Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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 [1], 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." [2] At the same time, a discredited social media comment is still in the lede simply because it was "widely reported." Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Social media from Igor Girkin. My proposal to remove speculation out of the lede was also shot down with no good reason. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Proposal to remove all speculation out of the lede USchick (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

In that case, User:Volunteer Marek please explain why you think this source [3] belongs in the lede since it also talks about an outlandish claim from a Russian social media site that has been discredited by other sources. Please post the explanation in a new section. I have asked repeatedly for this clarification. Thank you. USchick (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATIONALE on RS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATIONALE - fact and opinion

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

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

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

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

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

Please refer to my specific PROPOSAL - RESTRUCTURING BELOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am doing no such thing.  Volunteer Marek  00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Single purpose account, basically complaining about the fact that they're not allowed to use this article as their POV propaganda platform. Too bad. Volunteer Marek  00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the direction of "involved/uninvolved" parties is a slippery slope back into edit warring. My suggestion about a divergent media coverage section is about helping to segregate the undisputed facts from the whatever geopolitical bias exists in the various media coverage. There was an event. There are verifiable facts about that event that everyone agrees upon. There are unverifiable facts that have been widely speculated upon. Having a divergent media coverage section allows the various speculations to be covered in the article while arguing over whether they are true facts. So and So said X, So and so said Y. I think could spare everyone a lot of arguing. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW- I do understand that Russian media coverage is vastly different from that of most other media outlets. I am simply trying to offer a way of avoiding the ongoing dispute of facts elsewhere in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Any RFC about placing NPOV label is waste of time and disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support See vapour trail thread. SaintAviator lets talk 02:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose RFC is not really required for assuring the use of NPOV tag. You have to make sure that you have resolved all issues with the neutrality, if you have any issues, just discuss about them and consider opening a new RFC which would be related with the article content. Noteswork (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this article

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

New Straits Times

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is [4]. It quotes Robert Parry an Associated Press reporter. If Global Research is a problem, Robert Parry is not. The newspaper has an editorial board, and they chose to cover this story. It was picked up by another independent source Malaysian Digest [5] Then later on the same day NST changed the headline on the same story (probably to make it more neutral). [6]. USchick (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I screen captured the story in case we want to refer back to it, I recommend others do the same. According to policy, reliable sources have to report the story, there's no requirement for them to "keep it on their web site" indefinitely. Would anyone like to see an RfC on this topic? USchick (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You have screen captured an excerpt from a Russia Today/RT documentary on the MH17 crash? LoL. You are not really helping your case here. Alexpl (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what USchick said. What she said was that she screen captured the story that International Business Times published on its Web site and then deleted. You are not really helping your case when you jump to the conclusion that USchick screen captured "an excerpt from a Russia Today/RT documentary", when what she actually did was screen capture a story by International Business Times about the RT documentary. Unlike International Business Times, RT does not delete stories that it has published because they contradict the official line that its government is pushing. If you are going to post comments in Talk, you really should make more of an effort to understand the discussion that is being held in Talk. – Herzen (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats exactly what she said. Your business times article [7] quotes the infamous Russia Today. But I´m sure you already knew that. Its Haisenko over and over and over again. Maybe somebody else quoted that dude somewhere on the net, than you can present those writing here as well - and repeat it, until someday, when the guard is down, you can put them as facts in this article. In the future, read your source, and when the word "Haisenko" is in it, spare WP with it. Alexpl (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The double standards for RS are unbelievable! In the lede, we have reliable sources that quote Vkontakte! How is this RS any different? USchick (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. That guy published mostly conspiracy theories on his blog before that crash. He is no reliable source, not even by Russian Federation standards. Oh, the Spiegel just published another list of "experts" frequently quoted in russian media who arent experts at all: [8]

Lorenz Haag

Christoph Hörstel

Ken Jebsen

Kert Maier

+Haisenko. Just to make sure. Alexpl (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire Network

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

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

Analysis by Ivan A. Andrievskii, an engineer [9] USchick (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

There is no discussion on the topic. Just a seemingly endless line of accounts, trying to redeem the russian federation by repeating the same arguments. The "New Straits Times" article [10] is based on info from the bloggers Robert Parry and Peter Haisenko. So as reliable and old that newspaper may be, this particluar info is not so good, or just rubbish. So quote the "New Straits Times" if you like, but tell the reader that the story is taken from two bloggers who had no access to the crash site or additional info and who are just speculating. Alexpl (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiegel on German Secret Service report

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

Reuters has it now too: Report: Germany blames pro-Russian rebels for MH17 crash. Here's the English language Der Spiegel article: [11]. Stickee (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The story is being re-reported in other outlets: [12] [13]. Even RT has it, though the way they put it German intelligence actually blames a "Ukrainian militia" (you know, Right Sector or something. Just when I think RT can't get any worse, they surprise with a new low of dishonest scumbaggery). This should go into the article. Volunteer Marek  21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@PM3: Why did you put the Spiegel report in the lede? I was the first to say that the report should be placed into the article immediately, but nobody said anything about putting it in the lede. Sorry, but it would be different if US intelligence was making these allegations, but so far it hasn't. And the Spiegel report is sloppy, because it does indeed speak of a "BUK air defense missile system", but a Buk system consists of three components, of which I have not seen anyone claim that the rebels had more than one. Finally, these are just the usual allegations made by intelligence officials without providing any evidence. So due weight most certainly does not justify putting this in the lede. At the very least, this should get major coverage in the Anglophone press, which it hasn't thus far. – Herzen (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not put it into the lead but move it downwards there. It nicely fits to the previous sentence on the same topic regarding Malaysia. I have no strong feelings on where in the article it may be placed, but I think the different intelligence and prosecutors' statements on this issue should be grouped. --PM3 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It was Bdell555 who put it in there. And yes, it fits nicely where it is now. Stickee (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a relief, because I like to think of PM3 as a neutral editor. I do not dispute that it "fits nicely" there. But reading the lede, I noticed this zinger: "after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement" (which could be SYNTH; I am too lazy to check the sources), because as I point out periodically, according to the SBU, the rebels always believed that they were shooting down a civilian aircraft. Sorry for the digression. – Herzen (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The way that RIA Novosti reports on this story is an even bigger hoot than the way that RT does [14]. Their headline is "German Intelligence Agency Chief Says Kiev Falsified Data on MH17 Crash". They do say at the end of the article that BND (which they just gloated about saying Kiev "falsified data") blames the rebels for downing the plane, but then they quickly follow up with that usual bullshit line about "but no evidence has been provided". Nothing about the fact that BND says Russians falsified data. If there was ever any doubt that RIA Novosti and RT are just simply NOT reliable sources, this right here makes that crystal clear.

