, but for some reason, they don't show them. Altho they are showing images allegedly of Russia firing artillery, they can't show the photo of the Buk.

So what do we have? A radar image of a jet fighter. That's it.

General agreement that the plane was damaged by shrapnel. That could be either an air to air missile or a SAM. In fact, it could even be cannon fire from the jet fighter. Even ground based anti aircraft or flak guns can reach 10000m. That could also be a possibility except that the holes in the fuselage appear to be on the sides, not the bottom.

Against the argument that it was a massive missile is the Russian data that the airplane lost airspeed and changed course before it disappeared from the radar.

Thus it could have been hit twice, the first time maybe not a direct hit, maybe a hit by an AA missile or cannon fire. Second time the coup de grace. JPLeonard (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian reports that 82% of Russians think Ukraine shot down MH17. "46% said they believed a Ukrainian surface-to-air missile was responsible, and 36% said a Ukrainian warplane had shot it down. Only 3% believe the rebels in eastern Ukraine were responsible." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/mh17-vast-majority-russians-believe-ukraine-downed-plane-poll JPLeonard (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

'there is actually no evidence.' - ? - don't forget the day of the shooting down a buk was seen in Donetsk in the morning (paris match) then as it went east it was observed (torez the guardian report - and then later in lugansk, minus missile - headed for Russia - (in the town the Russians and RT their propaganda outlet tried to make out was a different town, and were caught lying - that Russians overwhelmingly believe Russia is in no way to blame is not exactly surprising - how long did it take for Katyn massacre to be acknowledged (oh, 50 years , I just looked at the wp article ) Sayerslle (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

JPLeonard: "- Russia has said it has no satellite images of a Buk being launched." Really? How would one go about proving such a claim? Is there any one at all who is suggesting it was shot twice, apart from your good self? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, these video clips purporting to show this or that can't really be considered reliable evidence. The one showing a rocket missing was debunked by the Russ Def Min spox - it was shot in a town controlled by Ukraine, but presented as a different town held by the rebels. There is so much video fakery in the info-war, plus, if the shootdown was a false flag -- rather than a mistake by Ukraine, as some US and Russian sources are proposing - then part of the operation was this charade of Ukraine moving a Buk system into the rebel held zone on July 17 (the convoy would be flying local/resistance colors for obvious reasons) and which Kartopolov asked about.

In Torez, the Buk unit commander stops and comes up to the AP reporters and asks in a stage Russian accent if they have taken photos! Just to make sure the impression has been made, like a cartoon villain. Such "evidence" can be fabricated, disseminated and eagerly consumed. This is part of psychological warfare. But Ukraine has about 27 Buk installations. Buks have been seen here and seen there, but where was the Buk fired from? None of the inspectors can find any trace of it being fired near the crash site.

This was the criticism by the russians that the US is showing only evidence from social media -- clips which wouldn't hold up in a court of law without a chain of custody etc. There was the clip of a Buk being fired on a sunny day, when it was cloudy that day. And so on. As for possible statements by resistance figures that they thought they had shot down a plane, they may have jumped to conclusions or fallen into a trap, somewhat understandably, since they have indeed been shooting down warplanes. Then there is the audio recording released by Ukraine intelligence, allegedly of a rebel and a russian discussing the shootdown, but it had a creation date time stamp from July 16, so it backfired on them and has been cited as evidence of a false flag. So the audio visual social media stuff adds up more to fog of war than clear evidence.

Martinevans, the way to disprove negative evidence is with positive evidence, and this is exactly what Kartopolov asked the US to do, to show their imagery of the Buk launch. Kerry described the US satellite photos in glowing terms to Fox News, and it is a serious matter, to accuse others of mass murder, while withholding the evidence. Few would take such an accusation on faith seriously from, say, Iran, but the US has a very heavy influence on the global media. Even though we know they lied about non-existent WMD in Iraq, they even faked evidence, they lied to the UN, to the US Congress, to the world media. So we should ask them to show their evidence.

In fact, if it were not for Russia Today, I don't think the Kartopolov press conference would have reached the world at all. It got much more attention in the English and Spanish media, where RT has outlets, but zero mention in the French and German newspapers.

As for the idea of two shots, you are right that this is not my original idea. There have been reports that some witnesses heard two shots. Also, by the way, there are reports by eyewitnesses who say they saw the Ukraine fighter shoot down the airliner. One such interview was even on the BBC, but only their Russian language service.

Two commentators - Aleksandr Zhilin, a Russian journalist and Peter Haisenko, a retired Lufthansa pilot - have said the plane was attacked first by the Ukrainian jet fighter, which set the right engine on fire, but the airliner was not destroyed outright. It turned around and lost speed and altitude - following data from the July 21 Russ Def Min press conf. Zhilin thinks it was hit first by an air-air R-60 missile, but Haisenko says the shrapnel damage photos look more like 30 mm cannon. In fact, one OSCE observer told the Wall Street Journal (published July 24) that the damage looked "almost like machine gun fire."

