Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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

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

AWACS plane from the source you're referring to was well outside of the crash area (somewhere over Poland or Romania) and it was clearly stated in the report. 195.208.49.60 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

It's plainly not true. SA-3 are still used in Poland, but not in Ukraine. The report in question also states that SA-3 signal was typical to the region 195.208.49.60 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Audio recording and satellite imagery provided by the United States and Ukrainian media were fabricated, which were confirmed by independent experts. With statements Ukrainian army pro-Russian separatists shot down the plane by using S-11 "Beech" surface-to-air missile fired from whose territory they controlled. However, images from the crash site and inspection OSCE representatives from the wreckage were traces presumably from falling from aircraft machine gun and pointed to the nature of the debris hit the small missiles "air-to-air.". We also learned that there is no pro-Russian separatists S-11 "Beech". That also corroborate the OSCE staff. 195.208.49.60 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I hasn't seen any proof of fabrication from non-russian experts, nor I seen any proof of fabrication (as opposed to linear editing). Moreover, at least some parts of the recording were confirmed as original by separatists themselves, they just claimed that they were related to other incidents. There's lot of conspiracy theories surrounding debris field, but they are wildly speculative and unreliable. They may deserve a list in paragraph of "conspiracy theories", but there's nothing anywhere close to reliability of primary version. 195.208.49.60 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

"The cause of the crash has not yet been determined by the official investigation, which is being carried out by the Dutch Safety Board" - is this still the case? Are there any updates on the Dutch Safety Board's investigation? --Soulparadox (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"...MH17 with a Boeing 777-200 operated by Malaysia Airlines broke up in the air probably as the result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." No update since the Preliminary report from 9. Sept. [1] Alexpl (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What Malaysia didn't say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"[Mr Najib] said the evidence, which points to Russian-backed rebels shooting the passenger plane down, was “pretty conclusive” but that they needed to gather proof to use in a court of law." ([3]). Stickee (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The article's coverage is consistent with the coverage in RS. I don't see much interest here in parsing quotes. Geogene (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns by spinning off the missile part into a separate sentence that immediately follows Najib's remarks, sourced to the original WSJ article. There's really no reason to do this because the sources are clear on the meaning of what Najib meant by "intelligence reports", but I also don't see a reason not to. It does tend to emphasize the dominant view of the cause of the crash this way, helping achieve NPOV. Geogene (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but you're not still imagining that the WSJ article attributes "investigators have said they believe...pro-Russian separatists?" to Mr Najib? To be clear: it doesn't.Jen galbraith (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but this is a not a forum. I find your argument to be both tiresome and pedantic, but I've changed the text to accommodate your concerns a second time. Does the current version satisfy your concerns? Geogene (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is (completely) unclear in the WSJ article which investigators they are talking of, and even after this change it is presented here in the suggestive context of Malaysian investigation (and what Malaysian investigators? DCA? Criminal? Intelligence?)

When talking of investigators, it should always be clear which investigators are meant, because there is a huge difference e.g. between Dutch accident investigators and Ukrainian criminal investigators and the private investigators who are haunting for the 30 M$ bounty. I am not aware so far of any statements by official accident or criminal investigators regarding the launch spot which makes sense as there is contradicting evidence, some pointing to southeast of Torez, some to north. This information is usually credited to intelligence sources. --PM3 (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the same suggestive context found in RS, many of which have been cited over the course of this argument. I'm a bit leery of having the argument's article's POV diverge from the POV in RS coverage on this point. Jen galbraith raised enough of a point about Najib's statement being taken out of context to justify breaking the sentence in two, but sources have implicitly linked these points and the article should too. Geogene (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the last change made it worse, because "it is widely believed" is not backed by the WSJ source. What about this: There are investigators who believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory. I think that this would disconnect the sentence from the Malaysian investigation while sticking to the WSJ article. --PM3 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That implies it's a less widely held view than it appears to be. Nevertheless, let's try it and see what others think. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The source says "Investigators have said they believe the plane was brought down by a surface-to-air missile from an area controlled by pro-Russian separatists.". Doesn't this diff match that? Stickee (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a decent solution. "It is widely believed" is not supported by the WSJ story at all. In any case, since that story came out just a few days before the DSB preliminary report, I don't see why this story is being used at all. Evidently, because the DSB report itself does not state what some editors want to slip into the article, that MH17 was downed by a Buk missile. – Herzen (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: That version was misleading, because in the context of this WP article "investigators" refers to the DSB or to criminal investigators, while the WSJ did not specify which investigators are meant. I am not aware of any information on what DSB or criminal investigators believe regarding the launch spot.

@Geogene: If you track down the "it is widely believed" to who believes it, I think you will neither be able to track it to official investigators nor to a majority of air safety experts, but to politicians and intelligence agencies, to unnamed sources and to public opinion in English speaking countries and some other countries. --PM3 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We are almost there. Yes, there ARE investigators who believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory. How do I know? I read it in the fourth sentence of this WP article. Why this needs repeating here, I have no idea - unless of course it's to give the misleading impression that the DSB investigators have said this.Jen galbraith (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's redundant, but it does not point to DSB investigators. --PM3 (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Those unnamed intelligence source's conclusions have considerably influenced the view of most RS's outside of Russia, but this is my opinion (original research). I deleted the second part on the grounds of redundancy. I am a little concerned about whether that might have shifted the POV of the lead. Geogene (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead is still explicit about this issue:

• The Boeing 777-200ER airliner lost contact ... over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists.
• pro-Russian separatists having shot down the plane using a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory which they controlled.
• photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile

And this is still biased by selection of sources, which mostly present the prevailing opinions in the US, UK and Australia. If you have a look around to the other language Wikipedias, you will see that only a minority included the claim fired from the territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists - which originated from US and Ukrainian intelligence sources - in the lead. So the assertion that this is the view of most RS's outside of Russia is probably wrong. --PM3 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC) to be clear: I agree that "fired from territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists" is the most probable scenario and that most evidence points to that. But in the worldwide opinion, it's not that clearly expressed as in the selection of sources used for the lead here.

With regard to investigators, please note that Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke said "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area". Usernick (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but note that most RS are contented with anonymous US intelligence sources. Geogene (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the article says "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]". If these "Investigators" are the anonymous US intelligence sources, then this should be specified in the sentence, otherwise one could easily think that these investigators are by default those who are to prepare the official report. Also, the US position has been mentioned just three sentences before, and the sentence has to be moved then to where the article mentions the US position.

Further, what Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke said, is more notable, as his statement has been cited in several sources in different countries, in contrast to the sentence "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]", which does not even appear in google search. Also, it is more recent information, and the addition will implicitly clarify that in the sentence "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]" some other investigators are mentioned. Usernick (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This sentence had been removed after the above discussion and then was reintroduced here by My very best wishes. I think this was an accident, My very best wishes wanted to revert a Herzen edit and accidentially also reverted Geogene's edit. --PM3 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, deleting the sentence "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]" and adding that Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke said "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area" is also possible. Usernick (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Westerbeke is the chief of the Dutch criminal investigation, not the DSB investigation. Also, you have not given the quote in the context that sources are. Here are examples: "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area,” and possibly prosecute, Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke told journalists in Rotterdam."[4] and "Mr Westerbeke said any future prosecution would need to pinpoint where the missile was fired from, and who controlled that area." [5] Note that standards for criminal prosecution are higher than the evidence standards for the media to report that pro-Russian separatists probably shot it down, and for WP to repeat this. To use this quote outside of that context is actively misleading, it implies there is greater doubt than there really is. Also, I am not interested in removing the sentence a second time. Geogene (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

While you seem to refer to WP only, I refer to those words of Mr. Westerbeke, which were broadly reported in different sources. See, for example, http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dutch-say-need-to-know-mh17-missile-launch-site-to-prosecute , http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/09/mh17_investigators_find_metal.php and others websites, which are easily found by google.

Your comment with regard to the context can not be understood. I did not refer to the evidence standards at all, I just argued that the phrase "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]" is not really notable: maybe it appears in the WP article which I can not access, but google does not show even a single source for it. What Mr. Westerbeke said, is MUCH MORE NOTABLE, and thus should be added.

Further, I do not know how you measured the doubt, and concluded that my quote from a reliable source was actively misleading. Please note however that in reality Westerbeke had even more doubts. He said: "his department cannot yet be absolutely certain the aircraft was attacked but said that was likely. ... ‘If we can establish this iron comes from such a missile, that is important of course,’ Westerbeke told news agency Reuters. ‘At this moment, we don't know that, but that's what we are investigating.’ - See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/09/mh17_investigators_find_metal.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernick (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, please note who Mr. Westerbeke is: "Dutch prosecution service chief Fred Westerbeke, who is leading the international inquiry into the July 17 disaster" ... . http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/mh17-investigation/5741322 Usernick (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by pointing out the lack of Google search results. The "Investigators" statement you are referring to should not be appearing verbatim in Google search results at all. All content on Wikipedia is supposed to be a unique paraphrase from sources, not copy/paste. In fact, copy/paste is against the rules unless the statement is simple enough that the facts cannot be expressed any other way (WP:PARAPHRASE). The recommended procedure is to read a source and then re-state content in your own words. The reason you're finding Westerbeke in many different news outlets is because they were picked up off the wire, this is not the same as many sources for reasons of notability. This is evidence by the observation that most of the prose is duplicated from outlet to outlet. It's not hard to support the notability of the "Investigators believe..." sentence, there are hundreds of potential sources for it out there. In fact it represents the viewpoint of the majority of RS, or at least the majority of the ones that I've seen. Finally, the source you just presented is incorrect. Mr. Westerbreke is not a part of the DSB investigation. Consult other sources. Geogene (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If "there are hundreds of potential sources for it out there", then please refer specifically at least to some of them. Maybe they will be clearer on who these "investigators" are. If these investigators are from the US, then the US position has been already mentioned in the same paragraph in the article.

Also, here is what another source says on who Mr. Westerbeke is: "Dutch prosecution service chief Fred Westerbeke, who is leading the international inquiry into the July 17 disaster,..." (http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-dutch-hope-shards-will-lead-to-weapon-that-downed-mh17-over-ukraine/2447609.html )

With regard to your statement: "The reason you're finding Westerbeke in many different news outlets is because they were picked up off the wire, this is not the same as many sources for reasons of notability": can you support this argument with a reference to Guidelines? The fact that news outlets in different countries picked up those words of Mr. Westerbeke which I quoted directly confirms their notability. These words should be added to the article. Usernick (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, as you would know if you had visited the sources that I just gave you, there are two separate investigations being conducted in the Netherlands. The international DSB investigation and the criminal investigation. The DSB investigation, which writes the reports, as you will find in this article, is not concerned with attributing blame. So why would they be lead by a prosecutor? In fact the DSB investigation is being led by Chairman Tjibbe Joustra, as Google will immediately tell you. There's no need for me to mention example sources when there are some that the statement is already sourced to, as you already know. The Guideline you ask for is to be found under WP:NEWSORG: Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues. Just so you know, your repeating incorrect information even after having been corrected, and your not reading the sources that I have already given you, are tedious. Geogene (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned that there are hundreds of sources, but I do not see any reference to any specific source made by you.

Also, I've not stated that Mr. Westerbeke is a part of the DSB investigation. It seems that he is a Chief Prosecutor and Investigator in Netherlands, the country which must be very interested in results of the international investigation led by him.