Reading between the lines though, from the RIA Novosti article, it does look like "faked evidence" refers to some photographs, not to the phone conversations. Volunteer Marek  23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the separatists already refused the Spiegel story. For the case someone wants to mention that (translation by me):

The separatists in Eastern Ukraine refused the BND assesment that they were responsible for the crash of flight MH17. They had not the military experts needed to launch the "Buk" air defence system which alledgedly was used for the shootdown, separatist leader Andrej Purgin on Sunday told in Donezk according to the agency Interfax. He said operating such a system was very complicated. [15]

--PM3 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I put a copy edited version of that in the lede? As I said above, due weight required that this be included, but of course, I was ignored. – Herzen (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's called spin. Everything RIA reports there is true. Nobody has ever claimed that RIA does not put spin on stories. So this report making "crystal clear" that RIA is not a reliable source is not the case at all. It's clear from the German Spiegel article that the photos reported as fake were ones produced by Kiev; I hadn't noticed that before. Also, Spiegel doesn't report that the BND claims that Russia faked anything: all it says is that the BND's position is that "Russische Darstellungen … seien falsch." "Darstellung" means presentation or account. English Spiegel translated it as "claims". As I said above, Russia has no reason to fake anything. – Herzen (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's called spin. Nah. It's called lying. Volunteer Marek  00:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Kindly quote a sentence or passage from that report which is not true. – Herzen (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Look. If it helps you sleep better at night to imagine a distinction between "spin" and "lying", that's your business. But it's pretty obvious RIA Novosti is lying their asses off here. The Spiegel article is about how German Intelligence concluded that the rebels are responsible for murdering the civilians on this flight. But RIA Novosti re-reports this: "Ukrainians faked their evidence!". It's like some bad Radio Yerevan joke gone horribly wrong. And honestly, it's indecent. Although that word is probably not strong enough to describe it. It's down right evil. But hey, like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Volunteer Marek  04:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly not the case that everything from RIA is true. June 2014: "300 тел без внутренних органов" (300 bodies without internal organs [harvested by Kiev's forces]). Now click on "тел" (bodies). It's a hyperlink to a graphic image that originally appeared in an account of Chechnya atrocities, in particular a 2001 operation for which none other than then President Putin can take responsibility. A RIA editor had to have generated that bogus hyperlink because no mere source, however dubious, controls their website.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

When did I say that everything RIA reports is true? I was talking about this specific article. And I ignored the stories about the 300 bodies, btw. The NY Times has published plenty of stories that it had to retract, so RIA occasionally making a mistake means nothing. Who knows who linked to that photo or why? The problem is that exaggerated claims about the number of bodies in common graves were published, not some link, which is a relatively obscure matter. – Herzen (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the "problem" is not "exaggerating" claims about the "number of bodies", the problem is disseminating a conspiracy theory about Kiev forces engaging in organ harvesting. It isn't just the sort of inflammatory falsehood you find in an indisputably unreliable source like Globalresearch.ca, it IS "reported" at globalresearch.ca! The fact a false photo was hyperlinked just highlights how deliberate and un-"mistake"-like it is. Pravda at least allowed that it is "possible that such messages are fake propaganda news bits aimed at denigrating the Ukrainian authorities."--Brian Dell (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to defend or even read this particular article, however I would like to note that not all terrible stories are conspiracy theories. For example, the Ukrainian problems with organ harvesting were reported in http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-01/organ-gangs-force-poor-to-sell-kidneys-for-desperate-israelis.html and http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-corpses-harvested-in-multimilliondollar-trade-20120717-2278v.html . Also, in the context of MH17, you can study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods , noting that this plan was developed and approved on so many levels in the US government. Usernick (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The reaction of Abbott, as well as of China or other BRICS countries, may be added to the lede "Germany's intelligence service believes Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels using a missile taken from a Ukraine military base, a German newspaper has reported. The finding contradicts previous claims – including by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and US Secretary of State John Kerry – that the missile was supplied by Russia.". Abbott said "I am going to be saying to Mr Putin [that] Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment – we are very unhappy about this" http://www.smh.com.au/world/prorussian-rebels-using-seized-ukrainian-missile-downed-mh17-passenger-plane-says-germany-20141020-118i9u.html Usernick (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Abbott's claims certainly do not belong in the lead. But mentioning that the BND contradicts Abbott's claims where those claims are currently stated might be viewed as SYNTH. Personally, I am not sure if anything needs to be done, since Abbott is a politician, and people tend to take what politicians say with a grain of salt. – Herzen (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that Abbott's words show Australia's initial position. I suggest adding them to the lead because they have been cited more and more in recent days in connection with Putin's visit to G20 meeting. I did not mean that it should be added that they contradict Spiegel's article. Rather, I find it kind of funny that they do, but it seems to me that the Spiegel's article is there for a certain purpose of the German government, this is why it is "semi-official": someone told us that the head of BND told to the commission that etc. A smart reader will notice the differences anyway. With regard to the Chinese position, it also should be added because they are in the UN Security Council, there are so many Chinese people in the world and because Putin is going to the G20 meeting due to the support of BRICS.Usernick (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting speculation as to why Spiegel published this story now. But bringing up the G20 meeting in this article seems like recentism to me. – Herzen (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, possibly. The Australia's POV seems to be very close to that of the USA and Ukraine, so I am not completely sure that adding it would illustrate the spectrum of POVs better. Chinese and BRICS POV(s) may be close to the Russian POV, but even if they are, then they may need to be added to satisfy the Weight policy. Usernick (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. We can't say "this source contradicts this source". We say "this source says this" and then "this source says that". We assume readers are smart enough to judge for themselves whether or not there's any contradictions there, not ram conclusions and OR down their throat.

