Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Neutrality

Looking at the references section, one can unambiguously see that the vast majority of stories cited are Western media and US state department / Ukrainian govt briefings . There is an assumption that a Western media sources are "objective" versus (say) Russia media sources. This is compounded by the fact that Russian media sources as tagged specifically as for example "Russian funded RT.com" whereas the Western media sources (eg BBC, RFE/RL) are not. Especially given that there has been ZERO factual briefings from the Western governments to date versus one from the Russian military (and refutations if audio transcripts provided by the Ukranian military as fake), 3 weeks after the fact, it is indeed surprising that the theory that the rebels shot down the plans is regarded by the Western media as proven fact and is bandied about as much. In short,there are numerous weasel words, and an overall prejudicial Western media narrative independent of known facts.

This article is non neutral. Statements from only one part of the conflict are presented as facts : nor Kiev authorities or US state départment are RS as they are directly involved in the conflict and the crash : US authorities are actually protecting there men in Kiev who are the direct responsables of the catastroph. This plane should not have been over a war zone and this war should not have been hapen unless US actions to support a coup in Kiev, to support a war against civilian of the eastern of ukraine, this war should be over if US goverment strongly demande an immediatly cease fire... Actually, results form internationnal query are not known. The article should equally presents the versions from both sides, without judgement or appreciation. This actually not the case. Why should we be more confident in the statements form USA than from Russia? even if Russia has revealled a large and strong file of facts that infermed US version. During the same times, US an Ukies refuse to communicate the facts their statements are based on. Former US analysts and well knowned journalists publicaly protest againts that. Everyone should remind that, not as long ago as two years ago, Kerry accused syrian governement of the use of chemical weapons. All the occidental press aggreed with Kerry's accusations, that were presented as trustfull statements, and strong as real truth. Few months laters, it was revealed he was lying. History of US internationnal policy is made of numerous lying used to influence US opinion. So, this article must be very carrefull. And instead of taking US propagenda as facts, article should only give proven facts, article shoud be writing in the way, "US said..." "Kiev said..." "Moscow said...". A section should documented the mass information war that is actually leading by all the sides. Wikipedia must not be a weapon of information war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.175.187 (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the time to edit this article for a few days but it is not neutral. The first thing it should be saying are that the cause is under investigation. This should come before any claims and beliefs about the cause. I personally may or may not not have full confidence the findings of a U.N. or other international investigation but for the purposes of wikipedia any definite finding should be considered definitive. Until that time this article should be open minded and not weighted towards the preferred explanation of the U.S. or Ukrainian governments, as per present. Even western governments and media are no longer being categoric about blaming 'rebels' and they have now had more than two weeks to place evidence in the public domain. Wikipedia should not have an anti Russian bias. I anticipate returning to edit this in a few days time and in the mean time would appreciate comments. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what the RS's are saying. The RS's are saying that it is believed to be shot down by a missile from separatist controlled territory, so that's what Wikipedia says. As a side note, this has been discussed in the Attribution for separatist territory launch section. Stickee (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There a43 plenty of RSs saying 'it is believed' in Russia that the plane was shot down by Ukrainians. Just because an RS reports a widespread belief doesn't make the belief either more nor less reliable in itself. Let's put facts before claims and beliefs, surely a good rule anywhere. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If anything the article gives too much attention to the Russian media point of view - which has a section of its own. In some western newspapers there have been speculations that the BUK was operated by Russian army or that the missile was in fact launched from inside Russia. For some reason these Western fringe theories are not reported while the Russian speculations are. Arnoutf (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The solution is to remove almost all the media and political claims and speculation. We cannot know what is true, and each of us is probably going to be influenced in our judgements by our own prejudices. By including it Wikipedia becomes a player in the propaganda war that began long before this plane crashed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested above, would it be worth creating a section to outline all points of view, possibly split into mainstream, Russian, and other theories? CSJJ104 (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be any speculation in the article. Let's stick to the facts that we do know and wait for the commission to finish investigation. Wikipedia should not be used as a weapon in information war.rampa (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Russian media section got left behind there after discussing the media section in general. I think it maybe just got overlooked rather than being anything deliberate. My own opinion is that if it wasn't worth mentioning in all the preceding sections then it's not worth mentioning here. And if it has gone before then it's just repetition. Montenegroman (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everything is "propaganda," HiLo. It's the propagandists who want you to think so since that muddies the waters.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there "plenty of RSs saying" "that the plane was shot down by Ukrainians"? No there are not. As for what it "is believed" in Russia, see WP:FRINGE.--Brian Dell (talk)