Zhilin's theory is that the plane was supposed to fall in an area where it could help the Ukrainians rescue a beleaguered wing of their army, but it went off course, and if it had survived an emergency landing, then the false flag would have been undeniable, so they shot it down with the Buk. Sorry for such a long answer with which you may find little to agree, but you asked. However, I read that there are precedents for large aircraft sustaining such damage, because they are much larger than jet fighters, whose cannon and missiles are relatively light and intended for combat with other fighters. Who knows, really. Could be interesting to be a fly on the wall where they're going over the black boxes.

The reason I mentioned the poll of 82% of Russians blaming Ukraine, of course, is that this POV is being treated here as fringe, if not beyond -- but it isn't fringe in Russia. And that's 100 million people holding this POV. So by the definition of an encyclopedia, which is to be inclusive, I really think the Russian POV needs to be included. If it's going to be excluded, then could that be an issue of Neutral POV for the article?

Thank you. JPLeonard (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

JP: could you point me towards a link/ref for the but it had a creation date time stamp from July 16 comment? Thanks, Montenegroman (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That depends on what do you call a ref - a lot of Russian TV channels (Russia TV, 1 TV) are openly claiming it a fake and only a few shady english sites telling the same story (exactly duplicated spectrum parts, messed timestamps and other signs of forgery). There is also rebels (Bezler) confirming authenticity of the intercepted call, but saying that it took place a day before. But I don't think there is any "reliable" source that may tell that it is or it's not a forgery (because it was obviously edited from different parts). So it's not verified to be fake or real. To make such a verification you need raw unedited intercepted calls with full context - from the beginning to the end. As there is no such raw calls in the public - there is no public confirmation of any theory and probably will never be. Night Nord (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Mere numbers make a theory not less fringe. There are literally millions of people believing that diseases like HIV/AIDS are divine punishment - still a fringe theory. Arnoutf (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Some people heard two shots"? Hmmm, well, it is a war-zone? Or are witnesses claiming they actually heard the missile (canon?) being fired by the Ukainian jet (at 15,000ft, or whatever)?? I'd be very interested to see exactly what Zhilin and Haisenko have based that theory on. And yes the US media does have a very heavy impact, doesn't it - CBS News scoops about "unreleased FDR data" for instance? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

probably just based on wild speculation after seeing some BBC footage with eyewitnesses saying stuff like: And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it. Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one. There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands]. The YouTube video has been deleted now (explanation here http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/blogs/2014/07/140724_blog_editors_bbc_story_rework.shtml ) though someone might have saved a copy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ8sjMWhl-4 - maybe someone even did a translation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro&feature=youtu.be Not that YouTube is a reliable source of course. Montenegroman (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit rude, but I think it's fair here. Will people just shut the heck up about videos time stamped on 16th July? It's been discussed and debunked so many times, and in many different places both here on wikipedia and elsewhere. The time stamp is coming from Google (it's basically impossible for an ordinary user to retrieve the original video from Youtube, you can only get Google's reencodes). Due to misconfigured servers, Google used to? time stamps the videos wrongly when encoding. You can or could easily prove this yourself by making your own video and uploading it to Youtube and checking out the time stamp. Or just check the video of the millions of other videos uploaded to Youtube, including ones that you are sure were not created earlier (e.g. those showing a timely event). Frankly this is the most basic check which anyone making the claim in a reliable source should have done. And note that this also means that any source which claims the time stamp shows it was created the day before should basically be considered a clearly unreliable source due to their extremely poor level of fact checking. (I suspect there are idiots who uploaded a video to Youtube saying the video is fake or whatever, even tho they just need to check their own video to realise the have no evidence.) Of course, since so many people have discussed it, and even Google have themselves [12] (suggests they're planning to fix it for new videos) there's even less excuse if any reliable source is still making the claim. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi everybody, thanks for the great feedback.

To Montenegroman, the link I have for the creation timestamp on that audio or video is www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/ukraine-releases-youtube-clip-proving-rebels-shot-down-malaysian-flight-mh-17 . FWIW.

About eyewitnesses hearing two explosions that could be from the BBC Russian Service video. Here is a link with a full transcript in English. http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-bbc-report-ukrainian-fighter-jet-shot-down-mhi7-donetsk-eyewitnesses/5393631

Thanks Night Nord for supplying that information.

What Zhilin and Haisenko base their theories on: I think the major impulse comes from the Russian Defense Ministry statement. It's hard to find a link that gives all the points the spokesman Kartopolov made (there is a video of his presentation, with him pausing for the interpreter present to give her English translation, which has also been criticized as of poor quality, by vineyardsaker, a Russian blogger living in the US). Last I looked I couldn't find a transcript of that, and I never found the time to listen to the whole thing.

The best summary I found of his remarks is here http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/ . An earlier report is here http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/

Reviewing those RT sources now I don't find an explicit statement that Russian satellites did not detect a Buk launch. I thought there was one, and relied on it to some extent in favoring the air-to-air missile theory. But Kartopolov only seems to imply as much by showing images of Ukrainian Buk systems, and challenging the US to show the launch photo evidence that they've claimed to have.