And I take it the "official line" has changed from "the Ukrainians did it, the rebels are innocent!" to "the rebels might have done it but Kremlin had nothing to do with it"? A step in the right direction I guess. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense.Usernick (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Did you look at the Sydney Morning Herald article? The most interesting thing it seems to find in the Spiegel article is that the BND's briefing contradicts claims that Kiev and Abbott have made. – Herzen (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by the "official line", but I am under the impression that the Kremlin and I think alike, and I can assure you that I do not believe that "the rebels might have done it". It is obvious that the Kremlin wants to distance itself from the rebels; Russian interests are of immeasurably greater importance to the Kremlin than the interests of the residents of Donbas. So the Kremlin has a significantly higher interest in it being clear that Russia had nothing to do with the downing of MH17 than it does in Western opinion not holding the rebels responsible. Russia only supports the rebels insofar as it does not view this support to harm Russia's own interests. This is a constant subject of discussion in the Russian blogosphere. – Herzen (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I still do not see this covered by any American paper, so I still see putting this in the lede as a case of WP:UNDUE and recentism. Funny how when I tried to put a Spiegel story about how NATO had no information from radar of a missile launch, editors found that that was not worth mentioning, but then when Spiegel reports that the BND thinks rebels downed the plane, that instantly gets put in the lead. – Herzen (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

---

PM3 has changed "an analysis which concluded that the Ukraine had published forged evidence, that Russian had made false claims" to "an analysis which concluded that both the Ukraine and Russia had published forged evidence" with this edit. His edit summary was

The reference here is the German original Spiegel article, which says "russische Darstellungen". "Darstellung" may be "pictures" or "claims", but in the context it must be both, as it can only refer to the Russian press conference of July 21.

Four points. (1) The reference here was the English Spiegel article. PM3 added the German Spiegel article as a reference with that edit. (2) This is English Wikipedia, so, since Spiegel bothered to translate their German article into English, we should go with Spiegel's translation. Spiegel translated Darstellungen as "claims". There is nothing in the English Spiegel article about any Russian photographs or Russian forged evidence, so that is all OR on PM3's part. (3) Here is the German text: "Ukrainische Aufnahmen seien gefälscht… . Auch russische Darstellungen … seien falsch." So what we have with the Ukrainians is gefälschte Aufnahmen (faked photographs), whereas with the Russians it is falsche Darstellungen (false claims/presentations/representations/interpretations). So PM3's assertion that the BND director said that both the Ukraine and Russia forged evidence is preposterous. (4) Here is how Australian Associated Press presents what Spiegel reported:

Schindler said Russian claims the missile was fired by Ukrainian soldiers and that a Ukrainian fighter jet was flying close to the Malaysia Airlines plane were false, according to Monday's edition of Spiegel.

He also said Ukrainian photos had been "manipulated", the magazine reported but did not elaborate on what the pictures showed, who had provided them or altered them.

I have to say that I find it absolutely mind-boggling that some editors accept without a moment's thought that Russia would falsify evidence, especially in such a grave matter. As I've said several times, Russia has no reason to fake evidence. The only reason people think it would do so is this idea that some editors have that they know the truth, so anything but the official US account of events (the US being the country which habitually starts wars and interventions based on false claims and evidence) must be a conspiracy theory. – Herzen (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to who falsified or manipulated what evidence, that can go in the article, but please, stick as close to the source as possible, rather than running away into original research. Probably be best to wait for a clarification as to what exactly has been falsified or manipulated. (Apparently Ukraine manipulated some photographic evidence but I'm not even aware of any Ukrainian photographic evidence). Likewise, let's leave whether or not this contradicts anything out of it, until we get a clarification. Volunteer Marek  21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I really don't see what is wrong with my edit which you undid. The lede says "The Ukrainian government says the missile was launched by 'Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia'", so my addition of "This finding contradicted claims that had been made that Russia supplied separatists with the missile." is relevant and provides some NPOV to the lede. The source for that sentence is the Sydney Morning Herald, which as I noted above seems to find this finding the most interesting aspect of the Spiegel report. PM3 self-reverted the change with which he deleted this sentence. So what do you find wrong with it? If the lede has accusations against Russia, NPOV requires noting that reliable sources qualify Russia's involvement.

As for my addition of "that the Ukraine had published forged photographs, and that Russia had made false claims": what do you find wrong with that? I practically wrote an essay above explaining why that is what the Spiegel article says. Your edit summary says: "Consensus with regard to these issues is to wait for more info." Nobody said anything of the kind. Some people said that we should wait, but that was about the whole Spiegel article, not two of the three points it makes. Why is it that we don't have to wait to report that the BND believes that the rebels shot down the plane, but we do have to wait to report that it believes the Ukrainian government forged photos and that Russian claims are false? This is a clear case of cherry picking if there ever was one. Please respond to the substance of my points, instead of dealing in vague generalizations.

There are multiple threads going on about how this article lacks balance and suffers from major cherry picking. So what happens when a new report emerges? Allegations in the report against the rebels instantly get put into the article, but something making the Ukrainian government look bad or exonerating Russia gets left out.

The edit you reverted was perfectly valid and completely supported by reliable sources. Please provide a cogent argument justifying why that edit needs to be reverted, instead of just making false claims in your edit summary. Another thing you said in your edit summary was "This doesn't reflect what's been discussed on talk." But note that PM3 did not reply to my long comment explaining what the Spiegel article says. So yes, my edit did reflect what's been discussed on talk. – Herzen (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Translating a foreign language source is not OR. And I don't see why why you want to leave the "contradicts" out of it. Both AFP and SBS pointed out that "Kiev and the West have previously charged" Russia with supplying rebels with the missile. Is adding the word "contradicts", which is not used by either secondary source, OR? I dont't think so. That merely adds clarity to the article. But I can leave that word out, if you insist. But there is nothing to wait for, since everybody agrees that the BND said the rebels got the missile from the Ukrainian military, and everybody knows that "Kiev and the West" charged Russia with supplying the missile. – Herzen (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The publication by Spiegel is vague. This is your interpretation of publication by Spiegel. According to an independently published interpretation of the same [16], "Russian claims the missile was fired by Ukrainian soldiers and that a Ukrainian fighter jet was flying close to the Malaysia Airlines plane were false", which could be mentioned as something basically consistent with majority of other sources. It also tells that Ukrainian photos had been "manipulated", but "the magazine reported but did not elaborate on what the pictures showed, who had provided them or altered them." Without such details, I think this is not worth inclusion on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits have mentioned that the BND finds Russian claims to be false. If you want me to say what claims, based on secondary sources, fine. As to the "manipulated" photos, I explained above that the word used was "gefälscht", which is German for "faked". Here is what Spiegel's English translation says:

BND's Schindler says his agency has come up with unambiguous findings. One is that Ukrainian photos have been manipulated and that there are details indicating this.