There are three different sides (US, Ukraine, Russia) making various claims. WP:FRINGE seems to be a good excuse here to push through the point of view of the US/Ukrainian side in violation of WP:NPOV (Avoid stating opinions as facts.). Presenting as a fact that it was a Buk from a separatist area is propaganda. Was that a claim from President Obama or only from some unnamed US official? Who has answered what to conflicting Russian claims? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"that it was a Buk from a separatist area" is not propaganda. It's as solidly supported by RS as the typical claim found on Wikipedia.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia doesn't have a side; it has propaganda, let's not pretend otherwise. The other "sides" are dealing in facts. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The worst propaganda I have ever seen was US Secretary of State Colin Powell telling the United Nations blatant lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. So let's not pretend statements from the US government would always be facts - sometimes they are blatant lies. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Colin Powell isn't the one pointing out that the Kremlin insinuation a ground-attack aircraft shot down MH17 is extremely dubious. Independent experts who know the capabilities of the Su-25 have called the Russian claim into question. A not insignificant part of the circumstantial evidence that suggests the missile was fired from separatist controlled territory comes from sources like the Associated Press and social media that have no necessary relationship with the the U.S. government. You haven't been edit warring over whether there are WMD in Iraq, you and Monty have been edit warring over allowing into the article the U.S. observation about "a full-court press by the Russian government to instruct affiliated or friendly elements to manipulate the media environment to spread Russia’s version of the story." Show us some evidence that calls doubt upon this statement akin to the evidence that raises doubt about the Su-25 claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right that this is not the US Secretary of State pointing that out - it is only some unnamed US official of unknown rank. That is not even an official "U.S. observation", that is a statement of one anonymous US official. And the whole statement is anyway problematic since the RS is merely citing a primary source and not analyzing the accuracy of the claim. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post thought it was notable, and credible enough to include the quote in its story. But you question the Post's judgment, eh? You think "a full-court press by the Russian government to instruct affiliated or friendly elements to manipulate the media environment to spread Russia’s version of the story" reaches the level of such self-serving dubious B.S. that it cannot even be introduced the article with clear attribution? Why are there so many media watchers unaffiliated with the U.S. govt out there expressing the same or similar view if it's such total propagandistic nonsense?--Brian Dell (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And by additionally claiming that all major Russian media are not RS or that all Russian statements are propaganda you have succeeded in making Wikipedia a repeater of US and Ukrainian propaganda. Even the most hilarious propaganda claims of the Ukrainian government were repeated in Western RS. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If that's so then point out those "hilarious propaganda claims" and which "Western RS" carried them so we can be more informed in our evaluation of just how R those Western RS are.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I do personally think that the most likely cause of the MH17 crash was an accidental shootdown by separatists who mistook it for a valid military target. But that is not relevant for the article. I do not want a one-sided US/Ukrainian propaganda article based on the claim Russian media are propaganda, so they cannot be sources for anything. And many Ukrainian claims that are repeated in Western RS are completely hilarious. There won't be more objective information before the official investigation publishes first results. So let's list all claims with proper attributions who said what, and if available with responses from the other side. RT might not be a good source for independent analysis, but it is a very good source for statements from Russian officials. And instead of blindly discarding all Russian statement as propaganda, I would rather see the information that a Su-25 can't go over 7km added again to the article (it should be easy to find a good secondary source for that, including attribution where that information is coming from). CorrectKissinTime (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty in the article about the views and statements of the Russian government. If anything, too much. Right now the article is fairly neutral in that it accurately represents reliable sources. It appears you want to tilt the article in a non-neutral direction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Read what Tarc wrote here in this discussion, and then rethink who wants to tilt the article into a non-neutral direction. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tarc's statement is unhelpful. We cannot claim that any country is free from using propaganda to advance its cause. That's why I would rather see almost none of the claims and speculation in this article. It really doesn't add anything. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying that nobody is free of germs. Everybody's got them but some more and more harmful than others. Let's not engage in false equivocation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