The rule "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." is in the section "Identifying_reliable_sources". I can not see how "investigators", mentioned seemingly in WP only, and who remained anonymous, and whose country and office are not known, deserve more weight that Mr. Westerbeke words reported in multiple venues in different countries. Usernick (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like progress. Excellent. What you still need to grasp is that the general opinion in RS (at least the ones I've seen) as well is that the aircraft was probably shot down, with a Buk, by separatists. If you want more information on that, then there are currently 17 pages' worth of talk page archives in which this matter has been discussed continually since the day it happened, and you're welcome to read all of those, but I feel no burden of proof on my part to convince you of it after weeks of continual discussion. There is nothing about the consensus process that implies it is to be a Sisyphean task. The proximate source is the WSJ and not the Washington Post, but unfortunately that link has since been changed to go to a paywall. who did that? I'm still concerned about the context, as your proposed wording fails to mention that this is in the context of a court (as in "beyond reasonable doubt"), and so is misleading. I'm also not sure it belongs in the lead (but would probably not oppose in the body--as long as the context is appropriate). Geogene (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't discuss the general opinion, I discussed what sources state about the beliefs of different investigators. As PM3 said below, "When it comes to level 3, I am only aware of RS which cite US and Ukrainian intelligence sources or politicians of several countries." Also, as PM3 said, "I am not aware of a single source which states that a specific investigator* or investigation* organization said that the assumed missile was shot from separatist territory."

If you think that the "level 3" statement, assigned to investigators with unspecified affiliation, can be in the lead based on the WP only as a source, then the words of Mr. Westerbeke deserve to be in the lead as well.

With regard to "beyond a reasonable doubt" part, I do not mind against it at all, and actually I myself suggested using such words, when the PM of Malaysia used them, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_16#What_Malaysia_said .

However, Mr. Westerbeke said "possibly prosecute", see for example http://news.yahoo.com/dutch-know-mh17-missile-launch-prosecute-142020431.html . While "beyond a reasonable doubt" may be a standard to prevail in court, I am not aware of what standard Mr. Westerbeke needs to reach inside his mind to initiate court proceedings. Possibly, he may go to court if he believes that the evidence he has may satisfy the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard rather than satisfies this standard.Usernick (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: It's not hard to support the notability of the "Investigators believe..." sentence, there are hundreds of potential sources for it out there.

I am not aware of a single source which states that a specific investigator* or investigation* organization said that the assumed missile was shot from separatist territory. If you know lots of sources for that, could you please link some of them here? The media tend to confuse terms like "experts", "investigators" and "recovery personell", we should be careful when copying that. Also, it makes a huge difference if we are talking e.g. of NBAAI investigators or Federal Air Transport Agency investigators. The WSJ used the term "investigators" as a weasel word, and the WP article now is weaseling, too. --PM3 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC) * with "investigator" meaning "flight accident investigator" or "criminal investigator"; that's what is associated in this context with the term "investigator".

Okay, that's a fair point, and the reason for my trying various alternative wordings last week, alternatives which for whatever reason did not achieve consensus. Most of the sources--that I've seen--seem to favor the Buk hypothesis. This one used a weasel word to make this popular opinion seem more substantial. I've seen plenty of sources that give precedence to the hypothesis as a general opinion but none that will attribute to specific "investigators". But I also think that the WSJ would survive an inquiry at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Geogene (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the paywall issue, simply copy and paste the url into a Google search, and follow the link via Google. Stickee (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if the WSJ is ultimately reliable, we still do not know what investigators they are talking of. Copying this unspecified "investigators" into the context of this article can be greatly misleading.

Regarding the Buk hypothesis, there are different escalation levels:

Level 1: shot down by a surface to air missile

Level 2: shot down by a missile fired from a Buk M1 launcher

Level 3: shot down by a missile fired from a Buk M1 launcher which was located in separatist territory

Which level are you talking about? For level 1 there is a broad support, including Dutch criminal investigators. Many independent experts also support level 2. But when it comes to level 3, I am only aware of RS which cite US and Ukrainian intelligence sources or politicians of several countries. And this is correctly expressed in the lead: According to US intelligence sources ... pro-Russian separatists having shot down the plane using a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory which they controlled. --PM3 (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the point of "general opinion". If there are lots of RS which support what the WSJ wrote - investigators believe it was a missile lauch from rebel territory - than I think this would justify including that. Otherwise, RS would be needed which state that the general opinion is this way. --PM3 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm obviously missing something, but can you please clarify which “general opinion” you’re referring to?

Are you referring to the general opinion that “MH17 was shot down by a missile fired from a Buk M1 launcher which was located in separatist territory”? I think most would agree that that this is “general opinion”, and is already reflected by its prominence in the article.

Are you referring to the general opinion that there are investigators who have said that they believe that MH17 was shot down by a missile fired from a Buk M1 launcher which was located in separatist territory? This is trivially true (without the WSJ reference), and redundant, since we know that investigations by US intelligence concluded this.

Or are you referring to something else? Sorry to ask , but I'm genuinely confused.Jen galbraith (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe US intelligence officials only gave one interview to the press about MH17, to the Washington Post and the LA Times, and perhaps one or two others. In this interview, they said that the uniforms of the people operating the Buk system were Ukrainian, so they speculated that the person who shot down MH17 might have been a Ukrainian defector. They said, "We may never know the nationality" of the person who did it. And one said, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here." I'm just quoting from memory because I am tired tracking down sources which get ignored because they don't unambiguously point to the rebels as the guilty party. The idea that the US intelligence community believes that MH17 was shot down by a SAM, a Buk or otherwise, in rebel controlled territory or otherwise, is an insult to the US intelligence community. I noted a German government report to the effect that NATO did not detect a SAM launch at the time that MH17 was shot down. There simply is no getting around the point that the Russian Engineers' Report makes: if a Buk missile had been fired, not only would witnesses have seen and heard it, they would have photographed and filmed it. So all this talk about "everybody believes that a Buk missile shot down MH17" is getting tiresome. No matter how often different editors repeat something that is highly implausible on its face, it does not become something that should be taken seriously just because it gets repeated ad infinitum. And yet people who recite this mantra call people who point out the obvious and employ common sense "conspiracy theorists".

In short, repeat that "reliable sources" are "unanimous" in that MH17 was shot down with a Buk missile from rebel controlled territory as much as you want. But don't insult the US intelligence community by claiming that it has clearly expressed this position. – Herzen (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's probably the most demonstrably false thing I've seen you say so far (the US intel). From the WaPost article you refer to: "the [US intelligence] officials said the intelligence assembled in the five days since the attack points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists in territory they control in eastern Ukraine. The senior intelligence officials said they have ruled out the possibility that Ukrainian forces were responsible for the attack." ([6]). Stickee (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Was this the same source that said that US intel can spot the difference between Ukrainian and Russian uniforms, from satellites, on cloudy days? Geogene (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@@PM3:: Yes, I agree that this is misleading, and it is also a bit redundant. Unfortunately, it is at an impasse for the time being as there seems to be no consensus for removal and no consensus for change. Geogene (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: I think we have a consensus for removal. This looks like an accident: Your removal got right into an edit war about another paragraph and was accidentally reverted. I don't see anybody else who opposes deletion. --PM3 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your "general opinion" suggestion 3 levels above: that was one of Geogene's iterations earlier on ([7]), and is echoed by the sources (eg "The common belief is that Ukraine rebels backed by Russia were the ones who launched the missile" [8]). Stickee (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is doubtful that such thing as "common opinion" may exist, since there are many people whose opinion is different from this "common opinion".

In any case, the discussion on "general opinion" or "common opinion" should probably be conducted in a different thread.

With regard to this thread, on what Malaysia has and has not said, let us decide on what to do with the phrase "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]" which for some reason appears immediately after the sentence "Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "pretty conclusive", but more investigation was necessary to be certain.", while such Malaysia's statement as "Once that process is completed, we will look at the criminal side, who is responsible for this atrocious crime," and the statement of Mr. Westerbeke "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area, and possibly prosecute", have somehow been missed.Usernick (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for making sure that quotes are accurate and for avoiding weasel words and redundancy, but I'm not interested in sponsoring a tendentious quote-shopping expedition in search of expressions of uncertainty. This is a negotiation process, and I feel like good faith concessions are only being answered by further demands. I still am inclined toward removal of the "investigators" sentence because I have been persuaded by the reasons that were given. Geogene (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Geogene: who is tendentious? What would be wrong with properly reporting what Malaysia and investigators have actually said on the issue? Is it a matter of principle that as soon as someone expresses uncertainty, this uncertainty should not be reflected in the article from your POV, and only expressions of certainty, such as "reports are pretty conclusive", can be reported in the lead, while the expression of uncertainty made by the same person at the same time and published in the same sources must be omitted from the lead?

In any case, it seems that at least four or five users would agree to remove the "investigators" sentence (only Stickee may be against).Usernick (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That principle can be found at WP:WEIGHT. Geogene (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:WEIGHT does not state that if two expressions are made by the same person at the same time for clarification of his viewpoint and these expressions are published in the same sources, then one expression may be omitted. Rather, the two expressions should be considered as a whole and used together in the wiki article, since they together form a certain viewpoint ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints").Usernick (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You've quoted that incorrectly. What it says is that it fairly represents all significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You've quoted that incorrectly. It says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". Is it difficult to realize that the viewpoint of Mr. Najib is seen only from all of his relevant statements? When some statement is missed, it is simply no longer the viewpoint of Mr. Najib. Of course, if Mr. Najib's viewpoint was not prominent enough, then it could be missed, but again, a viewpoint is the quantum, you either report it or not as a whole. Usernick (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, good. Now read the second sentence, which is also relevant. And regarding PM Najib, didn't we settle that? Are we beating a dead horse now? Geogene (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Second sentence of what? It would be easier if you copied it here... Regarding PM Najib we didn't settle anything (if you meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_16#What_Malaysia_said , then it stopped with you getting silent and I me being too busy with other things). Of course, I still think that Mr. Najib's POV should be reported correctly or not reported at all... Usernick (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "not at all" is an option also. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Geogene did "settle it", several times with this edit inserting "but more investigation was necessary to be certain" and this edit. Stickee (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice before. That edit was certainly a step towards NPOV, but it still misrepresented Mr. Najib's viewpoint. The source, to which Geogene referred, states "This leads to the strong suspicion that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigative work is needed before we can be certain". However, this is only a (small) part of the uncertainty, since Mr. Najib also said "Once that process (of collecting evidence) is completed, we will look at the criminal side, who is responsible for this atrocious crime". I mean, I would clarify the types of uncertainties, i.e. would write smth like "Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "pretty conclusive", but more investigation was necessary to be certain on whether a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down and who is responsible Usernick (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's your own interpretation of Najib's statement, that's not going to go into the article, and you should re-read the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT, and perhaps continue into the second. This is ridiculous, my good faith effort at reaching consensus is satisfied, and I'm tempted to delete entirely so as to eliminate a point of contention (but will not, as it might be disruptive). If others want to waste their time arguing this with you, it's their business. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Geogene, it was my good faith effort as well: it was me who pointed out that the article differed significantly from what Mr. Najib has actually said. While I believe that you have made good faith effort at reaching consensus, this effort possibly was satisfied because you didn't mention your edit in that section of the talk, where we were searching for consensus. In any case, Mr. Najib did say "Once that process (of collecting evidence) is completed, we will look at the criminal side, who is responsible for this atrocious crime". Even if Mr. Najib is almost certain that the surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, he has not expressed any certainty on who is responsible because they have not finished collecting the evidence and looked into this yet and because we do not know what is included in the report which he has called "pretty conclusive". Usernick (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And some improvements to the article have come of it. A bit off-topic, but it's taking unnecessarily long for your account to be auto-confirmed (which would grant you editing rights to the article). If you want to edit it yourself you just have to make 5 edits in other articles. This would normally happen sooner for new accounts, but you've limited yourself to this talk page, and that's prevented your editing semi-protected articles for longer than would normally be the case. This situation may also apply to User:Jen galbraith. Geogene (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I honestly thought that the consensus could be found at the talk page first and then it would not matter who would change it. As well as Jen, I agree that prevailing viewpoint (in English language sources, but I would not be so sure about, for example, about German sources) is that the separatists fired a missile, but I find the the view expressed by Mr. Najib and Mr. Westerbeke, that the investigation is needed before the guilt can be attributed, also very prominent.Usernick (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that the article is unprotected and everyone now is able to edit. I'm just letting people know this because it's counterproductive to the goals of the project to keep legitimate contributors locked behind the vandal fence. Geogene (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaints of the Malaysian transport minister

Instead of starting a new section about a relatively trivial matter, I thought I would bring up this edit here, since PM3 mentioned it above. I do not understand why this edit was reverted. The first time I added the relevant information, my edit was reverted because I did not paraphrase sufficiently. So I paraphranesd some more, and the edit was still reverted. Here is the relevant passage:

The Malaysian transportation minister expressed dismay at Ukraine and the rebels not keeping their commitment to guarantee safe passage to Malaysian investigators to the crash site, making it unlikely that they will be able to reach it before the start of winter. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak met Arseniy Yatsenyuk at the UN at the end of September, but Yatsenyuk remained non-committal on when investigators could regain access to the crash site.