If Spiegel saw fit to report this in a very short article, and other reliable secondary sources have picked this up and mentioned the "manipulated" photos, why on earth shouldn't Wikipedia mention this? The only reason I can find is you don't like it. Saying that "I think this is not worth inclusion on the page" is of no help at all. You have to provide a rational argument for why it is not worth including. That Spiegel doesn't specify what photos were faked doesn't matter. That the Ukrainian government falsified some photos, no matter which ones, is noteworthy in itself. To repeat, not mentioning that while mentioning that the BND thinks that the rebels shot down the plane is a blatant case of cherry picking. – Herzen (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Given how you were excusing the cherry picking engaged in by Kremlin-controlled media when Marek was objecting to it I wouldn't get on too a high a horse about how outrageous it is to cherry pick. I think people are missing an important element to this Spiegel story and that's that we are far more reliant on Spiegel than if the BND held a press conference. Reading the article, and the way people talk about it on this Talk page, you'd think that not only did the BND hold a public press conference but they came down from Mt Sinai with the Final Verdict. If the Americans made these claims would you nod along with them so readily? Yet the Americans have far more intel (e.g. satellite data) than the Germans could have. The article text should be attributing to Der Spiegel here given the fact no other media outlet has access to the original source. While it seems quite clear that the BND ultimately blames the rebels, for the other stuff when you are reduced to having to argue translation of language that is already third hand, you're pushing the envelope of "must include". The sense of conviction should be proportionate, and that's why it is not as "blatant" a form of cherry picking as you contend: it's unlikely Spiegel got it's headline wrong, it's more possible that other elements, mentioned apparently in passing and not repeated or not stated emphatically, are inaccurate. Again, it is not necessarily cherry picking to take the headline or key takeaway from a source and not also take every other detail. One's motive is relevant here.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The battleground attitude here is really getting out of hand.

Given how you were excusing the cherry picking engaged in by Kremlin-controlled media

RIA Novosti is a wire service. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Because it is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to maintain NPOV. Because RIA Novosti is not an encyclopedia but rather is a wire service associated with a particular government, nobody expects its articles to have a NPOV. Is that really so hard to understand?

The only reason I had to bring in translation was that instead of using the English Spiegel article as the source, PM3 used the German article, falsely representing what it said. As for your apparent claim that the cherry picking going on here is acceptable, this ploy of pulling justifications out of thin air (the only thing that Wikipedia can mention from an article in a reliable source is the topic that is mentioned in that article's headline) for the purpose of POV pushing is getting very tiresome. It is obvious to everyone that what is going on is that some editors are using any pretexts, no matter how flimsy, to put anything that puts Russia and the rebels in a bad light into the article, and to keep anything that puts the current Ukraine government in a bad light out. This has gotten so out of control that we even had someone who had never edited here before get a user account so she could help fix this. I'd never before seen someone join Wikipedia all on account of one single article being so utterly biased. – Herzen (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got the biggest battleground mentality going, Herzen, as demonstrated by your frequent tirades that fail to address the particular content issue at hand. What was your rant about Echo of Russia readers being "only pro-Western, anti-Putin 'liberals'" supposed to be about if "nobody expects" a source "to have a NPOV"? What's in fact a false representation is your contending that I ever said or implied "the only thing that Wikipedia can mention" is what the source title says. I instead disputed YOUR apparent contention that one can never call attention to JUST one thing in a source, a headline matter, and not also call attention some other non-headline thing in the same source. It is only your battleground mentality that transforms selectively taking the most important, least ambiguous, and best sourced element from a source to the exclusion of other elements as necessarily bad faith editing. This particular content matter is grey rather than black and white such that I am certainly not about to edit war over it.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm two minds about this. The main message of both the Der Spiegel piece and the BND report is that the pro-Russian separatists were responsible for the shoot down of this plane. That's what the report is about and that is the essential point and that is the one thing that should be in the article. However, the report also says that there's been some monkey business by both Russia and Ukraine in terms of presenting the evidence. We already knew that as far as the Kremlin is concerned so that's sort of NOTNEWS. But it does say that some Ukrainian evidence has also been "manipulated". I would very much like to see exactly what this is referring to because it's not clear from the sources. One source talks about some photographs. Another re-reporting of the story talks about the recordings. Another one says that there was some of it and "details can be provided". I'm not gonna revert the addition of this again - unless more info becomes available - but I do think that whether or not to include the auxiliary parts of the report is a judgement call and hence subject to editor consensus. Volunteer Marek  06:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The nature of the faked evidence was not exactly given. Remember, the story is based on an internal speech only, not something for the public. @Herzen: Come on. Ria is not NPOV any more. Controlled by Dmitry Kiselyov, it has become a tool to manipulate the public as Moscow demands. The idea that the Ukrainians executed large amounts of people near Donezk / a possible CIA link to the recent Ebola outbreak / or the fake news about the death of Gorbatshev last week - come to my mind without further research. Alexpl (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. What I wrote was "nobody expects" Ria to be NPOV. And I was never under the impression that Ria was ever neutral, not that that means much, since I'm not really that familiar with Russian news media. I don't think it's especially eccentric to believe that no news media are neutral, which is what I believe. To be honest, I trust Western and Russian blogs more than I trust Western and Russian corporate media. And the blogs I trust are ones that have a similar POV to my own. But blogs are deprecated as sources by WP policy (I do not believe that that policy is bad, because I would not like blogs which have POVs that I don't like to be used as sources), so I don't bring up blogs at WP. The idea that a newspaper can be unbiased is relatively new. It used to be that different newspapers adhered to the POV of particular political coalitions. You still have that to a certain extent today in Britain: the Guardian is associated with the Labour Party, and the Telegraph is associated with the Conservative Party. – Herzen (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Now we've got a reliable source using the word "contradict":

The new findings by BND contradict the existing claims of Ukraine and the West that the rebels fired on the MH17 jet with an advanced surface-to-air "Buk" missile, supplied by Russia. The German agency also said the photos and other images supplied by Ukraine was manipulated.