this entire article is propaganda. There's not a smidgen of actual fact checking - for example, the fuselage shows signs of machine gun fire from an angle that could only have come from two trailing fighter planes. Where's the ATC transcript? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.103.162.236 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wacky conspiracy theories from extremist fringe sources don't belong in an encyclopedia. Keeping that junk OUT is what makes an article neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I object using wikipedia as a propaganda avenue. I'll be escalating this matter. Whoever is writing this article has an agenda. rampa (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This article and especially the cause section is not neutral. As it stands only one view is discussed in depth - the view that the plane was shot down by pro-russian rebels. There are actually 3 more theories that should be discussed: 1) The plane was shot down by Ukrainian military via a ground to air missile. 2) The plane was shot down by Ukrainian military via a air to air missile from SU-25 that was tracking the boeing 3) The plane had a bomb on board which caused the explosion, which could have been the doing of US government. At this stage all 4 theories are just as likely based on pure evidence. The evidence presented for the current theory has been shown to be fake. For example, the audio recording between Pro-russian rebeks has been made from previous recordings and its timestamp is a day before the plane even took off. The video of a pro-russian truck carrying the missile is also fake - it was made on pro-west territory as the car sale sign shows. The claim by Ukrainian government that they have analyzed the black boxes is also fake. The black boxes have been sent to british experts for decoding and Ukranian government had no access to them. All this information needs to be included in a neutral manner. Otherwise this article is another propoganda war and has zero credibility. 118.210.130.94 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

the truck was in lugansk ,- you are just getting your 'info' from globalresearch or RT or some where - anything can be added withRS , but not globalresearch or RT b/s - why do all the most credulous suckers up of the most blatant propagancda , say it is only they who can see through propaganda? bizarre really. and anyone who says ' I object using wp as a propaganda avenue' - a sure sign that is someone who only wants to use wp as a propaganda avenueSayerslle (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to your claims. You are just getting information from Western media, so it will obviously conflict with my information. I don't want to point any fingers or claim who is right or wrong. All I am saying is that an article about an important international event like this one should be rid of all biases and prejudice. This article should aim to be neutral and present ALL the available theories, no matter what the media is claiming. After all isn't this the point of having Wikipedia? 118.210.130.94 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to post the following at the end of the Cause section:

"On Aug. 7, Malaysia’s leading English-language newspaper The New Straits Times posted an article entitled, “US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft.” The writer also noted that "there has not been a shred of tangible evidence" that separatists shot down the plane with a Buk missile."

if nobody has a compelling reason why it should not be posted. I think it's significant and not posting it could adversely affect this Wiki page's neutrality. JPLeonard (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

malaysias defence minister obviously doesn't read the new straits times surface to air missile says hussein - thers loads of evidence - you obviously just got a putinist pov so don't care to check on it Sayerslle (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, first of all you are being rude, which is not indicated here.

Secondly, why did you not read the Straits Times article? What can you say to counter the points it made? Can you seriously exclude the POV of Malaysia's leading newspaper by calling it Putinist?

Thirdly, this talk section is about neutrality. Is your definition of neutrality to exclude the Russian POV, which you attempt to denigrate as "putinist"?

You are also saying that the air to air hypothesis must a priori be excluded? Then maybe this article should be flagged as Neutrality in Dispute.

About the "loads of evidence" - what *tangible* evidence is there for a Buk? Journalists could find no traces of the launch. The US has not revealed the satellite photos it claims show the launch. We have zero hard evidence for it. The only hard evidence presented was by Kartopolov and it concerns an aircraft, not a Buk. Can you prove me wrong on this? And the Straits Times didn't even mention the neutral observers who told BBC Russian service they saw a jet fighter shoot down the airliner.

Seems like everything is "obvious" to you? Can't you explain your position, so you just call it obvious? JPLeonard (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Also I don't see how the US State Dept can be considered a reliable source, after the WMD deception debacle that destroyed Iraq. And when Kerry doesn't even show his evidence. Indeed, is it not a violation of neutrality here that mention of the challenge to the US to show their evidence, made by the Russian defense ministry, was deleted from the article, perhaps because it could put the US position in a bad light. JPLeonard (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

you didn't provide a link to the article for editors to read did you. - if you add content from RS you are at liberty to do so - to say there is no evidence for the buk is just not true - you are a true beliver kind of thing - i'm too old to bother with it - there is plenty of evidence - the buks travel from Donetsk in the morning via torez and then back via lugansk to Russia is all well tracked -paris match/guardian articles etc Sayerslle (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion the Russian POV is included in the article and it is labeled as statements of the Russian government. The article talk page is not the place to pontificate about politics or carry out polemics. Quite simply, we use reliable sources. That's it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"False flag" attempt to deliberately shoot down an Aeroflot flight (but it missed)