I'm not advocating we put details about the social media "evidence" in the article. The point I was trying to make was that there is a general impression that we have a lot of evidence implicating the rebels, but in fact the Russian critique is justified in saying the US position so far as we can see is based only on social media.

No question though that social media and psychological warfare are a significant aspect of this, and if there is any article out there that even-handedly recounts what social media evidence has been presented, or even opposing articles with lists for each side, those could be useful references.

At the moment the article almost exclusively presents a view blaming the resistance, which is mainstream in the west, but adhered to by only 3% of the Russian public polled.

This brings us to Arnoutf's point about "30 million Frenchmen can't be wrong." It's good to be reminded the "fringe concept" implicitly assumes that the majority is right, even when it is not. In social sciences the truth can be hard to assess with certainty.

Arnoutf's example is interesting. As regards the science aspect, the entire edifice of preventive medicine is built on the idea that we share some responsibility for our health. The other aspect there is religious belief.

The commonplace example regarding fringe science is that round-earthers were once on the fringe, now flat-earthers are.

Regarding religion, for example, Hinduism is a fringe belief in the United States, but a majority belief in India.

In the MH17 case, in the US it's a fringe belief that Ukraine shot it down, in Russia it's just the reverse.

An encyclopedia which strives for a neutral POV would not expunge an article on Hinduism because it's fringe in the USA, nor delete the Russian POV on MH17 for the same reason.

Accordingly I'd like to ask if there is a consensus that the article should

- continue to include the main evidence posed by the Russian Defense Ministry,

- add the fact that they have asked the US to show its satellite evidence of a Buk launch in a rebel-held area

- add the status of public opinion in Russia on MH17, as was reported in the Guardian

Thanks to all.JPLeonard (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me that finds it slightly bizarre the the Cause section is bigger than the Investigation (into the cause) section at this point in time? How did that happen? Montenegroman (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

JPLeonard thank you for making the point so clear. At a global scale, it's a fringe belief Ukrainian military shot down the plane. I could not agree more; there seems to be no dispute at global level. The beliefs of individual countries are not a reflection of global beliefs and should therefore indeed be treated as fringe - as on Wikipedia we aim to give a global point of view, rather than a regional version. Arnoutf (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Cause and intro sections

Cause and intro sections sound like talking about something proven rather than unproved pre-investigation theories. The intro section's second paragraph explicitly states only one side's version before stating any other version. Due to controversial nature of the issue and Wikipedia's neutrality I would suggest to avoid any non-official (Dutch, ICAO) investigation results in the intro section. I would also suggest renaming "Cause" section under "pre-investigation versions" and explicitly state both versions (Russian and Ukranian/Western) as such. I may also think about creating sub-sub-sections "Criticism" for both of the version to point out counter-arguments posted by both sides or removing such counter-arguments from the current text at all, as currently there is a lot of bias towards the Western version. The "cause" section should reappear only when the cause will be officially released by the international investigation group and would probably only state the cause of the crash itself (such as hit by a surface-to-air or air-to-air missile), without pointing out to a particular group to blame. Night Nord (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for appeal for objectivity, but I think that might be considered subversive. Montenegroman (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, we still do not list alien attack theories either -- very unbalanced (those pesky aliens of course have most to gain by inciting conflict between US and Russia thus paving the way for their invasion). Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Each conflict like that one has at least two obvious sides. To maintain neutrality you should present opinions, evidences and claims of all involved sides on basis of equality. Unless I don't know something, aliens are not an "obvious" part of the conflict. Night Nord (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Subversive? I don't think so - essentially all the text will remain the same, just relocated. The only difference would be that one reading the page's header in Google or mobile version won't leave the page with a feeling that cause and party to blame is already (almost) determined. And if anyone is interested in the blame game or digging though tons of fakes and misinformation from both sides - he can still read a corresponding section. We don't want Wikipedia reputation being hurt due to creating incorrect image of the catastrophe in case the "believed" version will be proven wrong. Night Nord (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I do think that a clearer distinction needs to be made between the official Dutch-led accident investigation team and other government statements assigning cause. Keep in mind that the official accident investigation will try to act in an impartial manner without pre-judging a cause, and thus will look at all possible scenarios. To my knowledge, the Dutch Safety Board has not yet ruled out mechanical failure, for example. While I do think a missile shootdown by rebel forces is likely, we have yet to see any statement from the accident investigators themselves regarding cause. And keep in mind that if they do issue a report blaming it on missile strike, the investigation would be turned over to the local (Ukrainian) police, which is the usual course of action when foul play is suspect. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't find fault with that! What are we doing giving consideration to anyone who is not both qualified and authorised to determine the cause of this incident? What's in there now mostly is speculation as to the cause. Montenegroman (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The distinction I'd make in the cause section is between "cause" and "culprit". I think most official statements, including from the Russian side, appear to agree on the missile shootdown as the cause. This in itself appears to have wide agreement from all sides, even if the official accident investigation team, being more conservative, has not yet drawn this conclusion. Where there is disagreement is on who fired that missile, and we can separate out the evidence there into a separate subsection. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So since the President of the United States is not authorized by the official investigation to give an opinion as to the cause, it stays out of the intro? What is proposed here is to create false balance by ignoring the bulk of the reliable sources, pretending this is more "controversial" than it actually is. And when the "official" (Dutch) investigation comes out blaming the rebels, that will be questioned here because the Netherlands is a charter member of NATO. And there will be more questions raised by the Russians to distract from the conclusions. I'm a little tired of seeing demands for "paralysis by analysis" here...it's akin to climate denialism: if you don't have every answer to every question they can raise, then you don't have "all the facts" and so you should censor yourself. That's not how it should be done. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should be paying more attention to the article, as not only has that changed but unsourced editorializing has appeared in the causes section: "No authoritative cause by an aviation organization"...."speculation on both sides"...this wasn't suitable for WP so I deleted it. Again, let me advise against editorializing this article, against false balance, and against paralysis through analysis. Sources are reporting on the causes, we repeat that without critique. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but if there is a critique coming from a respected source of the another side we should include that as well. If you'll mix both sides arguments and counter-arguments into the same section the only thing you'll get would be a mess. That's not about "false balance" it's about fairness - if we do include witnesses reports brought by AP we should also include similar reports by RIA (which have been made). If we are citing an US officials reaction on the Russian's Defense Ministry's data we should also include a Russian officials reaction on SBU's released data. And things like that in general. And the header issue is that the only thing could be moved into the header, IMO, is something seen as a fact. Like official investigation results. Otherwise it's just one or another person opinion he'd suddenly made "main idea". I think that header should only say that "investigation is still in progress and so far no one took the responsibility and both sides of the conflict (Ukraine and rebels) put blame on each other". Anything else is just a guess and popularity of that "guess" doesn't make it somewhat more important. Night Nord (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to be "fair", we're here to cover the subject in a manner consistent with that of the sources we use. I support, and have advocated for, representing Russian views of the subject. That does not mean pretending that they have the same weight as the rest of the world. As far as I can tell, this only seems to be "controversial" inside of Russia. That's only 130 million people, a relatively small population compared to the rest of the world, or even just the US or Europe. If we make it look like that it isn't the case, that there's serious doubt here, then we're actually advocating for the Russian perspective, which isn't NPOV. Geogene (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the deletion by Geogene: OK, it maybe wasn't such a great edit. How about: The official investigation, being carried out by the Dutch Safety Board into the cause of the crash, in accordance with EASA/IACO guidelines, has not yet released its findings. Does that need a citation? Montenegroman (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