I believe I accurately reflect the content of the source I cite. I believe this information is relevant to the investigation section, since it informs the reader on how quickly the on-the-ground investigation is proceeding (not very). The Malaysian PM meeting with Yatsenyuk at the UN is notable, just as Putin meeting with Poroshenko in Normandy was notable. – Herzen (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that source but the information is fairly mundane. Also I see nothing wrong with the POV. As long as it's sufficiently paraphrased away from the source, I don't see what the problem is. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have moved this to a separate section, because it's another topic. --PM3 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks PM3. Stickee (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It was reverted 3 times by Volunteer Marek, Lute88 and My very best wishes. From the edit summaries, their concern was that you selected (or "cherry picked") a quote that singles out Yatsenyuk in an out-of-context situation.

It would have been best to bring it up here 3 days ago rather than adding it in a third time (WP:BRD). Stickee (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

One side in a war can't unilaterally declare peace, especially when they're outgunned. Nevertheless the Malaysian government has made it clear that they blame Ukraine, so that's really not taken out of context. [9] I don't know why Western powers didn't demand blue helmets in eastern Ukraine before July. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I added it a third time because I responded to the valid criticism, but my edit still got reverted. In the edit summary of his first edit, Volunteer Marek wrote "ok, first that needs to be properly paraphrased because as is, it's close to being a COPYVIO. Second, don't cherry pick statements. Yats couldn't 'commit' because rebels control the area." That is OR. As Geogene just noted, the Malaysian government has made it clear that they blame Ukraine (for impediments to the investigation). The source I cited (which is a (the?) Turkish international news service) also presents Ukraine as being at fault more than the rebels: the title is "Malaysia dismayed over Ukraine’s empty MH17 promise". So I wasn't "cherry picking" at all. Rather, the problem here was IDONTLIKE on the part of Volunteer Marek. – Herzen (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"That is OR": Believing you are right or the other party is wrong isn't a reason to continue to edit war. Everyone who edit wars thinks they're right. Stickee (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The article is no longer protected. Are there any objections to my adding the text quoted at the start of this Talk section? No reasons not to include it have been given here thus far. – Herzen (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If your 'here' includes the list of Edit summaries then your last statement is false. Lklundin (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I would still argue against such edit because it places blame on the Ukrainian side, whereas the area of crash is controlled by insurgents, not the Ukrainian government. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like it for that reason, but Malaysian government officials are voicing that perspective, and it's their opinion that matters, not mine. My only concerns are weight and notability, I only saw 9 sources for it in Google news the other day and they looked like regional outlets. But I don't have a strong opinion on this point either way. Geogene (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of any other stories that report that investigators are not going to get back to the crash site before winter? I think the article should mention that. If by "regional" you mean Malaysian, it should not be surprising that regional outlets are still paying attention to MH17-related developments (Western media have totally lost interest), given that MH17 was a Malaysian plane and Malaysians were on board. The source I used was not regional, but Turkish. This Turkish outlet seems to have particular interest in interactions between the Muslim world and the West; thus this story. – Herzen (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The objections made in the edit summaries have been dealt with and dismissed, so my statement is true. In any case, I don't see how anyone can construe "here" to mean anything other than this Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source. Of course the minister raises valid points. According to the publication, here they are: (a) in the end of September, the investigators are still unable to work at the crash site; they were fired at by unknown gunmen at the crash site; (b) Ukrainian government can not provide any guarantees of their safety because this area is still controlled by rebels. That can be included of course, but I thought it was already clear from the text. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

---

PM3 made an edit which states that the resumption of the on-site investigation will be delayed, so there is no longer a reason to include the material I proposed here. – Herzen (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at this:

• Ukrainian teams to resume MH17 crash site search: report
• Ukrainian teams to search MH17 crash site for remains

The Ukraine continues the recovery work today. --PM3 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Mined crash site?

This does not make sense:

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

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

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

I noticed this from AFP: "Journalists turned into a nearby village to ask if there was another way round: "Sorry, but it is maybe mined," a local man said of the only other road." ([10]). Stickee (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least the OSCE claim is rubbish. During the battle of the last month the OSCE had no free access whatsoever to the Donbass region, but hung around at two bordercrossings only, which they were not allowed to leave. And these new incidents include OSCE personel which is led to certain places with separatist clearance only. So its basically a worthless demonstration and not an independent mission. Alexpl (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of other sources reporting the same statements: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Stickee (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

@Stickee: I have replaced the censor.net.ua citation with a citation needed tag. There is absolutely no excuse for using an utterly disreputable Russian language source when there are plenty of reliable English language sources available. – Herzen (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Stickee (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just saying that ru:Цензор.нет (censor.net.ua) is a perfectly legitimate Ukrainian RS by independent journalists; we have articles about this newspaper in Russian and Ukrainian WP. My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Informed Russians consider censor.net.ua to be utterly loony and a laughing stock. What Russian WP says about it is irrelevant, since as I've said before, when it comes to matters Ukrainian, Russian WP represents the POV of the Anglosphere, not of Russians. Most Russians think that MH17 was downed by a Ukrainian fighter shooting it with cannon fire; most Germans believe the conventional NATO/Ukrainian nonsense that it was shot down by a SAM. Yet Russian WP doesn't even mention this theory which most Russians believe, whereas German WP gives it considerable attention. If you want a wikipedia which reflects Russian opinion, you have to go to Луркморье. – Herzen (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You have a very peculiar definition of who "informed Russians" are. Or, for that matter, what a "reliable source" is. WP:NOTHERE applies. Volunteer Marek  00:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ceaseless gainsaying of virtually every comment I make serves no useful purpose. Please stop hounding me. – Herzen (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Actuallly, it is a wording like 'NATO/Ukrainian nonsense that it was shot down by a SAM' that 'serves no useful purpose'. So yes, you should take this as an opportunity to rethink how you contribute. Lklundin (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. This is an English/Russian/Ukrainian language source created by independent Ukrainian journalists. It has nothing to do with Russian public opinion. If you have doubts, please ask others at WP:RS noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you don't care about what Russians think (why? because you hate Russians?), but there is enough material here to make Censor.net be declared an unreliable source at WP:RS. It is an anti-Russian fake news site. Here is an example of one of its headlines: "In the late evening, someone looking like Putin shot a passerby in Kreschatik." – Herzen (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One more warning, comments like these: "I know you don't care about what Russians think (why? because you hate Russians?)" are completely uncalled for, offensive and, well, not particularly bright. Also, what some liveournal blog says has no bearing on how we evaluate sources. Volunteer Marek  00:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And your threats aren't appreciated either. I try to ignore your comments whenever I can, since I have never seen you drop your battleground attitude; why can't you just ignore my comments? – Herzen (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone's who's going around accusing other editors of "hating Russians" really has no business accusing others of "battleground attitude". Volunteer Marek  14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm with Herzen on this one, since Censor.net has previously been accused of producing fakes ([16], [17]). Like I said, I also wonder why the Russian mass media is always treated as fake and Ukrainian as genuine, while both Russia and Ukraine are involved in the conflict. In fact, it seems to me that among the Russian, the Ukrainian and the Western news sources the Ukrainian ones are the most ideologically motivated: Russia does have some oppositional media like Dozhd or Novaya Gazeta which speak out in support of Ukraine, and the West also has some pro-Russia and pro-Putin news outlets (mostly among American conservative press); but I cannot think of a single Ukrainian news agency that wouldn't be pro-Maidan and anti-Putin. Buzz105 (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia still claims they are not involved- so either they lie which makes them instantly unreliable or they are indeed not involved making their media as relevant as that of Zimbabwe. Ukranian media is also not taken on face value. Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Russian government and Russia news media – much more diverse than those in the US, Britain, France, or Germany – are two completely different things, so your point is completely irrelevant. (But then, it is hard to attack Russia without making a fallacious argument.) – Herzen (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Buzz105:, very little specifically Ukrainian material or POV is in the article. Most of it is "Western", the next most is Russian, and there are a couple of Ukrainian statements. If editors here were searching Ukrainian media and government statements, there could be a lot more in the article. But what you'll find is mostly their materials that have been referenced by Western sources. There is no concerted effort to put Ukrainian POV in the article, unlike the Russian POV. Geogene (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Buzz105: Actually, I know of one Ukrainian news outlet that is not pro-Maidan, and so can be considered oppositional: Vesti. They are regularly harassed by the SBU and Right Sector. Not surprisingly, I have never seen Vesti used as a source here. – Herzen (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is probably because there are millions of news outlets in the world and we cannot use them all. Also editors prefer English language sources both because they can read those, and because the target audience of English language Wikipedia can read them. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Maximum number of passengers for this plane ?

While 283 passengers were killed, the section 'Aircraft' reads: 'Powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 892 engines and carrying up to 282 passengers'.

This apparent inconsistency should be explained or resolved. Lklundin (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Good call. I don't know the answer. Malaysia Airlines does indeed list passenger capacity at 282 for this type of aircraft in their fleet. Perhaps there were small children on board that did not have their own seat. Does someone know how to find a source to such an idea? Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably infants or babies (under age of 2) being carried http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/uk/en/plan/special-needs/infant-and-children.html. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's two responses. One says "Perhaps". The other says "Probably". Don't speculate please. HiLo48 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We have the same issue open at de:Diskussion:Malaysia-Airlines-Flug 17#282 Sitzplätze für 283 Passagiere? since 18 July. So far noone found a source which resolves this. --PM3 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

More speculation http://www.ibtimes.com/malaysia-airline-updated-passenger-list-three-infants-among-298-dead-1632140 say three infants the official MAS list doesnt give ages. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So I guess this semi-resolves the discrepancy then? Stickee (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. If an infant caused the discrepancy and three infants were on board, then two of them occupied seats. If two infants occupied seats, the third one as well may have occupied a seat, while the discrepancy e.g. may have been caused by a crew member using the jump seat due to overbooking. So we still know nothing. --PM3 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I made a logical flaw: Of course all three infants may have occupied no seats, and two seats been left unoccupied. But the safest way to fly with infants is to reserve own seats for them and use an appropriate infant seat. So this information still does not help. --PM3 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No it does not help, but at least it gives arguments why in some situations the number of people actually on a plane can be more than the number of listed seats in a specific configuration. This at least makes clear in this thread that there is probably no true inconsistency. But without sourced information we should not change the article itself right now. Arnoutf (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: I noticed this image showing partial seating allocations published here. Do you know where they got the info to make the image? Update: I just found this with more seating allocations on it (but still only partial). Stickee (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

https://de.scribd.com/doc/234401036/MH17-passenger-list --PM3 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Combine it with [18] for the nationalities. --PM3 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

German families of MH17 victims suing Ukraine for negligence

An edit about this story keeps on getting reverted, with claims that this was discussed before, with consensus being reached that this is undue. But for the life of me, I can't find the discussion. There is no Talk section heading for this subject; I looked through Talk archives through when this story came out, on 21 September. Also, I searched for the string "sue", and nothing came up. Finally, I looked through the Talk page history, and didn't see any edit summaries which appeared to relate to this story.