It appears that the International Business Times doesn't find the Spiegel story to be any more vague than I do, and it also finds the same aspects of the story to be noteworthy as I do. Finally, it also only speaks of the BND "refut[ing] Russia's claims", and makes no mention of Russia faking any evidence. I really don't know how PM3 got the idea that the Spiegel story said that Russia faked evidence. The story is minimalistic, but it is not murky or ambiguous.

A little piece of OR and crystal balling: that the BND lets Russia off the hook might be why the NY Times and Wash Post are ignoring this story: Washington wants all economic sanctions on Russia to be kept indefinitely, and the downing of MH17 was used as a pretext to put another round of sanctions on Russia. (Writing that paragraph made me look for the word "sanctions" in the WP article. The word does not appear. That should probably be fixed.) – Herzen (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You searched long enough for a crappy source to turn the orginal story 180° around. Even the pathetic russian state media didnt manage to do that. No value for our article, but entertaining none the less. Alexpl (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That comment contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. There is nothing there but IDONTLIKEIT. The editors who, unlike some of us, know the truth about MH17 should make a little more of an effort to hide their battleground attitude. A news story may place several parties in a bad light. The idea that "the orginal story [is turned] 180° around" shows that one is looking at sources strictly in terms of how they support one's POV. Thus, one is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push one's POV. – Herzen (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one could include that Ukrainians and separatists debunked already the German intelligence claim. Official Ukrainian representatives asserted that none of their operational BUKs was ever taken by rebels, and a representative of rebels stated that they never had specialists capable of operating BUKs. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If it would be for the purpose of improving this article then it should better quote a RS for the conclusion to forgo WP:SYNTH. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Several RS, including Spiegel, have reported that rebels responded to the Spiegel article, saying that they don't have the expertise to use it. I wouldn't say Ukrainians "debunked" the claim that the rebels stole a Buk launcher from them, since the BND obviously doesn't believe them. No reports I've read have said that Kiev has responded to the article. As a side note and a little OR, the BND's saying that Russia's claim that a Ukrainian fighter plane was flying near MH17 is false sounds fishy, because the German government said in September that NATO AWACS lost contact with MH17 half an hour before it crashed. Of course I am not proposing putting that into the article. Just reminding people that intelligence agencies don't reveal something they know in order to promote transparency. And the laconic nature of that Spiegel article is remarkable. I've asked German Wikipedians to tell us if the article in the magazine is different or longer, but none have done so. – Herzen (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RS reported all that long before the Spiegel article. Many of the responsible Federation people left Ukraine weeks ago, I see litte reason to repeat the claims they made back then again. And I certainly dont want to read that AWACS crap again. For the AWACS rubbish you - again - chopped the old Spiegel article to the most useless bit of information and ignored the fact, that in the same article, they had written that they had more info on the MH 17 crash which they couldnt give to the public. I start to see a pattern in your activities here, which I call "counterproductive". Alexpl (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Atlantic [17]. It does say that the German results contradict the claim that the BUK was supplied by Russians. Rather, it was stolen by the separatists. It also says it was some photgraphic evidence which Ukraine monkey around with. And that Russian claims were false. It also says: "Gerhard Schindler, was extremely direct in his accusations, simply telling Germany's Der Spiegel, "It was pro-Russian separatists.""  Volunteer Marek  23:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tlsandy, whose account was created in September, undid this edit of mine. Tlsandy has not made a single comment in this Talk section, so I consider that to amount to edit warring. I was really hoping my edit would not be reverted. I think it's fair to say that we had reached consensus. Volunteer Marek said

But it does say that some Ukrainian evidence has also been "manipulated". I would very much like to see exactly what this is referring to because it's not clear from the sources. One source talks about some photographs. Another re-reporting of the story talks about the recordings.

It is clear what the evidence is: photographs. All the sources say this, and the original source is quite clear. Marek says he saw a source that said that the evidence in question was recordings, but did not give a link. The Atlantic has now published an article abut this:

Schindler said there was evidence that Ukrainian photos had been manipulated. (The photographs were presumably of the missile-launch site, though the exact images were not specified to the public.)

So there is no question that the evidence was photographs; what is unclear is what they are photographs of. Marek agreed that evidence being manipulated is notable. The Atlantic also says this:

Thus far, it has been widely believed Russian forces provided the separatists with both the missile and the launcher, but the new report suggest the rebels actually stole the launch system. German intelligence officers believe the separatists "captured a BUK air defense missile system at a Ukrainian military base and fired a missile on July 17."

Thus, multiple reliable Anglophone sources have found everything I added to the article to be notable, so that the main point of the Spiegel article is that the rebels did it is irrelevant.. I really don't think there is a case for not including this material: there is only IDONTLIKEIT. Tlsandy's edit summary was "Does not go here". Who is an editor who has been here less than two months to tell other editors where something goes or doesn't go?

Since I wrote that Marek made a comment directing us to the Atlantic article. From his comment, I think that I can have some confidence that I have not misunderstood his position. (Sorry for duplicating some quotes from the Atlantic.) – Herzen (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Would you object to my reverting that edit to restore this material? – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You're close. I still have some problems with how this is worded: "This finding contradicted claims that had been made by Ukraine and the West that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile". Why not just say something closer to the source, like "it contradicted previous theories that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile". Also, AFAIK US, UK and Ukr, all said that they're sticking to the "Russia-supplied-it" story (if I understand them correctly). In the second sentence under contention I would change "forged" to "manipulated". Otherwise I'm fine with that going in. Volunteer Marek  23:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. As you might have noticed, I changed "forged" to "manipulated" in my comment above. "Forged" is an emotive term. The English Spiegel uses "manipulated", even though that's not really a proper translation of the original. I accept all your suggestions. I'll put the material back in in a little while.