A simpler one: The cause of the crash has not yet been determined by the official investigation, being carried out by the Dutch_Safety_Board. In replacement for what Stickee deleted as editorializing. I'll try it and see how long it lasts Montenegroman (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• How does our Cause and Intro compare to the Lockerbie_bombing ? I appreciate that it was a bombing rather than a shooting-down but was a still a very serious aircraft incident. Montenegroman (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Attribution for separatist territory launch

This is a continuation of Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_9#WP:FRINGE. If anyone object to my re-titling and restarting this discussion, please restore the original thread and paste my comments to the bottom.

I earlier complained that the claim in the lead that the missile was believed to have been fired from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists was unattributed. Note, I had no complaint about the claim a Buk missile was used - I believed this is uncontested and therefore uncontroversial. My complaint is that the Russian Defense Ministry has rejected evidence that the missile was fired from separatist-controlled territory, and that therefore *this* part is controversial and should therefore be attributed. Another editor later added the 'whom' tag to this statement. Sayerslle suggested the following wording, which I have no objection to: 'The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. The Ukraine government believes the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists - The rebel leadership in Donetsk has denied any responsibility for the downing of Flight 17 and maintained that no rebel units had weapons capable of shooting that high. Moscow has denied any involvement. Accounts of residents, the observations of journalists - have challenged these denials.' I don't know if Sayerslle still approves of his own suggested wording. I believe that as the shoot-down happened over Ukraine, it is natural to focus specifically on the reaction of the Ukraine government alone and that therefore this wording avoids excessive focus on political division.

9kat removed the 'whom' tag, adding the wording "Ukraine and its allies, including the US, believe that the aircraft was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists." As 9kat says, this is slightly problematic in that it unnecessarily attributes the use of a Buk to Ukraine and its allies, where the use of a Buk is uncontroversial. Ex nihil then reverted this with the comment "To talk about 'Ukraine and it's allies' is a highly political and enormously contention issue many times worse than having the by whom tag." Ex nihil - would you be happy with Sayerslle's proposed wording which attributes the separatist territory claim specifically to the Ukraine government only? If not, can you propose alternative wording which attributes the belief that the missile was fired from separatist-controlled territory to *somebody*? Or do you hold that the belief that the missile was fired from separatist-controlled territory must *not* be attributed in the lead to anyone at all? Thank-you - Crosbie 14:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no hurry, we are not a news service, we are an encyclopaedia. The world out there will determine where the missile came from, then we quote it, it's not our job to do the research. If we cannot find a source, then leave the 'by whom' tag on or delete the statement. Actually, it is rather hard to find a source, or rather, there are hundreds of vague or polemical ones. Maybe there is a good source right now, otherwise, there will be soon. If we have something like "Ukraine and its allies, including the US...." that in itself needs sources, including that we are all allies with Ukraine. Right now we can find quotes from Russian sources to say Ukraine shot it down, from Ukrainian sources saying it was shot down from Russian territory and others indicating it was shot down from pro-Russia separatists from Ukrainian soil. All three probably need to be quoted. Personally, I believe the latter, but nobody can say, expect the guys who fired it, and they are not talking. Ex nihil ^(talk) 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd go one further and say delete the entire second paragraph. It's just speculation as to the cause - derived mostly from the cause section which is mostly speculation from people who are neither authorised or qualified to carry out an aircraft crash investigation. Montenegroman (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