Could someone please find the previous discussion and post a link to it? I want to see how a consensus was reached that a story which received wide coverage in reliable English language sources is not notable. Thanks in advance, and my apologies for my ineptness at finding this discussion myself. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has now been protected because of edit warring. – Herzen (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure we should add every speculative legal case they are not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree here. There hasn't been mention in the article of a potential lawsuit/legal action against Malaysia Airlines ("Malaysia Airlines could face a costly negligence lawsuit on top of a US$54.5 million compensation bill for the loss of 298 lives on MH17"), or a lawsuit against Russia/Putin ("British lawyers preparing multi-million pound suit against Putin for MH17 crash"). Stickee (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I didn't know about those. As for that English lawsuit, given how disinterested Western media have become in MH17, I really don't think that's going anywhere. – Herzen (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Herzen. Others acted by the rules. You need consensus to include any new information that causes objections for whatever reason. Offending another contributor, as you just did and providing link to stolen and possibly manufactured private correspondence of another person (in the diff) does not really help your cause. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this private lawsuit is not important enough to be mentioned here. --PM3 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. But it's interesting that nobody has shown when this was discussed before, in response to my request. The stories about this private lawsuit suggested it would be filed this month. If it does get filed, I think it would become noteworthy. For now, I take the discussion to be closed. – Herzen (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If a lawsuit is filed and reported on by reliable secondary sources, I think it's potentially noteworthy. What I don't want to see is it being used in a WP:SYNTH fashion to help construct a political argument supporting the Kremlin's finger-pointing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that there was any SYNTH going on. That edit just reported the argument made by the lawyer of the families, as reported in the cited source. That edit wasn't made by me btw, but by an editor who, as far as I know, has not made any other edits to this article. Then Volunteer Marek started an edit war, by falsely stating in his edit summary that this story had been discussed before and consensus was reached not to include it. (To repeat, I looked for a prior discussion and could not find it.) Discussion has now taken place and consensus reached. (To engage in a bit of OR, I would be surprised if this suit ever gets filed. If it were, that could lead to a public relations disaster.) – Herzen (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that was legitimate revert per WP:BRD. Then you started edit war without proper discussion. And we still do not have consensus to include this info right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

ICAO State Letter

For the recently added text regarding the ICAO State Letter, I suggest getting the info directly from ICAO, e.g.

http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/_layouts/mobile/dispform.aspx?List=4eda7e5f-5dd9-4feb-b103-cd18e975af9a&View=8c57fcfa-a83b-4899-9f29-8d3f226caaf7&ID=972

Lklundin (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(Boldly) done. (But is this State Letter really relevant here?) Lklundin (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the link to the non-mobile version. I'm not sure it adds much either. And the sentence in the following paragraph (added in the same edit) with "Article 3" seems a bit obvious too. Update: I see you've now deleted the Article 3 paragraph. Stickee (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

One passenger had an oxygen mask on

This is noteworthy, since this development suggests that passengers were not killed instantly, so that they knew what was happening to them.

BBC: Dutch minister says passenger 'wore oxygen mask'

An AFP report on this story says that "the Dutch cabinet said chances of returning to the MH17 crash site were becoming increasingly remote." That may be worth mentioning, since so far, the article only mentions what Malaysians say about the on-site investigation being delayed.

I suggest that we discuss how to treat this new development here first, because of the sensitivity of the issue. This is the first significant development since the DSB preliminary report was released. – Herzen (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

About 9 hours ago I added that info quoting the website for the TV station where the statement first appeared. Lklundin (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for not noticing that. – Herzen (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Dutch television reported that they have no idea how oxygen mask ended up around the neck of a single person. Not sure we should mention this before we hear more of this (in my view there could be alternative explanations - e.g. after decompression masks were automatically released, during disintegration this one got hooked by part of the plain and pulled over the head of the passenger where it was found). So we should indeed be very very careful on this until we get an official explanation.

Altogether I think this information has little relevance/significance for our article without a formal report how that came there, so I would opt to leave it out for the time being. Arnoutf (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian quotes a Dutch prosecutor, that the mask was found around the neck of one (and just one) victim, and that forensics could secure no fingerprints nor saliva (DNA) from the mask, "[s]o it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim":

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/09/mh17-one-passenger-wearing-oxygen-mask

So it is indeed vague what is being concluded in any formal report. Lklundin (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on removal, so far it is not significant and will just fuel conspiration theories. --PM3 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So is there consensus on removal? I originally thought this should be included, but I agree with others that it is hard to know what to make of this. So I think that mentioning this is kind of gossipy and sensationalist. If several people had gas masks on, that would be different. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, at least, that the language ("indicating") was too strong. Commentary on the meaning of this bit of evidence is written more cautiously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Careful now, about the "evidence". When I added the text, I was quoting Timmermans, so the text was just his statement, which by no means constitutes "evidence". Whether or not his statement regarding the oxygen mask is relevant, can be debated. Following the above info from the Guardian, I am in favour of removing the quote. So nothing about any evidence. Lklundin (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here's a list of news agencies that have written a full story on the matter. I haven't included individual newspapers otherwise the list would be 5 pages long.

• Associated Press [19]
• Agence France-Presse [20]
• Reuters (not a full story) [21]
• Australian Associated Press [22]
• APN News & Media [23]
• Indo-Asian News Service [24]
• Bloomberg News agency [25]
• Asian News International [26]
• BNO News [27]
• United Press International [28]
• Xinhua News Agency [29]

Not necessarily making an argument for or against inclusion though. Stickee (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my mind again and now think this should be included. Here is a link to the LA Times story. It explains how Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans basically blurted out this new piece of information which was not included in the DSB report, for some reason. Indeed, that report said that the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder data streams just end, with no indication of any trouble. How anybody would have time to put on an oxygen mask in the wake of the instantaneous, catastrophic destruction claimed to have occurred by the DSB is a mystery. – Herzen (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory building please. The DSB did not claim an "instantaneous destruction", but said that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft. It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural intergrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up. They also wrote that the cockpit likely separated from the rest of the aircraft early. I think that would immediately stop all flight recordings. --PM3 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop throwing around the term "conspiracy theory" as a means of stifling discussion. That is extremely uncivil. How many times do I have to say this? The official Western account of who shot MH17 down is a highly implausible conspiracy theory, involving Russia providing rebels with missiles they didn't need. – Herzen (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be stupid to include at this point. They couldnt secure DNA or fingerprints of that passenger on that mask, so it may have just got around the persons neck by coincidence, or somebody else put it there later. Altough I understand that its beneficial for certain individuals to use such an "opportunity" to raise doubts in the work of the DSB researchers. Alexpl (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have therefore removed Timmermans now obsolete statement - as well as a non-notable story about people being shocked to learn of the oxygen mask. Instead I wrote the actual reported information regarding the mask, which may have some relevance. (But with only one person found wearing a mask and no proper access control to the crash site, it could just be someone who found the mask and a dead body and decided to mess with the world). Lklundin (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

German expert Peter Haisenko on photos of MH-17's cockpit

According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.

What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit:

The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. (Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” Global Research, July 30, 2014) More here http://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324 Въ 95.220.104.74 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all GlobalResearch is not a reliable source (as stated on this talk many times before). Secondly, we would need a ballistics, of at least weapons expert for these claims, not a civil pilot; who is not professionally familiar with this kind of damage to aircraft (one may hope). Third this claim was previously discussed - so nothing new here - ie no need for change to the article.Arnoutf (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How about a real military ace with 485 combat flights on Su-25? In a RTR TV talk show of October 10, 2014 former vice-president of Russia Alexander Rutskoy dismissed any versions of a surface-to-air missle shooting at the Malasian Boeing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj_QFj1VcsQ. Had it been Buk, he said, Malasian aircraft would have fallen apart into small fragments. The holes were sure to having been left by Su-25 cannon, he said. Mr Rutskoy claims of having had a vast experience of shooting that cannon both in real actions and at the military firing fields. Въ 95.220.104.74 (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If it were reliably sourced and analysed by a secondary source we might have a look at it; especially since Rutskoy (considering his political activities) may have an agenda with his statement; we should be careful with using him as primary source. Arnoutf (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

While unsuitable here, Mr. Rutskoy's statement regarding the SU-25 can be used on the Russian version of this article, where magically the SU-25 has a service ceiling well above 10km. Lklundin (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just not reliable, but a conspiracy website. Eg 9/11 Truth in 2014: Is a Breakthrough Possible? Stickee (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We´ve already dicussed that guy / the publication before. Here: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 18#The air-to-air missile version Just forget it. Alexpl (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• In that RTR TV channel talk show of October 10, 2014 Mr. Rutskoy also confirmed flying as high as 11,000 meters aboard his Su-25 (its maximum ceiling being 14,600 meters) before attacking the targets and on return flights. No surprise. Su-25 is propelled by the same pair of engines as MiG-21 with its service ceiling of 15,000 meters. But one does have to put on an oxygen mask higher than 7,000 meters, said the retired ace. Въ 95.220.104.74 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case we will soon learn that Rutskoy has been court martialed and shot for revealing state secrets regarding this as yet completely unknown super-capable SU-25. Unless of course Rutskoy is just a Russian propagandist (making you a useful idiot). If in doubt just apply Occam's razor. Lklundin (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• How about suing the Ucrainian Ucroboronservice as well? ("UKROBORONSERVICE" is a state enterprise which major activity is the realization of state interests of Ukraine in the field of export / import of products, military-technical and special-purpose services. ) It also reveils the same "secrets" on Su-25 service ceiling. Look at its official site: http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 . Should it be lower than 10,000 meters, you might sue it for false information on this product :)) Въ 95.220.136.114 (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

This Article is not Neutral

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

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

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

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

.

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

-

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

-

My recommendations would be as follows -

-

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Re 2: Three points here:

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

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

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

-

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

.

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

-

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

-

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

-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Herzen: it would be nice if you described what you see as the bias in this article – see [30]. --PM3 (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

How about the fact that there is no evidence to support the US accusation against Russia? John Kerry claims there's "overwhelming evidence," but even after a $30 million reward was offered, the largest reward ever, there is still no evidence. Source: IBT [31]. Reliable sources report that there is no evidence, like NBC [32], but those sources are ignored because editors like to cherry pick sources. The International Air Transport Association is begging for information so they can protect civilian planes, and they are ignored also [33]. Senior U.S. Intelligence Officers beg for evidence [34], but no evidence appears, only wild accusations. USchick (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, but it is inhibited by systemic bias that perpetuates a bias against underrepresented cultures and topics. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects on Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian Media Coverage Section

I propose this section should be changed to "International Media Coverage" and include media coverage from many different countries, since their reporting covers a variety of possibilities being considered by the investigators and not just one theory as outlined in this article. Any editors interested in reading them can use Goole translate: Czech [35], Vietnamese [36], Spanish [37], Italian [38], German [39]. The theories being considered are 1. MAS theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. USchick (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigation

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

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

The Czeck article does a good job of explaining it all in one place [40]. This Wikipedia article reads like there's only one version of the story, the Buk version, like that's already been determined, and it hasn't, that's why there's an investigation going on. USchick (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

That's because all information related to the investigation is classified. [41] This also needs to be explained in the article. USchick (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social media from Igor Girkin

VKontakte social media attributed to Igor Girkin, is highly speculative and is refuted by other sources. [42] Another person also claimed responsibility, also VKontakte. This is undue weight and certainly does not belong in the lede. USchick (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

It has also been reported in reliable sources that he is not the one managing his VKontakte profile. [43] "Some of these pages are maintained by Strelkov’s sincere fans. Others are run by Ukrainian activists, still others just by pranksters. As a result, it can sometimes be difficult to divine authentic quotes from fabrications." So again, this is speculation that doesn't belong in the lede. If it's not appropriate to talk about international media coverage, why is this bit of trivia relevant and in the lede? USchick (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I read the archives where it has been pointed out repeatedly that his profile is fake, and editors choose to ignore this fact. Did i miss something? I provided a source where another Russian rebel claims responsibility for the attack. Here it is again [44]. Please explain to me why sources are being cherry picked to support only one version of events? This article is clearly disputed and the POV tag was very justified. Why was it removed? USchick (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Another source: "Different versions of the events surrounding Flight MH17" [45] USchick (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This is the original list of sources Czech [46], Vietnamese [47], Spanish [48], Italian [49], German [50]. The theories being considered are 1. SAMs theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. This article only talks about one version, the SAMs version. Including this information would bring balance to the article. USchick (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

There are three editors begging for balance in this article, so I'm sorry if we inconvenience you. The Vietnamese article is no longer working, but here is a Malaysian one instead [51] USchick (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

In the archives there is the hint that NST is used as a source for thousands of WP articles: [52]. It's an ordinary, traditional newspaper, with some political bias, as I guess about halve of the sources used in this article have. --PM3 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

spurious tag - again

We've been through this already. People got warned and sanctioned for edit warring to add a POV tag to this article without substantiating it. So here we go again.