I'd like to thank you for our congenial collaboration on this. Your support is very importat. I am probably more outspoken in Talk than any other editor about having the Russian POV on this, but I hope that you have noticed by now that when I edit articles themselves, I adopt a different mindset, and really do try to maintain a NPOV. And I have learned from you and Iryna Harpy about WP terminology. I never really became conversant with it until after this crisis started. – Herzen (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed and I appreciate it. Volunteer Marek  01:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that someone is edit warring when you've added in the same content 4 times is a little bit rich. I'm not sure that sentence should go in. So far there hasn't been any analysis of what contradicts what, so why do it now? Plus it already says that when it says it's a stolen system. Stickee (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring if you engage in sustained discussion of your proposed edits in Talk. So please stop the personal attacks. There were tons of news stories about Buk systems crossing the Russian border, so as several Anglophone sources have found, the BND's finding in this regard is notable. I don't know why you don't like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herzen (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I already said why: the article so far hasn't explained what contradicts what, even though sources have said it. Instead the article just states them without analysis. If we started to do that the article would be twice as long. It's already clear that it contradicts when it says it's a stolen Buk system. Stickee (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What don't you understand from this sentence from my last edit to the article:

This finding contradicted claims that had been made by Ukraine and the West that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile.

The finding in question is that the rebels stole the Buk system from the Ukrainians. Nobody has claimed that the rebels have more than one Buk system. Thus, either the Russians gave it to them, or they stole it from the Ukrainians. Both can't be true. So my edit did "explaine what contradicts what". Is this really so hard to understand? Sorry, I can't figure out why you're getting upset. – Herzen (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Or wait. Volunteer Marek addressed this problem with his suggestion for a change in the wording. – Herzen (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand exactly what that sentence said. The article already says that the BND findings contradict that the missile came of Russia when it says "stolen Ukrainian Buk system". Stickee (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant about this? If reliable secondary sources find it worth pointing this out explicitly, why is it so important for Wikipedia not to do the same thing? Also, it's conceivable that the rebels could have more than one Buk system, so not stating this explicitly is just misleading. – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see how that is misleading. The article states that rebels "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system", which already contradicts that a Russian Buk had been used. Stickee (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The article also says "The Ukrainian government says the missile was launched by "Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia"." "Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski warned about the dangers posed by the continued Russian military support for pro-Russian separatists, especially ground-to-air missiles." "Associated Press journalists reported that the Buk M-1 was operated by a man "with unfamiliar fatigues and a distinctive Russian accent" escorted by two civilian vehicles." "On 23 July, two Ukrainian military jets were hit by missiles at the altitude of 17,000 feet (5,200 m) close to the area of the MH17 crash. According to the Ukraine Security Council, preliminary information indicated that the missiles came from Russia." "On 19 July, Vitaly Nayda, the chief of the Counter Intelligence Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told a news conference, "We have compelling evidence that this terrorist act was committed with the help of the Russian Federation. We know clearly that the crew of this system were Russian citizens."" And even if the article did not repeat allegations of Russia being involved in the downing of the plane, several Anglophone reliable sources point out that "Ukraine and the West" had claimed that the Buk system was provided by Russia, so that this claim was made is notable for that reason alone. You have not answered my question about why you are so adamant about this. – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that still doesn't explain why the current wording of "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" is "misleading". Would you mind elaborating? Stickee (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hertzen. It is still widely believed that Russian military forces provided the separatists with both the missile and the launcher or even with a military team who accomplished the launch. This German report is just one of many sources. It does not provide any details and therefore not especially reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It was reliable enough to point the blame at the rebels, and that aspect got put into the article instantly. Der Spiegel is a reliable source. You find this article (or rather some points that it reports) to be unreliable because you don't like what it says. We take major Western news outlets to be reliable, period; we don't decide on a piece-by-piece basis which articles are reliable on the basis of whether we like what they say or not. The advocacy of cherry picking here is unbelievable. Reliable anglophone sources find the aspects of the report that I am trying to put into the article to be noteworthy, but some editors don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to POV push for the Kiev government and against Rupssia and the rebels. And what does what "is widely believed" have to do with anything? How many times do I have to repeat that Wikipedia policy is to present the relevant points of view, not to present "the truth" or the one "best view"? – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess most people really dont care for the Kiev government, or share the wierd Russian gov. obsession for everything from Kiev. The Spiegel article quotes a high ranking german operative who blames the Separatists and at the same time accusses both, Ukraine and Russia, of false play in terms of evidence they provided. Thats all. To quote WP rules, which you may just not fully understand, doesnt change that. Maybe ask Iryna for some coaching. Alexpl (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your finding Moscow's concern that a neighboring country is immersed in an armed conflict, with the central government using artillery and air strikes against its own people, "weird" is itself weird. And the BND official (a director of an intelligence agency is not an "operative" did not accuse Moscow of anything. He just said Moscow's claims were false. And Iryana thinks I understand the rules well, thank you. Your condescending tone is uncivil. – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Were you not going to respond to my 00:18 comment? How does "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" mislead? Stickee (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying that "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" is "misleading". I used Volunteer Marek's wording for the phrase in question. Everything I added faithfully represents what reliable sources say and find notable, yet you reverted my edit. I really don't understand at all what your problem is with this edit. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: continued by Bdell555 at 00:42 in section CESI on BND report. Stickee (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian State TV and radio company caught editing Russian Wikipedia entry about MH17

The Russian government has edited the Russian Wikipedia of this page. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/18/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article Tlsandy (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of improving this article, wikipedians have to be on the look-out for suspicious editing - also after the Russian government learns to spread its propaganda via VPN or named accounts. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the account of Tlsandy, most of whose edits are of this article, was created after MH17 crashed, on 10 September. Also, Tlsandy is one of the most aggressive editors making sure that this article states as little as possible but "the truth" about who downed MH17. Just yesterday, he reverted my edit eliminating cherry picking of a news report that was being extensively discussed in Talk without making a single comment on Talk himself. In short, what we appear to have here is a single purpose account. And it is interesting that nobody has posted a welcome note on Tisandy's Talk page, which suggests that he does not produce the impression of being a new editor. Also, the creation of this new Talk section is Tisandy's first contribution to an article Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