'User:My very best wishes' has gone ahead and removed the 'believed', making the claim the missile was launched from separatist controlled territory a straightforward statement of fact. User:My very best wishes - are you prepared to accept *any* attribution for this claim in the lead? - Crosbie 15:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I add that 'User:My very best wishes' removed the word 'believed' with the comment "indeed, misleading wording; this is simply something claimed by nearly all WP:RS right now, excluding fringe/conspiracy theories". I provide the following description of the views Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov from RIA Novosti: "The United States has not yet provided any documented evidence to prove that the rocket that brought down the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was launched from militia-controlled territory, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Thursday.". US Claims of Flight MH17 Downing by Militia Remain Unfounded – Russia’s Defense Ministry. The Russian government does not accept as fact that the missile from launched from separatist controlled territory. RIA Novosti is a reliable source for the views of the Russian government. The views of the Russian government are not a WP:FRINGE source, because the views of the Russian government are prominent with regards to the destruction on MH17. - Crosbie 16:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted this before reading the talk page, but agree; stating that as fact is incorrect until there are results from an investigation or whatever. RSes simply report that it was shot down, and that it was probably a Buk missile fired by rebels. I restored the version with "by whom", which I think is fine until we figure out better wording. How about we drop the first sentence, and change the second to read:

• "A Ukrainian Interior Ministry official, Anton Gerashchenko, said a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists hit the aircraft." and move the altitude bit elsewhere Then we don't need any attribution, and I think the rest of the text makes it clear enough that's the widely held explanation, while still including Russia's denial later in the paragraph. 9kat (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just how wide is the widely in widely held explanation in reference to the launched from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists bit? Montenegroman (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I propose this version instead, replacing the first two sentences of the paragraph entirely:

• "Ukrainian officials said the aircraft was hit by a Buk surface-to-air missile, launched from territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists, at an altitude of 33,000 ft (10,000 m)."

Is this neutral enough towards the Russians? (The proposed version starting with "The aircraft was likely downed" has the same problem as right now.) That explanation is more widely held than the others, so listing it first attributed to Ukraine seems fair to me. Are you suggesting the Russians need to be given more weight earlier in the paragraph, if it's to remain? (Edit further: Maybe condense/drop the witnesses/journalists bit.) 9kat (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

9kat - your proposed wording fully addresses the concern I raised about lack of attribution for the separatist-territory launch. Other editors have raised objections about attributing the Buk claim in the lead on the basis this is uncontroversial. Perhaps your proposed wording is sufficiently lacking in political implication such that this will no longer be a problem. Otherwise, we could split the claim, and attribute only the separatist launch part to the Ukrainian officials, if that seemed appropriate to you. I myself object to neither. - Crosbie 17:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's considered necessary say what the Ukrainians said and what the Russians said then I can can see that where you've got to on this seems reasonable. To me, what it boils down to is this: The Ukrainians claim the rebels did it and the Russians claim the Ukrainians did it. The rebels don't appear to have a Press Officer so I'm not sure exactly where they stand on this but they probably agree with the Russian view. Both sides are making these statements for political purposes and one is either mistaken or lying. Neither sources are qualified or authorised to evaluate the cause of an aircraft crash. So are either of their claims of any importance anyway? Would it not be better to explain the process of how the actual cause of an air crash is determined legally and technically? It certainly isn't done by evaluating media sources or political statements. UPDATE: Just noticed that Ex Nihil had addressed this. Montenegroman (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It became even worse. Now there are "Outside of Russia" has a citation towards "most of Russians believe Ukraine is to blame" article, while there still no evidence that majority of people "outside of Russia" believe otherwise (it might be so naturally, but still no citation). Plus, if you do mention view outside of Russia you need to point out Russian view at the same level too. And the rest of the paragraph sounds like "Everyone believes that it was rebels to blame. Ukraine said so, US said so, witnesses said so and Russians just dismissed that without any counter-argument" which is, obliviously, a dangerously wrong image of what's really happening in that blame game. My opinion - there could be no right wording to justify presenting one opinion in the header over another. Any attempt to do so will result in a whole "Cause" section being moved and somehow packed into the intro section, making it even less understandable. The paragraph should state that the official UN approved and ICAO-baked investigation is still in progress and that both sides of the conflict put blame on each other. And both sides are "rebels" and "Ukrainians". Neither US or Russian officials have made a direct accusation - only hints and assumptions explicitly stated as such. Night Nord (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree in principle it's probably more accurate to say something more like: the official investigation, in accordance with EASA/IACO guidelines, ... If the UN have any input I'd be surprised and strictly speaking it's EASA that set the guidelines in this part of the world and authorise who is qualified to carry them out. Having said that, EASA do so iaw ICAO guidelines. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:295:0035:0050:EN:PDF Not just a good idea - it's the law Montenegroman (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Night Nord, this seems to be quite a direct accusation by US Sec of State John Kerry: "We know to a certainty that the separatists have gained proficiency in using sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and that they have shot down some 12 aircraft in the last months, including two transport planes. We know to a certainty that we saw the launch from this area of what we deem to be an SA-11 because of the altitude – 33,000 feet – and because of the trajectory. We have the trajectory recorded. We know that it occurred at the very moment that this aircraft disappeared from the radar screen. We know that very shortly thereafter, separatists were bragging in the social media about having shot down a transport plane." (Kerry has not supplied evidence to support his claims.)