According to Security Service of Ukraine, the MH17 was hit by the "separatists" by mistake. The actual target was allegedly a passenger plane by Aeroflot. The shouting down this plane would be used as a casus belli for Russian invasion, according to the SBU see here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

we don't expect much from a half-wit, low-level troll but - even so - this is way beyond stupid. Did the the gas-industry shill set you up for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh... did you miss the notice above about discretionary sanctions which apply to this article?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I request disciplinary action against User:Montenegroman for casting aspersions on me with his "gas industry shill" remark. Geogene (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is included it ought to be described as a Ukrainian official "claims" because there isn't much here, at least not yet, besides a claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we need a professional quality translation of that source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There will probably be secondary RS tomorrow. Wouldn't hurt to wait. Geogene (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's here in English. However, I am not about to oppose HiLo HERE about whether to include this at all because in THIS CASE we've got a dubious claim from a partisan source that's both isolated in terms of corroboration and scant in terms of supplied evidence. This contention by the SBU this time is much more conspiracy theory-like than, say, the wiretaps. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate an inclusion argument that says it should be noted that Kiev may be as capable as Moscow of throwing eyebrow raising accusations out there.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is verified that the Security Service of the Ukraine is making this claim, then I think that's sufficiently notable to be included in the article. Same as with any claims or accusations that Russian government or Separatists organizations make. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I too believe this should be included. If true, this is extraordinary important, but not surprising given, for example, the previous history of Russian apartment bombings allegedly organized by the FSB as a similar casus belly for the 2nd Chechen War. Interestingly, SBU spokesmen Nalivaichenko said [1] (among other things) that "the Russian-provided Buk anti-air missile battery which was used to down MH17 had been transferred [from Russia] to Ukraine for that purpose, and that the Aeroflot plane with Russian passengers on board was supposed to have been shot down over territory controlled by Ukrainian government troops". My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

For now - as in for a day or so - I'd favor not including this in the article, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL (sort of). Basically, it's not clear whether this is an official position of the Ukrainian government or just one guy shooting his mouth off. Personally I don't buy this story - if this false flag op was supposed to be coordinated with the separatists, why would Girkin brag about shooting down a "Ukrainian military transport" seconds after the plane went down? If they were trying to shoot down a Russian passenger jet and make it look like Ukrainians did it, he would've kept his mouth shot. Likewise on the recordings, at least the separatists (if not their Russian counterparts) sound genuinely surprised that what they shot down was a civilian plane. The meant-to-shoot-down-Ukrainian-military-transport-shot-down-passenger-plane-by-mistake explanation still makes the most sense and it is the one supported by the evidence.

Basically I want to keep out crazy conspiracy theories out of this article, whether they originate with the Russian side or the Ukrainian side. There was a mention of a separate article devoted to that sort of thing, but AFAIK nobody got around to creating one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

According to SBU version, Girkin and other rebels did not know anything about this plan, being used in a "blind" manner, exactly as they suppose to be used in any operation like this. Regardless, this is just a version by SBU, but it seems to be notable enough (published and re-published by a huge number of sources), and this is criterion for inclusion in WP. More here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since we now have in this article the official version by Russian Ministry of Defense (which is probably OK?), we must also include the "opposite" version by a similar official organization from another (Ukrainian) side, which is SBU. They said this is result of their official investigation. This is per WP:NPOV. I am not suggesting placing any claims by individual "analysts" no one knows about. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC) . Here is their original statement (English). This is now everywhere. Here is one of discussions by analysts - with maps. Here is one their findings (on the maps). The Aeroflot flight SU2074 carefully flied around the war zone through Russian territory (obviously, for safety reasons) all the time except July 16 and July 17! My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC) More here by RFE/RL. Ukrainian officials emphasize here that the Buk was operated by a professional military team from Russia (who acted on the orders directly from Russia), that rebels did not know about the intended target (rebels thought this suppose to be an Ukrainian plane), and make analogy with Russian apartment bombings. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It is much more likely that Ukraine/USA are the ones trying to setup a false flag event. There is a theory that the plane was shot down by pro-West Ukrainian military forces in order to blame the pro-Russian rebels and gain a political edge in the conflict. [2] [3] [4] One possible scenario is that it was shot down by an Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet which was recorded in the proximity of the Boeing-777. [5] [6] [7]. So if any false flag theories are to be included then this theory would be the prime candidate for the article. 118.210.35.227 (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, we should keep out all conspiracy theories out of the article. That includes crude Russian propaganda. As far as the false flag by Russia theory, I still want to see more reliable mainstream sources reporting on it. I've seen it in Moscow Times and Kyiv Post so I can see us adding a sentence or so to the article about it, but I'm still skeptical about including it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft

KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

rampa (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if true, the airplane pieces were in possession of rebels who could shoot them from a machine gun, whatever... My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. But if they were so smart, why did they give both of the black boxes to NATO member Netherlands? If they were smart and devious, they would have held one back to make sure NATO/NL/UK are honest. JPLeonard (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This was deleted earlier by another user from the article. The source for this is GlobalResearch, who are conspiracy theorists (eg 9/11 Truth in 2014: Is a Breakthrough Possible?). As per WP:FRINGE, they shouldn't be included. Stickee (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Fringe? Are Ukrainian papers RS? .... I think the opinions of Malaysian newspapers are quite important in the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

So the theory comes from Associated Press reporter Robert Parry: "Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk." - so the theory is that someone shot at this aircraft with a machine gun, yes?? An odd weapon for a fighter jet. And fired across and into the cockpit?? Quite a manoeuvre that, even from a Su-25 at 7,000 m. Neither Parry not Bociurkiw tell us how we can know when the machine gun holes were made. Ah look, the story also appears here. Does that make it more or less believable? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't not really matter even if you were a military expert... Fakirbakir (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Global research is WP:FRINGE. If a Malaysian newspaper cites them, that newspaper is not RS for that instance. And an "AP reporter", if involved, does not carry the same weight that the AP does, unless AP carried the report. Geogene (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's fringe conspiracy crap. It stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Two-third of the reports are crap in the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. But let's not add more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the theory that a Ukrainian fighter plane attacked MH17 should at least be mentioned: the original source for this article appears to be Robert Parry who has a track record for independent international stories that turned out to be right. His conclusion considers (a) analysis of photos of key segments of the plane (b) the only official briefing of radar data given by any side so far showing the presence of a fighter jet (c) a plausible motive. Of course he does not consider ATC tapes, black box recordings, or any detailed US/UKR radar tracking ... because after 23 DAYS for reasons which are unclear NOTHING has been released. We had more official factual tracking info of MH370 even WITHOUT the plane being found than with MH17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.40.181 (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Amen. Hit the nail on the head. The only tangible evidence is the Russian radar showing the jet fighter closing on the airliner, and the apparently neutral eyewitnesses who saw the fighter shoot it down. For the Buk theory there is "no tangible evidence" like the Straits Times says. There is only a lot of innuendo and unsubstantiated allegations. JPLeonard (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

References

What's up with these talk page ref sections? If the sources were brought up once, there's no need to add them again, otherwise it seems like some google juice seo.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The references added in the parent post of this section appear at the very bottom of this talk page; which is undesirable of course. The template above places the refs in the section they are originally placed. Stickee (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's Wikipedia current intro paragraph on Robert Parry:

"Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984. He has been the editor of ConsortiumNews.com since 1995."

Award winning investigative journalist. Sounds like the man for the job and a pretty good reliable source on a controversial issue that certain factions would rather not see published.

Let's see the Straits times piece referenced, OK! JPLeonard (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Parry's claims are (just as they were in Syria, after the Ghouta chemical attack) basically fringe views, and assigning any sort of significant weight to them just because he's a (self-published) "journalist" would be undue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

And the description above just shows that there are some problems with the Parry article, which is basically just a fluff filled promo piece, probably with some WP:COI going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is all just subjective opinion. Fluff filled, fringe, this is just throwing adjectives around. The Straits Times article is much more objective and forensic in tone. Instead of impugning the integrity of an award winning journalist, why not answer the question: WHY does the ONLY HARD EVIDENCE we have indicate MH17 was shot down by AIRCRAFT?