LoL. You are a premium member of Crimea/Novorossiya/KickUkraine-Club, having paused WP for 4 month, before coming back in April to help out Mother Russia whereever necessary. So I guess you have great expertise on SPA´s. Alexpl (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had an account for many years, gone through phases in which I edited articles on different subjects, and I only started editing Russia-related articles after the February coup. So your accusation is nothing but an utterly unfounded, malicious personal attack. Your battleground attitude is of no help at all in building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Alexpl (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen is right, Alexpl, you are being unnecessarily aggressive and you are not showing good faith. You are not being compliant with Wikipedia, Alexpl. --Mondschein English (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I'm not taking any action here because the next headline will read "US Government blah blah blah" but can you please take a look at the conduct in this thread?--v/r - TP 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The policies must the adhered to. With that said, I will add that showing good faith is only possible for so long. Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to see though that Herzen first accuses Tlsandy of being a single purpose account; and when accused in a similar way by Alexpl refers to wikipolicies. In my view a clear case of WP:POT. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you subjecting me to more scrutiny than this new user? In the summary of this edit, Tlsandy accused me of editing his comment. But I didn't touch his comment: what I did was edit the section title so it does not make a false claim. (As I said in my edit summary, in English Wikipedia "Wikipedia" refers to "English Wikipedia". The article Tlsandy linked to says "Russia" edited Russian Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia.) To quote from the Talk page guidelines: "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed". In his edit, Tlsandy deleted my comment. That is a clear violation of the guidelines. How have I violated the guidelines? So how am I exhibiting WP:POT? – Herzen (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic, this news has been around for a long time. We decided not to mention it in this article for several reasons (not this Wikipedia, not central to the accident itself). So can we please let this rest. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the records, an example of Russian government edits in the German MH17 article: [18]. The IP belongs to the Federal Protective Service (Russia). There were Ukrainian propaganda counter-edits around the same time, but they were more clever in hiding their identitiy, e.g. [19][20]. Both stopped soon, we have not seen such edits for months. --PM3 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. If you look up that IP with IPlocation, you get

95.173.130.218 Russian Federation Moscow City Moscow The Federal Guard Service Of The Russian Federation

I had never heard of the Federal Protective Service. I guess it is not one of the more elite Russian intelligence agencies. Actually, after reading that article, it sounds more like the Russian equivalent of the American Secret Service than an intelligence agency (разведка). In any case, this is certainly more notable than the subject of the thread, since a Russian government IP was used, whereas the IP mentioned by the Wired UK article belongs to a Russian TV network, and that network is no more the Russian government ("Russia") than the BBC is the UK. – Herzen (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm the edits seem fairly minor, and this is very obvious. I would not be surprised if this were an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break or so. In any case, we need a reliable secondary source to report on this to even consider it for the article. And even then, it is still another Wikipedia, and not about the crash itself, so I doubt it should be in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that this is notable or should be included in the article. What I said was that it is more notable than what Tlsandy saw fit to create a thread about, a case, it seems to me, of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Tlsandy said nothing about the merits of including this boring story in the article. All he said was that "Russia got caught".

I agree that this was probably a case of something like "an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break". Hopefully Russian officialdom has briefed its bureaucrats by now that using government IPs for editing sensitive subjects reflects badly on Russia. As PM3 noted, that has apparently stopped. – Herzen (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as no analysis of all Ip adresses of all contributors in this article is conducted, there is no way to tell. Alexpl (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you change my title when it is the title used by Wired. Tlsandy (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the Wired title is highly misleading? Do you honestly think that there is a rule that if there is a Talk section about a specific news article, the Talk section's heading must duplicate that of the news article? – Herzen (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

CESI on BND report

Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence claimed that the original, classified BND report had much more details pointing to Russian origin of the "Buk" but it was sanitized prior to delivery in Bundestag.

• "German intelligence service report on MH-17 flight crash was altered". Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence. 2014-10-22. Retrieved 2014-10-24.

Ok now we have a statement from some center that is self published. What do you suggest we do with this? Arnoutf (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The center seems to be a small anti Russian think tank (see their own website: [[21]]) so I think we should not take this as a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure who these people are [22] (no opinion on inclusion), but if they are right, the report by BND was partially a fake. This is not surprising, given it provides no details and contradicts many other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A report can't be fake, even partially. (Of course you say "partially" because you think that some parts of the report are true, namely those that support "the truth" known to you and others with your POV.) Only evidence can be fake. – Herzen (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

True a report is a report (it is, cannot be fake). That draft reports are sometimes changed to highlight or reduce claims for political reasons is very common; so nothing spectacular there. Arnoutf (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for inferior English. I linked word "fake" (see above) to disinformation - that is what all intelligence services do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not even sure this is intelligence service or government in general. A lot of draft reports are edited or reframed to avoid political issues. In this case placing no emphasis on Russia's role would fit such an action. Disinformation is something else i.e. the spreading of false information. Arnoutf (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed "This finding contradicted previous theories that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile and launcher." Besides the fact that one can argue that this is original research when the BND did not clearly say that their findings contradict a "theory" circulating in the "West", what exactly the BND said is coming to us third hand and this particular source (CESI) furthermore disputes it. When you are going to lead readers by the nose and present a "contradiction", one's sourcing needs to be of a very high standard. It is NOT the case that the BND held a press conference and announced that they've disproved something that got considerable circulation in Western media. If the third hand reporting is good, this was not the point the BND highlighted anyway. The bottom line is that reliability is not black and white with the report of testimony to German politicians that no one else reported on or had access to pure white and this CESI report pure black. What Wikipedia says should be appropriately qualified. That means not declaring, in the lede, not only "using a captured Ukrainian Buk system", but then using Wikipedia's voice to further highlight for the reader "contradiction" as if the reader could not come to that conclusion without Wikipedia's help. Business Insider is clearly unwilling to go along the "contradiction" claim since subsequently BI still reports that "The mainstream consensus is that Kremlin-backed Ukrainian separatists shot down the civilian plane with a surface-to-air missile provided by the Russian government". If you are going to overturn that consensus in one fell swoop, you need better sourcing than a incidental remark in a third hand account that is both absent public confirmation from the original speaker and disputed by another source.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is fair enough. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Several points. (1) This is the wrong section for this discussion. (2) You must not make false accusations against other editors. (3) Before you revert an edit (and that goes for partial reverts) which is being extensively discussed in Talk, you should first read that discussion. (4) I did not engage in OR, because the secondary source I added said "The new findings by BND 'contradict the existing claims of Ukraine and the West that the rebels fired on the MH17 jet with an advanced surface-to-air "Buk" missile, supplied by Russia." (5) It is you who are engaged in OR, because the secondary source International Business times did find that the BND contradicted what Ukraine and the West have said. That is why Volunteer Marek agreed to this edit. Thus, I based myself on a reliable secondary source; you did not. By bringing in CESI's speculation, you also engaged in SYNTH. (6) Please undo your edit.