Crosbie, I wouldn't agree that it's "uncontested" that the airliner was shot down by a Buk. The Guardian poll showed 36% of the Russian public believe it was a Ukrainian jet fighter. It's curious that the shrapnel damage is concentrated at the cockpit, suggesting cannon fire aimed at killing the pilots, rather than a fragmentation warhead. The airliner is 242 ft or 74 meters long and the shrapnel or cannon fire damage seen is concentrated in this one patch by the nose only about 4 feet wide. Frag weapons are supposed to explode before they hit the target and spray shrapnel over a wide area. Plus, the only images that have been shown so far are the radar images of the jet fighter by Russia. No Buk launch image by either US or Russia - why ? Plus, eyewitnesses say they saw the jet fighter shoot it down. JPLeonard (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, etc. We don't have time for this inanity. Russian propaganda is not welcome on Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Someone unilaterally changed into to something like this: "The US and Ukraine say...". This is terrible. Countries does say anything (and there are plenty of opinions within these countries). One should refer to sources, not countries, excluding fringe views. And international newspapers (for example) are not "US" or "Ukraine". My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Flags Again

The flags should be in the table. I don't know why a few editors are hellbent on removing them. If there is any reason to show the nationality of the passengers (as we appear to decided there is, by putting in the table), there should be flags. They assist the reader, and by simple commonsense should be there. The discussions that took place previously were primarily about flags in the "Reactions" section and some editors have taken it upon themselves to also remove the flags from the victims table. Frankly, it is dumb to have the name of the country listed there without a flag. Most of the articles about international plane crashes like this one include these tables WITH flags (see Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). I believe more discussion on this issue is required. If not, perhaps someone should go and remove the flags from the MH 370 article and all other international crashes. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is a continuation of [13]. As for other articles, things like this can have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Do you disagree with the policy-based reasons not to use flags? Should the arguments from the two previous discussions [14] [Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 8#Flags again] not both be considered, even if they're not all exactly on these specific flags? (The first one addresses passenger-box flags, though.) You could always do a wider RFC if you want a clearer resolution, or start off with a new straw poll (but many editors have tapered off as news has died down, thus the archived discussions with many people providing input being pretty useful.) 9kat (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that either MOS:FLAG or WP:ICONDECORATION apply here. The only information this table communicates is the number of passengers by nation of citizenship. It can hardly be said that the flags are distracting from other information in the table, or gives undue prominence to the issue of nationality, as that is the only thing this table is there for. Removing the flags makes the table harder to read, and as I pointed out breaks with other precedents set in similar articles like Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). While I do not dispute that it is possible for the editors of this page to come to a different decision that those of other articles , we should be striving for uniformity here. If the editors want to go a different direction than has been followed in similar articles, I believe better explanation for this break with precedence is required. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It violates WP:FLAGBIO, as the flags are being used to show nationality of people who have died. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

64... says "it is dumb to have the name of the country listed there without a flag". I see it as dumb to have the name of the country listed there WITH a flag. What's the point of duplicating information? HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledge - The flags do not violate WP:FLAGBIO. You have misread the policy. WP:FLAGBIO does not prohibit use of flags where a death has occurred; it prohibits flags being used to indicate places of birth, residence, or death (because doing so is confusing - a person may be born, live or die somewhere without being a citizen of that nation). WP:FLAGBIO indicates that flags should only be used to indicate nationality (as is the case here). - @HiLo the flags do not "duplicate" information they express the information in a way that is easier to read, and more accessible. There may be differing views on the flags as a matter of style, but none of the policies cited so far as justification for removing the flags is actually applicable here. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the flags are easier to read than the words? That doesn't make sense. Words are easier. Encyclopedias use words. --John (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The standard procedure on these types of articles include the flags in the table. And if you actually read it, WP:FLAGBIO does not apply here. And by "easier to read", I think the IP meant that it's easier to find the table. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The flags are fine, basically for the same reason that having a table at all instead of prose is fine. If they weren't, you wouldn't see them at KAL007, this year's MH370, most recently Air_Algérie_Flight_5017, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:ICONDECORATION, WP:PROSE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --John (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect to interpreting WP:ICONDECORATION, an example given for when not to use is when "used for layout purposes only". That isn't this sort of case. I've noted issues with that one essay at Wikipedia_talk:Other_stuff_exists#Delete. When I see that it's the same deal with, say, Thai Airways International Flight 311 as well, my conclusion is that we have something of a community consensus on a Wikipedia-wide level. That can be over-interpreted, but it's not entirely irrelevant.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

64... says "the flags do not duplicate information". Um, yes they do. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox - reliable sources.