1. Spurious tagging is disruptive and can get you blocked.

2. Edit warring to restore a spurious tag is even worse.

3. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you just express your dislike of the article. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

4. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you believe it extremely unfair that the article does not reflect the conclusions that you personally arrived at after reading all kinds of junk on the internet. See WP:OR.

5. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you whine on the talk page about how mean editors or imaginary cabals won't let you push your own POV on the article. In fact, that's exactly the reason why you DON'T get to add a tag. See WP:NPOV.

6. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that your deeply cherished views about how "Western media" or "mainstream media" or "reliable sources" are "biased" against your opinions and prejudices are taken seriously.

7. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you've found some wacky conspiracy websites or news outlets of the Islamic Republic of Iran and since these are not used in the article, then it must be POV.

8. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN demanding that "all views", no matter how fringe or unrepresented in reliable sources, are "given equal due". That is in fact completely opposite of Wikipedia policies of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE all of which support WP:NPOV.

9. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you claim you can add a tag because there is couple other editors, or more often than not, sketchy throw away accounts, soapboxing about how unfair it is on the talk page. NPOV actually trumps CONSENSUS, and CONSENSUS is not a majority.

Substantiating an article means pointing out specifically where the article violates particular Wikipedia policies. To be precise - asserting that the article violates a policy is not enough. Anyone can assert anything. You need to support it.

Until this is done, the tag goes. Volunteer Marek  21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the continued edit warring to restore the spurious tag, as in here [53] ""Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.""

Stuff in the tag itself is not policy. The policy is right here: WP:NPOV. The tag template documentation is here Template:POV. It says very clearly:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. (my emphasis)

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. (my emphasis)

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.' (that whole thing needs to be emphasized, but especially the "not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public" part, since some of you appear to be confused on that point).

 Volunteer Marek  21:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See my explanation above where the sources contradict what you claim in this article. USchick (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Where? The Vkontakte/Strelkov stuff? Sources do not contradict what is being claimed (not by me, btw) in the article. Please start linking to what it is you're referring to rather than playing games where I'm expected to read your mind. Volunteer Marek  22:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling on an admin to enforce sanctions

The 3 revert rule is being ignored by some editors. Considering that this article has sanctions, it shouldn't take 3 reverts. I call on an admin to review this page and enforce sanctions please. USchick (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the rule being broken. And the only editor who's come close to breaking it is Herzen. Volunteer Marek  01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to stop your personal attacks on me. I haven't come any closer to breaking 3RR than you have. – Herzen (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh... what "personal attack" have I made against you? Please keep in mind that unfounded accusations of personal attacks can be taken to be personal attacks themselves. (You made 3 reverts, so yeah, you came "close". I didn't)  Volunteer Marek  01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool down. You're imagining things. I only made two reverts. – Herzen (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And now you've actually broken the 3RR rule: [54] [55] [56] [57]. Yes, the insertion of the tag is a revert; it is essentially a resurrection of a previous edit-war over the tag from couple weeks ago. Please self-revert. Contrary to what you may think, I actually DON'T want to report you. Volunteer Marek  03:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Some anonymous IP keeps inserting the superfluous '(all)' and '(None)' on the Shootdown Summary. It is there again now. Lklundin (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin: I've already reported that IP to AN3 for violating 3RR. Stickee (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked for semi-protection of the article on account of that IP's mischief. – Herzen (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all speculation out of the lede

Can we please agree to stick to the facts at least in the lede? “The initial results of the investigation point towards an external cause of the MH17 crash,” said Tjibbe Joustra, the board’s chairman, adding in an interview that metal fragments were found in the bodies of flight crew and are undergoing further analysis. The preliminary report stopped short of laying the blame on a missile strike. Source: Bloomberg [58] USchick (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

None of that is "speculation". It's all reliably sourced and notable information. Stickee (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all propaganda speculation and none of it is supported by the investigation. USchick (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about the investigation but about the flight. Like Stickee says, it's all reliably sourced and notable information. Volunteer Marek  01:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And cherry picked. USchick (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Says you. If you got other reliable sources, please, let's see'em. And no (before you waste more of my time), I don't mean sources about the investigations, those are already included.  Volunteer Marek  01:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

At least the investigation is factual. The rest is wild speculation and posturing from individual countries and some of them aren't even involved. That's undue weight for sure. USchick (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You're getting desperate. You keep coming with new objections when your previous ones are shown to be merit less. Information based on reliable sources, which has appeared extensively in reliable sources is not "undue". Volunteer Marek  02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding personal attacks: "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible." – Herzen (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, is "I" ok? As in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?  Volunteer Marek  02:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no effort to collaborate here, only hostile accusations. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT also applies to editors who refuse to listen to opinions of other editors asking for collaboration. USchick (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to collaborate with someone who claims that a reliable source doesn't actually say what the reliable very clearly says. And does this repeatedly, even when the source is quoted directly. Volunteer Marek  02:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But you forget, Volunteer Marek -- "speculation" = whatever information certain editors don't want to be in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The people who made the claim were discredited, and then they rescinded on their own claim. Yes, that's speculation even if it was widely reported. Why is this speculation still in the lede? USchick (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think introduction is fine. I would mostly agree with VM arguments in these recent discussions. We can not serve as experts on anything, but only summarize what majority of English language RS tell. What they tell is not necessarily the "fact" or "the truth", and they should not be indisputable facts. This is a complicated story, and introduction simply summarizes content of the page; some content is obviously controversial. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary of today's arguments

1. An edit war about whether or not this article is disputed and whether or not a tag is warranted.

2. An attack on a new editor who raised concerns about the article.

3. An effort to OWN the article by editors who support the official US version, even though the international media reports different accounts.

4. Whether or not a discredited claim on a social media profile belongs in the lede.

Did I miss anything? USchick (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. The point. Repeatedly. Volunteer Marek  03:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• There are two very different options here: (a) an RfC about content issues - then please follow all instructions and do not bring behavior (edit war, etc.), or (b) a complaint on administrative noticeboard about specific users (then content questions are hardly relevant). Keep in mind that this edit represents removal of material sourced to RS, not to social media.My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That particular edit had support on the talk page at the time of the edit. USchick (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This was the state of the talk at the time of your edit (relevant section linked). Zero comments. Not exactly sure how that constitutes "support". Stickee (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec, @ USchick) No, no it didn't. It was made at 19:40 today (10/12/14). At that time the only talk page comment about the issue was the one you made yourself, at 19:08. So unless by "had support" you mean "by me, myself, and I", then no, it didn't have support. Volunteer Marek  04:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek was engaged in an edit war about what plane was being discussed. When they finally determined that the plane that had no relation to this article, I deleted the information from the lede as irrelevant to this article and said so in my edit summary. My edit was reverted in the ongoing edit war. Are we going to argue about this also? I'm signing off for tonight. USchick (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a completely false, or even dishonest, description of what happened, yeah, we are going to argue about it. I have not been engaged in any edit war "about what plane was being discussed". One more time. You made your edit at 19:40. My last edit before that was... on October 5th! A week ago! How in hell could I've been "involved in an edit war" when I hadn't made an edit to the article in a week???? Your second sentence is incomprehensible. Your edit was reverted not by me, but by another editor.

You know, if you're going to try to make someone look bad, it helps if the evidence to the contrary isn't sitting right there in plain sight for all to see. Just like if you're going to claim that a source doesn't say something, it helps if the quote from the source isn't sitting right there for all to see. Volunteer Marek  05:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Lklundin was the one edit warring about the plane. Can I go now? USchick (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok.  Volunteer Marek  05:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the plane I made a single revert of an edit that was clearly contradicting the quoted sources. A single revert does not constitute an edit war. Lklundin (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

MH17 ATC communication @ YouTube

Nice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HDR32KEAns&t=214s --PM3 (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

By the sounds of it, it's the audio of the transcript published in the DSB prelim report (pg 15) right? Stickee (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. While the DSB refrained from publishing this, it's freely available at YouTube. --PM3 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Could be some sort of reenactment by that Igor dude. The rest of his videos leave litte room for speculation on his motives. We cant link to that. Alexpl (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This applies even more to the telephone recordings which not only are linked in the article, but embedded as external audio. But of course they meet the right POV, while this video fails to do so.

Maybe just the ATC/radar recording segment can be found somewhere without the doubious TV report attached? --PM3 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A summary for editors new here

Stuff for new editors:

• Welcome!
• It has been concluded more than once that New Straits Times is not a reliable source for this.
• That people continually propose using "that NST article" as a source proves that it's fringey compared to other sources.
• Yes, the article is biased towards a "Western" POV; this reflects what seems to be the bulk of sources.
• Russian sources have a very different perspective from most of the rest of the world.
• The article is supposed to be biased towards the bulk of reliable sources.
• What "neutral" means in Wikipedia is different from what most new users assume it means. (see WP:NPOV)
• The NPOV tag is strongly opposed by consensus.
• The article is no place for conspiracy theories. (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE)
• "Systemic bias" is not an excuse to override any core content policy.

Edit warring takes place on most weekends. Geogene (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Geogene, but please be careful, or Lklundin will tell me off again for being needy. Tennispompom (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding point 4, I would agree to "bulk of English language media", which are the preferred source for English language Wikipedia articles. The language-independend "Western POV" is another one.

Regarding the NST: There is an NST article used as rerence here (No. 117). If it is not considered as a reliable source, that should be removed / replaced by another source. --PM3 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the policy on NPOV discriminates between English RS and global RS for weight purposes. I discriminate by necessity, but I realize my experience isn't the definitive sample of all RS out there. Interesting that the NST slipped in ...but the statement it references is not controversial or likely to be challenged. Geogene (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. It didn't add much anyway. Volunteer Marek  21:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: If there have been discussions about the reliability of New Straits Times, I missed them. Wikipedia says New Strait Times is "Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print". Thus, I find it highly unlikely that one can make a general conclusion that it is unreliable. Rather, the idea that it is unreliable seems to derive from the systemic bias of some editors. The New Straight Times does not always adhere to the US government's narrative about MH17, hence it must be unreliable. See how that works? If a source entertains the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, it is unreliable. Thus, there are no reliable sources which consider the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17.

Calling the theory that a fighter jet shot down a conspiracy theory and WP:FRINGE is a cheap shot, uncivil, and a false allegation. As I said before, if this were fringe, German Wikipedia would not cover this topic, and Time magazine would not point out that the DSB preliminary report is consistent with a fighter jet having shot MH17 down. Since Germany is part of the West, Western POV recognizes that Kiev might have shot the plane down. The reason English Wikipedia does not consider this possibility is not the Western POV of English Wikipedia, but that pro-Kiev editors own the Ukraine articles.