So this is what you call logic? Malaysia's newspaper of record is a fringe source if it writes up evidence presented by an award-winning journalist, because - the conclusions don't agree with those of known liars like the US State Dept. -- who once again have not shown the evidence they claim to have.

By the way, speaking of evidence, Malaysia wants the Air Traffic Control tapes that Kiev is "missing." JPLeonard (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

have you provided a link to this straits times article for us to read at all? you keep ignoring the fact the buk has been tracked through the day of the shoot down from Donetsk to torez [8] and then to lugansk - and the Malaysian defence minister has said it was a surface t air missile brought the plane down - please provide a link to the article you believe has the only hard evidence - (if it is global researchdumbdumbdumb, or Robert parrys thesis though , I don't think they provide hard evidence, merely hard evidence of their putinist shil-ing , I believe its called in the vernacular popular at this time) Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The article JPLeonard's referring to is the first one in the reference section above. And yes, it uses Parry and GlobalResearch as its source, which has been dismissed above as fringe views. Stickee (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

oh thanks, I wasn't sure if he meant something different from the parry/globalresearch material. Sayerslle (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Plane Redirection

The plane has been redirected from its normal path into the war zone. There is a nice graphic that compares its flight to the last 10 flights clearly showing the redirection. I think this fact should be discussed in detail, probably in a separate section. Some important questions need to be answered here: Why was the plane redirected? Who is responsible for the redirection? Who benefits from the redirection and how? There have been claims that the redirection allowed Malaysian airlines to save on fuel and money. However, why was this particular flight redirected and not any of their previous flights. 118.210.130.94 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

wasn't it the weather? if RS discuss it , we as editors are free to add what we like. if tis considered undue emphasis it can still get undone however. I don't think wp is here to raise 'important questions' , it is to reflect what is reported in RS. as for 'who benefits' - this is becoming a frequent cliché now of the eternal conspiracists , same as at Damascus chemical attacks ( which was answered, assad regime did it - assad regime benefited btw ) - not for wp to question who benefits, unless RS are doing so - who knows anyhow. Taoism tells us never to be sure of anything ! - Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any claims about the weather causing it. I have seen two claims. 1) The plane was redirected by Malaysian airlines to save on fuel and 2) The plane was redirected by Ukrainian air traffic controllers in order to setup a false flag event. The first claim doesn't make much sense to me - why weren't previous flights redirected and only this one. So as far as I can tell the second claim is the most likely to be true. Perhaps something worth including in the article. 118.210.35.227 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The talk page of an article is not the place to spin conspiracy theories or repeat the same. Reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So put the matter in the article. Did you know there is a false flag article in Wikipedia? altho some people like to delete the ones attributed to the US and leave only Mukden and Gleiwicz. JPLeonard (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No we need reliable sources, preferably secondary, for that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Time of crash

In the map above Route of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 you can reed the time of last contact 13:15 UTC . So 14:15-is some mistake of company .It is impotent put a RIGHT time. Check a German wikipedia. Sorry.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasdcxz (talk • contribs) 09:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

According to a footnote in the article, "The time stated by Malaysia Airlines is erroneous; the correct time should be 13:15 (UTC) or 14:15 (Westerm European Summer Time)." Geogene (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Claim of responsibility by the rebels

In fact, no such claim has been made. The sentence "Immediately after the crash, a post appeared on the VKontakte social media page of Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, claiming responsibility for shooting down a military aircraft" contains two wrong points.

First, the page "Reports from militia of Novorossiya" (formerly - "Reports from Strelkov Igor Ivanovich") is not a page of Igor Girkin (Strelkov). It is a social network community where information from various sources from the pro-Russian side is posted. The particular post was attributed not to Igor Girkin but had only a subheading "information from the militia".