I don't want to get into edit-warring. According to these headlines neither Fox News nor NYT are stating how the plane was brought down, just reporting Obama's views on the matter. If you can find a source which says that most authorities in the West believe it was brought down by a missile that would be far better. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

How was the plane brought down? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we find sources that say that the plane was not brought down by a missile? Are they reliable in this context? Geogene (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is this [15] which appears to be a deleted report from the BBC Russian service. I have enquired of the BBC if it is genuine and if the translation is accurate. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A little history, last time this came up was right after the crash. An early version was "shot down by a Buk operated by Russian separatists" per Obama. At that time Russia was alleging that it might have been a Buk operated by the Ukrainian government. So we agreed to delete "Russian separatists" and kept the Buk part. It was later on when Russian sources started talking about a fighter jet, I presume this is why the Buk is now potentially controversial. The Western theory hasn't changed. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you stick with the 'Western Theory' I think better sources are required than just 'Obama says' The corrected link should take you to what is apparently a BBC link giving credence to the fighter jet theory. That's why I think it might be better to give just 'shot down' in the info box. This can be amplified in the main section. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of the video link, but if the BBC retracted it, it's probably not RS. I think it has probably been discussed already. As for the western theory, a search of "Buk" on Google News pulls up a long list of reliable sources implying that a Buk shot down MH17 and that the separatists had them. Given that we are saying that it was "probably" "most likely" shot down by a Buk, that we are not saying whose Buk it was, and that it's still under investigation, I think that's more than enough. With this many source, we might actually be too soft as it is. Geogene (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

'Deletion' isn't the same as 'retraction' at all. If they retract it they say it's not accurate, if they delete it they simply decide they don't want you to see it. Please put up some of these sources, not just 'Obama says' it makes the article seem like U.S. propoganda.Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There's already sources that say that in the article, aside from the two in the infobox that attribute it to Obama. If those aren't enough, here's another one: [16] that attributes it as a general belief, but I don't want the article to become cluttered with more sources than is necessary, it just makes it harder to read. Geogene (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Sceptic1954 on this. The incident happened well into (not at the beginning) of a propaganda war, where for months the west had been telling the world that the Russians are evil and entirely at fault for all problems in that region. Given that situation, proclamations of western political leaders should count for very little. Use independent sources. Drop the political ones. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Drop the political ones? Which are political...the ones that are funded by the Russian government? Geogene (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing the propaganda game. You know what I meant. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I take you to mean that we should ignore the opinions of prominent Western politicians. I take issue with that on a couple of grounds. First because these peoples' opinions are notable. These are people that can impose sanctions with the stroke of a pen, or if for some bizarre reason they wanted to, destroy the world with the push of a button. In this major international incident, I think that qualifies as notability. If that isn't enough, the usual places we look for reliable sources, like most of the media outside of Russia, seems to be treating them as such. The second issue I have here, is that this identification of their views as propaganda, while it may or may not be true, is editorializing on a personal opinion. I don't understand why that keeps finding its way into the article. If the sources we generally have considered reliable decide they're all going to start writing propaganda one day--then we will be writing propaganda too and we won't be able to avoid it. Wikipedia is not in a position to try to correct social wrongs. Geogene (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The source from Time isn't very good either, it's mainly what a rebel commander says. I rather suspect most other rebel commanders would deny it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably. But the story is that a rebel commander admitted to it, and Time is usually RS. Geogene (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

and here's a story from Time that a rebel commander says it wasn't the separatists [17] so as Time is RS wen have to accept this too. I'm asking for an RS which says that most people in the West believe it was shot down, not one which says that Obama says it was shot down or that one rebel commander says it was shot down. Can Geogene not see the difference?Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I already gave you one. It's the Time article, that said that a Buk launcher is "believed" to have shot down MH17. You responded by changing the subject by asserting that the "rebel commander" is contradicted by his fellow combatants. I did not call you out for it at the time, but if you're going to taunt me you should know that I find rhetorical games like strawmen and evasion tiresome. But if you would like a re-wording of the infobox statement that attributes this belief it was a Buk to Obama or Western governments, I think that would be fine, you can suggest one you like. In that case, I would like that attributed assertion to explicitly state that it was fired by separatists. Since we'll be attributing the claim there is no reason at all to be soft about it. Geogene (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

you are right but it's rather tucked away in the story, obscured by the headline and doesn't say believed by who and how many. It could be just one person. Personally I think we should keep beliefs out of the info box, it makes it too unwieldy. Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid something like another editor a while back warned against: "Something happened. People died." These beliefs are widely held by enough people, and repeated in enough reliable sources, that there's no reason to leave them out. We shouldn't be shy about saying the same things the sources are. If we are, then I think we're missing the point. Geogene (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox wording to: "According to US sources, shot down by a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from rebel territory." Geogene (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