No matter how often some editors shout Conspiracy theory!!!, the theory that a fighter jet shot down MH17 does not become any more of a conspiracy theory than the theory that rebels shot it down with a Buk. – Herzen (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I browsed the Time article [59] again. Time is complaining about DSB report being vague, and blames obstruction from the separatists for it. It would be disingenuous to use it to cite a statement that those are consistent with bullet holes when that's not what the article is trying to get across, in context. In fact, the tone of the piece implies that they wish the DSB would just blame the separatists right there. Geogene (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously Time would have liked the report to point directly at the rebels. Unfortunately for Time, the DSB didn't do that. And Time, unlike any other major US news outlet as far as I know, explicitly pointed out that the DSB report "leaves room for" the theory that Kiev shot down the plane. I honestly don't see how Time being unhappy about that means that it is "disingenuous" to use that Time article to explain what the facts are. Every time a reliable source is presented entertaining the possibility that Kiev shot the plane down, WP editors produce an argument for why that source cannot be used. It doesn't matter how convoluted or incoherent the argument is. The point is that an argument gets made, and then editors who like the article as it is can say that there is consensus not to use this source. – Herzen (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not uncivil to call conspiracy theories what they are. Also, Time didn't say that the DSB report is consistent with an air-to-air missile, and I recall the first time you brought it up. The fact that you read it like that shows the lengths you'll go to to substantiate your own very strong views on the subject, and I don't think agreement with you is possible. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is what Time said:

the wording of the 34-page report … was also vague enough to leave room for one of the more common theories among the rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the disaster on the Ukrainian government on the night of the crash; and in the days that followed, some of the separatists claimed in interviews with TIME that a Ukrainian fighter jet had, for some reason, intercepted the airliner and sprayed it with chain-gun fire. As evidence, they pointed to the many small holes in the fuselage, suggesting that these looked like the work of a machine gun shooting another type of high-energy object — bullets.

How is the meaning of "leave room for" significantly different from that of "consistent with", pray tell? – Herzen (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Is BBC a Reliable Source? They are biased, since they are under pressure from the British government:

Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster, Conservative) The logic of what my hon. Friend says is that we should be interfering with what BBC interviewers do, across the globe. That is not necessarily a positive route forward. Much as I understand some of my hon. Friend's concerns, surely we should not underestimate the intelligence of people who read such interviews, and their ability to read between the lines. I wonder whether that is happening only in relation to Russia; presumably the BBC has sensitivities with other countries in its interviews with politicians or leading business folk. It is a slightly dangerous path if my hon. Friend is asking any Government effectively to interfere in the BBC's operations abroad.

Greg Hands (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Hammersmith and Fulham, Conservative) I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I strongly disagree with him. Members of Parliament should watch carefully the overall direction that the BBC takes in its foreign coverage. It would obviously not be appropriate for us to interfere or intervene at a localised level, but we should all be concerned if the BBC is allowing the unmediated views of someone like Lavrov to be repeated at length.

Greg Hands (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Hammersmith and Fulham, Conservative) ... I recently met Peter Horrocks, the new head of the World Service, and found him much more amenable than his predecessor at the time of the Lavrov interview. A number of us in this House take an interest in what happens at the BBC Russian service and we look forward to a flourishing future for it.

(information from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-10-14d.73.0) Usernick (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it a policy violation of some kind to drown out the other side's comments in copy/paste irrelevancy? Because there's a lot of going on in this talk page, and I'd like to have something done about it. Geogene (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

An example of how the BBC is an instrument of UK government policy is that it deleted from its Web site this video of a BBC Russian Service report, in which eyewitnesses say they saw fighter jets near MH17 when it exploded. – Herzen (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That's another globalresearch conspiracy theory/crazy spin. You really need to stop reading that website. You can't use it here, and reading it is probably not good for one's thinking abilities. Long term side effects and all that. Volunteer Marek  02:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your point? Are you denying that that was a report done by the BBC Russian Service? Or that the BBC removed it from its Web site? What is the conspiracy theory here? And I never read Global Research, and I have never brought it up on WP. Note that I ignored the Talk section which is based on a Global Research piece, "German expert Peter Haisenko on photos of MH-17's cockpit". – Herzen (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you speculating as to why BBC pulled the report from their site? Do you know the circumstances? It's equally reasonable to speculate that, after some fact checking, they found some nasty holes in it. If you think it's 'spooky', why don't you email them and ask. You never know, they might come up with a non-conspiracy-worthy explanation. It's one thing to be able to see obvious holes in soundbytes: it's another to find holes and make up your own storyline as to where, how and why. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Tennispompom's Proposal (14 Oct)

Hi everyone, Just in case you've been missing me, I haven't forgotten you, been busy. I’ve been on a rapid familiarisation trail, Wikipedia rules, principles, etc. Even my User page now exists - thanks for providing the inspiration! Enjoy.

And now to serious business!

Yesterday was an eye-opener for me. I don’t know if it was triggered by my arrival, or if chaos and anarchy rule every day. Coming in as recently as I did, I have a fresh eye. You may find my observations painful, but nothing can be gained by my giving you a pep talk. I've spent quite a few hours typing into notepad, because the comments were coming so fast yesterday, I couln't get the article to update before someone made a contribution. I don't type that fast.

HERE GOES:- The first thing which needs to be sorted out is to try and bring a a collaborative, good mannered, considered and respectful WIKIPEDIA spirit to group of disparate, self-appointed editors who have fallen into a state of anarchy! It’s not so surprising, everyone has invested time, effort and conviction into this article, and want to protect their investment. But – due to the open nature of Wikipedia, nothing can be achieved while the editors are at each other’s throats. You are all caught up in the heat of the moment, whether your comments on the talk page reflect it or not, and as long as you fail to recognise that, the Article will remain a sad, ugly, mutilated corpse of a sheep mauled and torn appart by a pack of lone wolves. This reflects badly on Wikipedia, but also on you as individuals.

Nothing will be achieved unless collaboration and respect become the norm, and with that aim in mind, I now propose the below process. Please review it, think about it, and reply explicitly, so I can take a straw poll where everyone stands.

When you do reply, please say whether you are willing to participate in principle in a process such as the one I suggest below? If not, would you participate in a different organised, collaborative process? If you are not willing to participate in any collaborative process, would you stand aside and let the willing folks get on with it, or would you carry on editing as you have done up to now, irrespective of whether your approach disrupts the efforts of the volunteer group?

Those who are in principle for the process, please also list the items below which you would like to further discuss / query / change (e.g. discuss S.3, T.4).

next steps will follow on from your responses. If acceptable in principle, and no dissenters, then I’ll ask for volunteers. If we cannot achieve consensus for collaboration, then we’ll explore how else collaboration can be achieved.

STEP 1: THE PROPOSED PROCESS

Objective:

O.1 Re-structure, re-write and rationalise the article to be in line with Wikipedia rules and policies and by reference to Wikipedia best practice.

Approach & Team Structure:

S.1 Follow Wikipedia principles of NPOV, NOR, Verifiability. It became clear to me yesterday that we are unlikely to agree on our own beliefs and positions, however, we should all have sufficient self discipline to avoid belligerence and to agree on reliability or otherwise of fact, opinion, speculation and controversy.

S.2 Work as a team.

S.3 Adopt a project team structure. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but a project structure / hierarchy will improve efficiency. Obviously, this is voluntary, but if sufficient people agree, it’s quite doable.

S.4 I suggest the following roles: Project Manager (responsible: plan, article structure), Quality Control – at multiple levels, Pairs of editors assigned each section, one to draft, other to review, discussion amongst themselves but open to view on Talk page.

S.5 Issue management:- no initial interferrence with pair of co-editors from other teams unless issue escalated to main Quality Control group, to consist of all editors. Ultimate escallation to Wikipedia Administrators. Purpose of no initial interference is to allow for WIP and thinking, research (e.g. of Wiki rules), sources, etc.

S.6 Working method: ongoing and incremental review of all material, section by section, explicit agreement (sign off) ultimately by all parties

S.7 Ideally, each Article Section should have a corresponding Talk Section, prefixed by Responsible Editors, Current Status (WIP, Final Draft, review in progress, review resolved, issues escallated, Signed off by Section Editors), No of Issues open, No of issues Closed, Estimate to completion

Tasks:

T.1 Create Headings: headings to follow logical structure and sequence. Recognise that the story, and therefore the article content, is not frozen in time and must therefore evolve as facts, and opinions emerge and crystallise. (Two editors)

T.2 Move the existing content from current headings into new structure, by appropriately classifying the statements by reference to their type / source type / verifyability / contention. No editing / changing at this stage. (Two editors)

T.3 Write the first draft lede to be consistent with universal practice (lede should be brief, dry, an executive / management summary, nothing should appear in the lede which is not elaborated in more detail in the meat of the article). (Two editors)

T.4 Caveats section within lede: lede should make clear that the article is work in progress, as is the topic which it is covering. Lede should also state that the topic is contentious and that there is no common global concensus on the theory of how the crash happened, the party / parties responsible, nor on the evidence which has been provided by various parties.

T.5 Beef up the new / inadequate sections, review and rationalise each one in turn. Section sign off by section editors (two editors per Section)

T.6 Continue to update lede as new sections are reviewed modified (Two editors)

T.7 Add images, maps, graphics. (not sure if this should be separated out, can probably be handled by the editors of the relevant section, but needs to be reviewed for completeness / copyright, etc)

T.8 Cross-check Notes, References, citations, provide x-references to internal and external topics (any techies out there with a fast and powerful pc?

T.9 Whole article review formal review by all, sign-off by all. (Opportunity to review balance, weight, X-refs, etc)

T.10 OPTIONAL: invite senior Wikipedia editors / administrators to review (possibly aim for feature Article status, subject to final quality)

T.11 Review lessons learned – review / agree principles to be followed on maintenance, add to top of talk page.

T.12 Handover principles to maintenance editors.

Migration:

M.1 We need a Draft page for the restructured article, to coexist with the current page. Any ideas how this can be done within Wikipedia data structure/ config. mgt?

M.2 The current page should additionally be annotated stating that a major revision is under construction.

M.3 When new article is signed off and ready for handover, release the revised page.

End of Proposed Process

Tennispompom (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a little too ambitious (also completely contrary to how things work here, for better or worse. Btw, I apologize for my earlier suspicions that you may be a sockpuppet. I'm pretty sure now that you're not). You need something simpler, more specific and targeted. Volunteer Marek  20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is much too anarchic for that. I think Tennispompom's suggestion could only work if all the editors working on this article were employees of the same organization. – Herzen (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Its unlikely to get a version, which is accepted by all. If I remember correctly, even the preliminary DSB report was at one point blamed to be not neutral. But I may mix that up with the german WP. Maybe it would be best to split the screen in half, with one side showing theories from various sources in "the west" and the other side with approved theories from "Federation" media and associated stuff inspired by them. Alexpl (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to create another page along the lines of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories based on conspiracy theories from the "Federation". My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of sources in "the west" that have the same POV on MH17 as "Federation" sources do. Those sources aren't part of the corporate media however, and for some reason only sources which are part of the corporate media are considered reliable at WP. – Herzen (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, Alexpl and Volunteer Marek, Thanks for reading through, but let's please try and avoid spinning off into space (i.e. at a tangent), and please leave the extent of my ambitions and capabilities to me. I put in a lot of my time to write this, so please answer my question openly and honestly - are you willing or collaborate and commit or not? Have the courage of your convictions, this is not a trick question, so please answer exactly as you are willing (or not willing) to do. Tennispompom (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom: Please note that these three editors are not the only ones who have been involved with this article, or who keep their eye on its progress. You're welcome to try to 'strike a deal' with these editors, but it does not mean that other editors are obliged to agree with your perceptions of how the article ought to be written. Please read WP:OWN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course Iryna Harpy, as you may have noticed, my question was addressed to everyone on this talk page, who considers themselves an editor. Tennispompom (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in being assigned to a committee or reporting to a project manager. Geogene (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Geogene, first direct answer. Would your position re structured teamwork change, if you were the project manager? Tennispompom (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No. But thank you for the consideration. Geogene (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My goodness Geogene, why - you're assuming that I'm planning to take over!!! "She who must be obeyed!" LOL! I'm doing something quite different - ever read Cold Comfort Farm? Great read. Blessed be the peacemakers (and problem solvers and achievers of consensus too). I can but try, if it can't be done, we've all lost. Let me ask you one more question - if a willing, effective, consentual group can be established, would you be willing to avoid disrupting it's workings while the redrafting of the article is in progress? Tennispompom (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm willing to collaborate. But I've pretty much given up on bringing a semblance of NPOV to the article. I've made all the arguments I can think of why English Wikipedia should discuss more than one theory of what caused MH17 to crash the way German Wikipedia does, but my edits have always gotten reverted. And, as I said above, the underlying problem is this circular logic which some editors employ: If a source entertains the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, it is unreliable, because everyone knows that the rebels shot down MH17, so that consideration of any other possibility is a conspiracy theory. Thus, there are no reliable sources which consider the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17. – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