Second, even the unnamed member of the militia did not take responsibility for shooting down the plane. The Russian "сбили самолет" (without the subject) corresponds to "a plane was shot down". No detail was given there who or how shot down the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.62.1 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is really splitting hairs. Geogene (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The entire accusation of rebels is based on such shaky ground. That's why I think one needs to be precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.62.1 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is basically interpreting primary sources (in this case the original post). That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia, it's original research. We rely on what reliable secondary sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, the point is that the interpretation of the original post given in the article is twisted to the point it provides false information to the reader. Rebels never took responsibility for shooting down the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.62.1 (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The attribution of this VK community post directly to Girkin/Strelkov is dubious at best. I think that the wording in the article needs to be changed to reflect it (i.e. adding "purported" or "a page claimed to be of"). Below are a few references and notes to the contrary:

1) Here is a source doubting the attribution ("The VK account may not actually be run by Strelkov at all. BuzzFeed's Max Seddon spoke to eastern Ukrainian rebels who said the page "is a fake made by fans."):

2) Strelkov has not ever admitted to have an account in the social media and has directly declined to have any accounts on the Internet other than one. In an interview with a major Russian newspaper, Komsomolskaya Pravda, on 12-th of June 2014 Girkin/Strelkov has has said the following: "In the Internet I am writing only on one resource, out of which a few people have the right to make verbatim reproductions of my messages" and that he had not had access to the Internet for three days. The one resource most likely hints to http://forum-antikvariat.ru of which Girkin/Strelkov has admitted to be a longtime user. His posts there are accessible here http://forum-antikvariat.ru/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=22728&search_app=forums&userMode=content&sid=ee7aa4dd25a52b94fe05ff77a3f7bf65&search_app_filters[forums][searchInKey]=&search_app_filters[forums][sortKey]=date&st=100. The link to the video of the interview (the remark was made in the very end of it): and the transcript in Russian: . I have translated the corresponding part of the transcript here: http://pastebin.com/1Dp8uvBT

3) A decent portion of the posts in the VK community strelkov_info, in which the discussed "responsibility claim" was published, has Girkin/Strelkov name in the heading, such as " Игорь Иванович Стрелков снова на связи." ("Igor Ivanovich Strelkov reporting") and are marked with the following picture: https://pp.vk.me/c620231/v620231519/9f37/_6deaQpPZ_0.jpg which has a text in Russian saying "Strelkov informs:" and a picture of Girkin/Strelkov. The majority of the posts are not marked with this picture and start with a different heading, often attributing messages to different other people (i.e. former self-proclaimed major of Slavyansk). This heading and picture seems to distiguish between the relayed messages of Girking/Strelkov (with the picture below the post) and messages by administrators of the strelkov_info community or from other people (without the picture below the post). This seems to sound in accord with Girkin/Strelkov's words "few people have the right to make verbatim reproductions of my messages" in the interview above. The purpoted "responsibility claim" in the community did not have that picture and started with "Сообщение от ополчения" ("A message from the militia"), and thus is unlikely to come from Girkin/Strelkov himself, but rather from the administrators of the community (or at least was attributed as not coming directly from Girkin/Strelkov at the time of publishing). I understand that this third point is OR and could not be included as is, but I will try to find sources if this makes sense to the editors. 93.153.182.18 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

References

It is not yet confirmed that the plane was shot down

There is still no solid evidence that the plane was shot down. It is PRESUMED to be have been shot down due to the circumstances surrounding it. Until the investigators say they have found evidence of a missile being involved OR someone confirms they did it, it will remain PRESUMED.

P.S. The evidence the United States have can't be used to confirm the shoot down.

Rihaz (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page not a place to discuss one's personal views on the matter. Nor do we get to set standards of evidence required (btw, a number of people confirmed they did it, including some of the separatists themselves).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about my personal views. It's about whether we know what happened. We don't. The article implies that we know that it was shot down. We don't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

no its not about your personal views so if it is routinely described as 'shot down' in RS that is all wp cares about I believe, - so in the guardian they write straightforwardly MH17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine on 17 July, killing all 298 on board. Around 228 coffins have been returned to the Netherlands. [9] Sayerslle (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this conversation. Why do my personal views get mentioned at all? And why did you mention the deaths and coffins? They prove nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

just pointing out a sentence in RS, as an example, that includes 'shot down' - without any qualification kind of thing. so -MH17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine on 17 July, killing all 298 on board - just forget the other sentence , I cut and pasted and must have clicked on two sentences! sorry to confuse you, blimey - this is getting absurd Sayerslle (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Why do my personal views get mentioned at all? And why did you mention the deaths? They prove nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Apologies to all that I unknowingly broke the three revert rule. The definition of 'revert' existed in two wordings: I knew only the version in the lead to wikipedia: edit warring which I have changed, not the version in the red box in the main part of the article. It won't happen again. Sincerely Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)