True that it's still under investigation, I agree that it's bulky, I hope that other users will also add opinions on the infobox. Geogene (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• We should probably go with the reliable sources on this. --John (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you looking for reliable sources for the infobox? The infobox should summarise what's already in the text; it needn't even have any references. Do you see that there's now a discrepancy between the text and the infobox? Do you not even bother to read the second paragraph of the lead? 62.228.126.211 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Good points Montenegroman (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

According to US sources

Problem is, it's not just "US sources", but much of the Western media who think the rebels fired that missile. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The attribution should be dropped in favour of just "likely shot down by a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from rebel territory". Unfortunately, however, there is probably more than one editor who believes that stating the cause of the crash as unknown would be more neutral and accurate. In my view, stating the cause as unknown would in fact be neither neutral (since in a mutual finger-pointing scenario, it biases the article in favour of the party who has weaker evidence supporting its finger-pointing) nor accurate (since the totality of reliable sources support a "likely" conclusion here, it is a false binary for WIkipedia to have to choose between "unknown" and some definitive explanation that isn't hedged with "likely"). Having "according to US sources..." as the infobox "cause" is a fudge whereby one side is given exclusivity to air its view. Probably better than "unknown" but a compromise that's hard to defend.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dellboy, welcome back, I've missed you so much! I agree with you that unknown isn't so good. It kind of implies that after all investigative channels have been exhausted the answer is we just don't know. Perhaps better something like that the cause of the crash is not yet known? Montenegroman (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you should say 'unknown'. Say nothing. That is neutral. By the way the sources used are rather out of date, the day after the incident,and you could say that anyone pronouncing on causes at such an early stage may not be completely reliable. The body of the article is the place to expound on theories. The current version is better than previous because it makes bias plain. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and Korean Air Lines Flight 902 just say Summary: Airliner shootdown in the infobox. That is accurate and undisputed also for MH17. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That may be a good solution at the moment, especially since official investigation results aren't out yet. Even though I suspect that Buk was involved, we can simply put "shootdown" in the infobox. Brandmeister^talk 11:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP rules what matters is not official investigation, but what majority of WP:RS tell.My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Criminal Investigation

DigitalRevolution raised a good point in a previous section: And keep in mind that if they do issue a report blaming it on missile strike, the investigation would be turned over to the local (Ukrainian) police, which is the usual course of action when foul play is suspect. Now although I'm not trying to prejudge the results of the cause enquiry, I would have thought there would be a statement by now from someone in the Ukrainian legal system (Police/Prosecutors maybe?). Even if it was onlty to the effect that no crime has been reported yet so we can't comment or we are still collecting evidence. Montenegroman (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Chinese name of pilot Eugene Choo Jin Leong (in case his name is ever mentioned in the article)

The Pan Am Flight 103 article mentions the names of the flight crew. If it is ever the case that the MH17 article mentions its flight crew, please note the Chinese name of the Malaysian Chinese first officer:

• Eugene Choo Jin Leong (Chinese: 朱仁隆 Zhū Rénlóng) - Source for Chinese name : "MH17航班华裔机长父妻均曾就职马航" (Archive). Sina. July 18, 2014.

The Mandarin pinyin should be included with the name in Chinese characters. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As English wikipedia we would have no need to show names in other languages for people that are not the article subject. MilborneOne (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. Editors involved with China/Chinese related articles and people know that it's impossible to find information on people in Chinese if you don't know how to write their name in their native language. Academic papers on China and several mainstream English papers such as the Taipei Times frequently include Chinese spellings of people names and other names (to tell the readers how the names are written in Chinese). Therefore those spellings/names must be included, even if they aren't the main subject. Even in cases where the main subject isn't China/the Chinese world the Chinese characters are still included: In the case of the Boston bombings I got the Chinese name of the Chinese victim included in that one. The same goes for Japanese and many other languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have to disagree this is English-language wikipedia not a finding aid and use of native languages adds no value to the English Reader. If the subject is notable and has its own article then native language is fine in the introduction and infobox, but filling up the body of the article with unredable text in my opinion adds nothing. MilborneOne (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The English reader who is interested in knowing more about the Malaysian Chinese community's coverage of MH17 and/or of the copilot (Malaysia has various Chinese newspapers as the Chinese community is influential there: the Chinese Wikipedia may be viewed in Malaysia/Singapore mode for this reason) would find the Chinese name of the copilot useful. Without the name, somebody will not know how the name is written in Chinese. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, every Ukrainian or Russian person named in the article should also be written in Cyrillic script because someone might want to look it up in a different language. WWGB (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)