All I want is for this WP article to be as open minded as Time magazine (see the quote I gave in a previous section), but for that I am told by Geogene "I don't think agreement with you is possible." – Herzen (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, thanks - that's the spirit! No need for despondency, I think I have a way forward which could achieve NPOV, and a high quality article. This is only step 1 - establish who's willing to work in a collaborative manner, as part of a team. You are right - a team is a form of an organisation, but not necessarily a hierarchical one. It can be done through consensus, as long as no one wants to put a spoke in the wheel. Can a team of builders build a house if they're all tripping over each other? No. Can they build a house unless they follow the same agreed standard? No, but as long as basic Wikipedia principles are followed, the snagging list at the end will be manageable. Once we've established that we can collaborate and contribute as part of a team, then the Second step is for me to put forward a framework - an article structure, which follows Wikipedia prnciples (which everyone has accepted in theory), but which classifies the sources in quite a different way so as to make the reliability issue a much less contentious problem. You'll see what I mean if we get that far. Tennispompom (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom: you wrote "would you be willing to avoid disrupting it's workings while the redrafting of the article is in progress?" - you cannot expect all potential editors of this article to answer that question. Please avoid wasting time, instead spend a bit of your own time familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia - in the specific case: WP:SANDBOX. Lklundin (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lklundin, with respect, the time wasting you refer to is entirely due to your apparent inability to read the comments properly before responding. If you read my original question addressed to everyone - including you - instead of responding to piecemeal skimming over my responses to other users (and thus taking things out of context too!), you could have avoided wasting your, and now my time. Do try and be fair please, you have already made a sad start in good neighbourly relations by repeated unjustified accusations of time wasting, when in fact you are the one who's clearly struggling with efficiency by not keeping to the point. Here you are - I've made it easier for you by repeating my original question, so you don't need to scroll up: "When you do reply, please say whether you are willing to participate in principle in a process such as the one I suggest below? If not, would you participate in a different organised, collaborative process? If you are not willing to participate in any collaborative process, would you stand aside and let the willing folks get on with it, or would you carry on editing as you have done up to now, irrespective of whether your approach disrupts the efforts of the volunteer group?"

It's a straightforward question, save yourself and me some time and answer it please. From your reaction to me so far, I get the impression, perhaps wrong, that you are not interested or willing to commit to a collaborative joint effort, preferring to do things your way. If that is the case, have the courage to say so openly - who knows, you might find that I decide that it's not worth my effort on this article, an incentive for you? I really don't understand why it seems to be so hard to get commitment to collaboration - isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? I do hope you can confirm your willingness to collaborate, but will respectfully understand your choice not to do so, if that is what you wish.

I've already read up about the Sandbox, I'm looking for something with slightly better configuration management, if it exists. Tennispompom (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom, do not waste your time any longer. In political articles under sanctions (like that one) the collaboration is dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see you don't take your own advice. – Herzen (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do: I am no longer really active in the project and only occasionally contribute to discussions as observer. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, Herzen, your cognitive skills are being selective again. In fact, My very best wishes is following his own advice well. He did suffer from wiki burn-out some time ago, but does (thankfully) return periodically in order to keep us on our toes. Note that I have certainly had disagreements with him, but respect his civil attitude and astute observations.

Protracted disputes and bewailing the fact that you're the only person who knows what sources are reliable, as you do, are a waste of time... as are reading tractats that one would normally dismiss with a WP:TL;DR just because someone is a newbie. It simply isn't the way Wikipedia works, nor will it ever be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

the fact that you're the only person who knows what sources are reliable I don't know why many editors feel they need to personalize this and pretend that I'm the only one who has problems with this article. – Herzen (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No ICAO standards to determine whether a flight path is safe

This is interesting and may be added to the article:

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak yesterday who had said that the tragedy of Flight MH17 had exposed an "uncomfortable truth", that there are no clear standards to determine whether a flight path is safe. - See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh17-tragedy-could-have-been-avoided-if-information-had-been-shared-suggest#sthash.Cs8f5YUe.dpuf

In a Bernama report, the prime minister had pointed out that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) – the United Nations global aviation body – issued advice on areas to avoid, but did not declare flight paths unsafe. - See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh17-tragedy-could-have-been-avoided-if-information-had-been-shared-suggest#sthash.Cs8f5YUe.dpuf Usernick (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines is a state-owned company, so Mr. Razak ist not neutral in this issue but has an interest in putting the blame on someone else. I think he is not a good source here. --PM3 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What a strange argument... Even if Malaysia Airlines is a state-owned company, how can you conclude that Mr. Razak has been influenced by this fact and lost neutrality? And do only neutral POVs get reported in Wikipedia? Is Mr. Razak wrong about the lack of the ICAO standards? Usernick (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ever seen a neutral politician? Of course he has an interest in bailing Malaysia Airlines out of this. This company has been costing the Malaysian tax payers lots of money, and the state just decided to invest even more of their money into it. Also it's a strategic company of Malaysia.

The ultimate responsibility for a safe operation and the choice of flight paths always lies with the airline, and Razak pretty obviously is distracting from that. He gives an interpretation of ICAO standards here, that includes personal opinion. I am not sure if there is a "right" or "wrong" interpretation here, it may depend on the point of view, and surely Mr. Razaks point of view should not go into this article without confirmation by a source independend from the airline's management. --PM3 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course assessments by non-neutral persons can also be included, attributing it to these persons. But then it should be staments of special relevance, which is usually not the case when politicians talk about "technical" thinks. --PM3 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Razak has not denied that "The ultimate responsibility for a safe operation and the choice of flight paths always lies with the airline," and he was not pretty obviously distracting from that. Rather, he regretted that. Also, since pretty many airlines were using that airspace, it is obvious that ICAO did not issue an order to avoid that airspace.

You can see also http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/ICAO+says+authority+determine+safety+Ukrainian+airspace/10042025/story.html , http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/mh17-flight-route-approved-eurocontrol-safe-icao-iata , http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/28/us-ukraine-crisis-airliner-icao-idUSKBN0FX20820140728 , http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/us-ukraine-crisis-airliner-icao-meeting-idUSKBN0FY20K20140729 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernick (talk • contribs) 07:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Would this be your first experience with political rhetoric, Usernick? Yes, but no, but yes, but no, but... if we could be, may be, could be construed to be (but no direct accusations or you're going straight to court)... we are deeply saddened by the tragic lack of stability in the world and extend our heartfelt sympathies to the families of the victims... therefore, if there may be an opportunity to redress an unsubstantiated, but possible, 'if' we are in any sense possibly culpable on some God moves in mysterious ways manner (but nowhere near as culpable as the next guy), we will do our utmost to ensure that exactly the same incident doesn't occur again. Er, how long did it take for him to get around to 'impromptu' press releases? He's been greased up in legalese fat to the point where no court in the world could land on his airfield. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy: what's your point???

Mr. Razak said what he said, reliable sources reported on the fact that he made such a comment. The question is whether this his statement should be reflected in the article, and, if yes, then where, according to the rules of Wikipedia. Are you against adding this his POV to the article? Then please refer to some specific rule. Usernick (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Regards to "it is obvious that ICAO did not issue an order to avoid that airspace": doesn't the second quote in your original post say the the ICAO doesn't declare areas unsafe, but only gives advice? Stickee (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you agree that the ICAO only gives advice, then you must agree that the ICAO did not issue the order, right?

I suggest focusing on the core question: should the Mr. Razak's POV, or any other POV on the absence of ICAO rules with regard to determining whether a flight path is safe, be added to the article and where. Usernick (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it is or was not the job of ICAO to declare areas as unsafe, then exactly this fact may be stated in the article (and it might be mentioned that the air security processes regarding conflict zones now are being reviewed by ICAO's TF RCZ which was set up in response to the MH17 crash [60][61]). Those statements of people who afterwards know what could have been done better are pointless. --PM3 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, with the note that it should be mentioned that the air security processes regarding conflict zones now are being reviewed by ICAO's TF RCZ which was set up in response to the MH17 crash. Usernick (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ilyushin-76 was shot down not by BUK

At present, the article says: "Since the start of the conflict, several Ukrainian Air Force aeroplanes have been downed. On 14 June, an Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft was shot down on approach to Luhansk International Airport; all 49 people on board died.[52] After that incident, on 29 June, Russian news agencies reported that insurgents had gained access to a Buk missile system after having taken control of a Ukrainian air defence base (possibly the former location of the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment [156 zrp] of the Ukrainian Air Force).[53][54][55]"

This is a bit misleading, since Iljushin apparently was shot down not by Buk, at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force_Ilyushin_Il-76_shoot-down

Possibly, it should be clarified when the separatists "gained access to a Buk missile system" ( the fact that such event was reported on June 29, does not mean that they could not gain the access before Ilyushin was shot down).

Also, I've heard somewhere that that Buk could be non-functional. It seems an Ukrainian spokesman said so: Answering the question of "Ukrainian Truth" Dmitrashkovsky confirmed that is the part of air defense missile system "Buk".

But he's a non-working. Others who work there are other strategic sites, - he said.

On the question of whether the militants to fix it, Dmitrashkovsky said: "I do not think they need it." (this is a translation by google of http://www.62.ua/article/565758 )Usernick (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Possibly, it should be clarified when the separatists 'gained access to a Buk missile system'", "...does not mean that they could not gain the access before Ilyushin was shot down": Except there's no sources to say when they gained access, only that they (DPR) and the news agencies reported access on 29 June. Stickee (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is stated "This is not the first military success militias last week." at http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1085256/ (google-translation). Maybe someone will clarify the date... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernick (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont see the problem. It cant be ruled out, that a system, whos capture has been reported on 29.06.2014, has been involved in a 17.07.2014 incident. It may have been captured a few days earlier, but that doesnt change anything. Alexpl (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The first problem is that the present article does not make it clear that from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force_Ilyushin_Il-76_shoot-down and the cited source it can be ruled out that the Ilyushin (not MH17) was shot down by Buk on June 14. The second problem is that there were reports that the captured Buk was non-functional. Usernick (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It´s not our job to write that a BUK took down MH17, as long as it is not confirmed by the experts. The IL crash has its own article where the matter is explained in greater detail, no need to do it here, I guess. Alexpl (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how MH17 was took down (except for what was said in the board prelim report). With regard to the IL crash, it is mentioned in this article. Probably there are sources which connect two crashes. But what I saw in the cited sources is that this connection is not Buk. I would clarify this.

Also, it is mentioned in this article that a Buk was captured by the separatists. However, that Buk was non-functional according to the Ukrainian sources.Usernick (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Usernick: where in you opening statement does it say, or imply, the a BUK shot down the Il-76? I put it to you that it says no such thing and that you're reading words that aren't there. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying that what Usernick has directed our attention to is a blatant case of SYNTH? Why are Ilyushin Il-76 and the rebels obtaining a Buk launcher discussed in the same paragraph? And the "After that incident" is a nice touch.

And some editors wonder why complaints about this article keep coming and coming.

The Ilyushin shootdown article states "According to the Ukrainian Prosecutor's Office, the aircraft was brought down by MANPADS equipment." And that makes sense, because the plane was shot down on approach: no SAM required. The paragraph should be split up, so that the Ilyushin and Buk missiles are not mentioned in the same paragraph, and the "After that incident" has to go. (That synthetic passage was added with this edit by someone who says he was born in Baku and supports something called the People's Committee to Protect Ukraine, which appears to be a Euromaidan precursor.) – Herzen (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Herzen. That is a part of what I meant. Usernick (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. – Herzen (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's not relevant, better to remove it completely. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I take it you mean the Ilyushin shoot down. I think there would be resistance against removing that completely. That the rebels shot down several Ukrainian military planes is part of the narrative that the rebels shot down MH17 by mistake, thinking that they were shooting down a Ukrainian military plane. (To repeat, the SBU has abandoned this narrative.) The Ilyushin is also relevant because the rebels have said that they had no need for Buk missiles, since they were doing fine with MANPADS and anti-aircraft cannons: the planes they are interested in downing don't fly at high altitudes. – Herzen (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. But if both narratives are invested in it, it won't happen. Geogene (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above unsigned post. (Have it been you, Herzen)?

With regard to the Buk, which possibly was captured by the separatists, there is a source mentioning that the Ukrainian government has since denied that any of its Buk missile systems have ever fallen in to the hands of rebels, but it did not issue a denial on 29 June ( http://www.channel4.com/news/did-russian-separatists-shoot-down-mh17). And, as we know, according to some sources, it was non-functional.Usernick (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to sign. My recollection is that the rebels did say they captured one Buk launcher, but they treated it as a novelty and weren't confident of being able to get it to work. – Herzen (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the separatists said this; but Ukraine said something else, according to the sources which I cited above.Usernick (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The crash site at Google Earth

Google Earth has updated the sattelite images, now you can explore the crash site on your own. Maybe this can help to understand or verify some information for this article. Here are the main spots, just enter the coords in the Google Earth search field (works not with Google Maps, which still has old data).

• Main fuselage: 48°8'18N 38°38'21E
• Aft fuselage: 48°7'55N 38°38'14E. 100 m south lies the Vertical stabilizer, and there are lots of smaller parts around.
• Cockpit section: 48°7'22N 38°33'27E

Some parts fell into the villiage of Petropavlivka (48°8'20N 38°32'0E), you can finde the small white spots in the fields in and around the village if you look carfully. --PM3 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah nice. And that stuff ~350m SW of the aft fuselage is also more debris right? Stickee (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Further southwest there's what look like four impact pits, one of which is surrounded by scorched cropland...nope those are artillery craters, as they're not in the 7/31 images. I know, not forum, but a nice break from fighting. Geogene (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes Stickee, there are lots of small parts in the area. Here is a map with some of them labeled, note that North is to the right: http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/img/map-top-flat.jpg

There are also some big craters to the north of Petropavlivka. --PM3 (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An example where you discount a proposal before you even know what it is [62], but you already don't like it. And you already discounted any sources that may support it. USchick (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Direct quote from User:Geogene: "But I only oppose using NST in this particular article, I'm sure most of its uses elsewhere are fine." [63] At the same time, a discredited social media comment is still in the lede simply because it was "widely reported." Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Social media from Igor Girkin. My proposal to remove speculation out of the lede was also shot down with no good reason. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Proposal to remove all speculation out of the lede USchick (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

In that case, User:Volunteer Marek please explain why you think this source [64] belongs in the lede since it also talks about an outlandish claim from a Russian social media site that has been discredited by other sources. Please post the explanation in a new section. I have asked repeatedly for this clarification. Thank you. USchick (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose and the RfC is misfiled. You don't decide whether or not a tag belong in the article based on an RfC. The template specifically says: The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. In other words, it's not a vote. The tag needs to be meaningfully substantiated, which means that it needs to be explained in detail which parts and how are in violation of policy. This hasn't been done. Not once. By any of the users who've edited warred to put the tag in the article. Indeed, each time the edit war errupted, the taggers did not even bother starting discussion or justifying their reasons, it was left to other editors to query the tag. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a valid reason for atag. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: The arguments against this article's NPOV have been repeatedly refuted and yet persist because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT approaches by certain editors. If valid NPOV concerns grounded in Wikipedia policy are clearly articulated and there is a serious content dispute, the tag would be appropriate. I don't think that is the case right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATIONALE on RS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATIONALE - fact and opinion

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

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

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

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

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

Please refer to my specific PROPOSAL - RESTRUCTURING BELOW

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

Edit war 1

According to military analyst Rick Francona, "This would indicate a surface-to-air missile or an air-to-air missile, and I think a surface-to-air missile is probably the best guess right now." Both Russian and Ukrainian forces operate the SA-11. Other possibilities include S-200 and S-300 missiles operated by both Russian and Ukrainian military; or Russian S-400 missile. Kevin Ryan, director of the Defense and Intelligence Project at Harvard University concluded that it would take a professional military force to operate such a missile, either on purpose or by accident. "This is not the kind of weapon a couple of guys are going to pull out of a garage and fire," he said. Source: [65]

In the "Cause of crash" section one editor repeatedly removes this paragraph because they claim it's "outdated." What exactly makes it outdated? USchick (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an edit war, it appears to be a single revert. It's called WP:BRD. Volunteer Marek  19:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been reverted three times by the same editor, [66] [67] [68] with no explanation except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. USchick (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BRD sais that it is ok to boldly (B) add a text, but if it is reverted (R), the original adding editor should first discuss (D) and gain consensus before re-adding. Thus the burden lies with the editor adding the stuff. Arnoutf (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The "stuff" is a different viewpoint than the propaganda already in the article. Other editors support this "stuff" because they thanked me for adding it. It was removed clandestinely three times with no explanation. This is why editors are screaming for balance, because this article is politically motivated. USchick (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting fact ist that just one side is continuously pointing out the imbalance of this article while the other side does not. If the article were balanced, authors of both viewpoints would complain about imbalance, it's always that way. So the imbalance is obvious here. --PM3 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow that argument PM3. Good editors would complain if it is imbalanced, bad editors would complain if it does not support their point of view. Your edit suggests that both viewpoints have equal representation of bad editors (BTW in my opinion the Russian opinion gets way too much attention. If they are involved they are unreliable as they deny involvement and hence lie about that involvement, if they are truly not involved their opinion is about as important as that of any other uninvolved state, e.g. Lesotho). Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I just checked out the edit here. The reversion is on the grounds of being "outdated". If you look at the original posting time of the CNN article used as a ref, it was posted just under 4 hours after the crash, before any of the major information was released.

Some further digging: In a later interview, Francona said "it appears that the rebels do not want anybody in there to get their hands on that physical evidence because it's going to point to them." [69] and "The problem is the people that control the ground are the ones we suspect of doing this, so they have no reason to cooperate". [70]

Then there's Kevin Ryan, who in a later video said "This is what I think happened: a crew of 4 or so trained separitist rebels in the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system with a small acquisition radar on that vehicle acquired and shot down the MH17 Malaysian airliner. I believe it was the separitists who did that, for a couple of reasons." [71]. Stickee (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war 2

The "Stakeholders" section has been blanked because the information is deemed "arbitrary." Explanation given is that entities directly involved "had little to do with the crash," while entities that were indirectly involved had "a lot to do with it." So facts have no relevance in this case, and the opinion is to section blank the entire list of stakeholders as irrelevant. USchick (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That addition looked like OR to me. I think it's a stretch to call one revert an edit war, per WP:BRD. Geogene (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This list doesn't make much sense to me. Also I think it is unusual to define a set of "stakeholders" of an aiviation accident. Anyway, here is a list of the top "stakeholders" of the MH17 crash:

• Countries / territories where the plane crashed:
  • Ukraine
  • Donetsk People's Republic
• The countries whose citizens died:
  • Netherlands
  • Malaysia
  • Australia
  • Indonesia
  • United Kingdom
  • Belgium
  • Germany
  • Philippines
  • Canada
  • Romania
  • South Africa
  • United States
• Airline and the plane manufacturer:
  • Malaysia Airlines
  • Boeing
• Cities / places involved:
  • Amsterdam – start site
  • Hrabove – crash site
  • Roszypne – crash site
  • Petropavlivka – crash site
• Organizations directly involved in the air accient investigation:
  • National Bureau of Air Accidents Investigation of Ukraine (NBAAI)
  • Dutch Safety Board (DSB, Netherlands)
  • International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
  • Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AIIB, UK)
  • Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB, Australia)
  • Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA, France)
  • Department of Civil Aviation (DCA, Malaysia)
  • German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Investigation (BFU, Germany)
  • Federal Air Transport Agency (Russia)
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, USA)
  • Eurocontrol
• Other organziations involved in the on-site work:
  • Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
  • State Emergency Service of Ukraine

This list probably is incomplete. --PM3 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The stakeholders are the entities directly involved. I agree, there's a lot of other entities trying to push their POV opinion, and by throwing everyone else in the mix, you're trying to confuse the reader about whose opinion is important, and whose opinion is WP:UNDUE. I can't revert everyone on this issue, because I will be blocked for edit warring. USchick (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

All those which I listed above were or are directly involved in the flight, the crash or the investigation, while Torez and Kuala Lumpur - which you included in your list - were and are not. But as there is no common definition of the stakeholders of an air accident, the whole thing is useless anyway resp. it will always turn out as OR, as Geogene indicated. I set up this list just to demonstrate why I removed your list - it was far from reality. --PM3 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

When I tried to include sourced information in this article, it was dismissed as "irrelevant" because it was part of the investigation, not part of the crash (because this article is about the crash). Along the same lines of reasoning, anyone involved in the investigation would be indirectly involved in the crash and an indirect stakeholder. It's extremely important to determine who is directly involved in this crash, because that's whose opinion is most important. There's a lot of accusations flying around from countries who aren't even involved in this crash. Those opinions are in the lede for some reason, and they are WP:UNDUE. USchick (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The opinions that should receive the most weight are the opinions most widely covered in the bulk of reliable sources. So we don't need a list for that, it's already covered by policy. Geogene (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an edit war, it's removal of someone's original research, which was discussed and for which there was no, rightly, consensus. Also a single revert. Volunteer Marek  19:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How convenient, when only certain editors get to choose which sources are reliable. USchick (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we have a guideline, which I keep linking to, and which you and some others keep on ignoring. Here it is again: WP:RS. That outlines the criteria for reliability. So it's not that we get to "choose" which sources a reliable, it's that we "choose" to follow the criteria already outlined by Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek  20:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

anyone involved in the investigation would be indirectly involved in the crash and an indirect stakeholder -- Then, why did you include the DSB in your list [72]?

The only people who were literally directly involved in the crash itself were

• the 283 passengers and 15 crew members, who's interests are represented by the governments of the counties that I listed above, and by their lawyers,
• the inhabitants of Peotropavlivka and Roszypne who had falling bodies and debris through the roofs of their houses and into their backyards, represented by the governments of the Ukraine and the "Donetsk People's Republic".

So those would need to be the first on your list. Besides of that, the relevance of any statements for a WP article is primarily measured by (a) if they are on-topic and (b) their presence in the relevant media. --PM3 (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue about the content of this article. This section is about the edit war. I recommend we open a new section where the actual content can be discussed. Are you interested? USchick (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There was neither an EW, nor does it make sense to include such a list into the article. Therefore I recommend to close this discussion. --PM3 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I clearly explained why it's important to determine entities directly involved, because that would determine whose opinions are important in this case and who is simply blowing smoke. My explanation has been dismissed as irrelevant. Thank you for that. USchick (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our job to determine whose opinions are important – that would be WP:OR. We have to stick to secondary sources; important are those opinions which are on topic and widely spread in the WP:RS. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, you can't evade that. --PM3 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%, except that editors are cherry picking sources to support only one political side of a country that's not directly involved with the crash. According to Wikipedia policy, that's UNDUE. USchick (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No they're not "cherry picking". They are just excluding non-reliable conspiracy theory source crap from the article. As they should. Excluding crap from an encyclopedia article is not "cherry picking", it's "writing a decent encyclopedia". If you can't tell, or pretend you can't tell, the difference, then maybe an encyclopedia writing project isn't a place for you. Volunteer Marek  20:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but a list of "stakeholders" is no viable solution to this problem. --PM3 (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much for discussing the content. I look forward to seeing your proposal in a new section. USchick (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I already proposed several changes to neutralize this article and realized that the majority of authors would like to stay with the current POV. And I accepted that. --PM3 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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