P.S. Since I wrote that, you added to your previous comment. So: (7) If an editor makes a substantial addition to a previous comment, he should add a new timestamp to that addition. (8) I am not trying to overturn anything. Nobody has suggested that this one Spiegel article has overturned the Western consensus. That the consensus still holds does not imply that the assertions made by the BND, reported by Spiegel, do not contradict it. – Herzen (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

re (1) no, it is not the wrong section because I used CESI to support a subtraction, namely subtraction of what it contradicts. The difference between subtraction and addition has to do with burden of proof, something you don't seem to understand when you characterize my position as "do NOT contradict". At issue here is rather your contention that "DO contradict" is solidly sourced and fairly presented. As for (2), I suggest abiding by that yourself by not falsely contending, per (3), that I did not read everything related to this matter on the Talk page before editing. As for OR, I'd concede the point were it not for Wikipedia editing that cited Spiegel for the contradiction. When a source is drawing conclusions that the original source is not, that ought to be properly separated from the original source and ideally attributed as well when it is a judgment many other similarly positioned sources are not making. Re (5) see what I said about burden of proof. I do not need to cite RS in order to remove disputed material. re "Since I wrote that, you added to your previous comment", no, I did not. You did not "write that" (what proceeded your "P.S.") until half an hour after I edited my comment (according to the page history). The only thing you did between my revisions was sign your name to a comment elsewhere. I see no reason to clutter a comment with multiple time stamps when that comment has not yet been replied to. re (8) "not trying to overturn anything" if that's true then you should be fine with adding "The mainstream consensus is that Kremlin-backed Ukrainian separatists shot down the civilian plane with a surface-to-air missile provided by the Russian government" to this part, right? That would be an acceptable alternative to me.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I go with Brian Dell here. If we want to mention a 'contradiction' then we need high quality sources. Either a primary source (in this case BND) that explicitly (verbatim) states there is a contradiction; a secondary source held in incredibly high and universal regard who makes this analysis, or mainstream reporting from multiple reliable secondary sources. If have not seen either of these three. I would however not use CESI as argument as that is a very novel (est 2014) institute of which I cannot find any mainstream sources that hold it in high regard. I do agree this topic might have been better discussed at Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Spiegel_on_German_Secret_Service_report (although that thread is now unusably long) Arnoutf (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting claims

The following sources say there are "Conflicting claims" about who is responsible: Slate [23], NY Times [24] Hindustan Times [25], "3 possibilities" Straits Times [26], "different versions" Jamaica Observer [27], and "wildly clashing perspectives on what downed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 and who was to blame" Voice of America [28]. I suggest we use the NPOV term "conflicting claims" and list those claims. USchick (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

All but the Jamaica Observer – which is an AFP story – and VoA articles are problematic, because they came out just a day or two after the crash. Some editors would argue that there were "conflicting claims" right after the crash, but since then so much evidence has been produced that only crazy conspiracy theorists could even think for a moment that anyone but the rebels might have shot MH17 down. Like the Time story discussed above, the AFP story is a response to the ambiguity of the DSB preliminary report. However, the AFP is less forthright than Time here, since it says, "A preliminary report from Dutch investigators, which said yesterday the aircraft was hit by numerous "high-energy objects", could back up claims that the plane was shot down by a missile, although the report did not apportion blame", it does not say that the report could equally back up claims that MH17 was shot down by a fighter plane.

Are you suggesting that the term "conflicting claims" is more neutral than "different theories"? If so, why? All kinds of claims have been made, but there are only, depending on your POV, one, two, or three theories of how MH17 was downed that are "well recognized".

The VoA article may contain material that could be used in the "Russian media coverage section". – Herzen (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suggesting that "conflicting claims" is more neutral than "different theories." For one, a claim is just a claim (not a theory). For example, when the rebels claim they didn't do it, they're not assigning blame to anyone specific as part of some grand theory. They just claim they're not responsible. At this point no one claims responsibility, and that's a fact. The lede suggests that people claimed responsibility, which is misleading and leads the reader in a direction that sources don't support. If the US is blaming someone, than that needs to be made more clear in the article. First, it needs to be established that the US is not at all involved in this incident, and then, they blame Russian separatists. And then after that, the investigation is still ongoing and there are no conclusions at this point. This sequence needs to be established IMHO. USchick (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the exact proposal as far as the article is concerned?  Volunteer Marek  03:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to hear me out! For the article to be balanced, it's important to determine fact from sensationalism. We can do this in the lede: 1. Announce the plane crash. 2. There are conflicting claims about what happened. 3. List the claims without blaming anyone. 4. The US is blaming someone in particular. In this case, the US needs to be introduced as an interested party and why they have an opinion (since they're not involved) and state their opinion (as opinion, not fact, since they have no evidence). 5. Give the results of the preliminary investigation. USchick (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Now you're talking about something else. We've been over this. Stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No POV. Volunteer Marek  05:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're pulling a mini Tennispompom. Even though your proposal has great merit, it currently has near-zero probability of getting anything like a consensus behind it. I find my time is better spent in finding ways of letting little snippets of a major point of view other than the truth slip through occasionally. – Herzen (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"your proposal has great merit" if you ignore WP:FRINGE. We do not "list" every "claim" made by an unreliable source and then reduce everything to "opinion".--Brian Dell (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish someone would post a link of an actual discussion when "we have been over this" because all I remember is people saying no, without any explanation. USchick (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Did we not have an edit war over people posting comments out of sequence? Did editors not freak out over that and go to ANI? Are we being selective about that also? Does the hypocrisy bother anyone besides me? USchick (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as Tennispompom, they presented a lot of very good arguments that are being completely ignored. USchick (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we did not have an edit war over people posting comments out of sequence, we had an edit war over you moving other people's comments out of sequence. No, we didn't go to ANI over this, we went to ANI over you falsely accusing others of racism. No, there's no hypocrisy here, just you ... "misrepresenting the situation". As usual. Volunteer Marek  19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a proposal at the beginning of this section. I would appreciate some discussion about the proposal please, or a link to where it has already been discussed. USchick (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats not a real proposal. You dont differentiate between the perpetrator "A" (who shot down the plane) and the party responsible "X". There are conflicting claims about "A" and A´s method of destroying the plane, but the guy responsible for this war in the first place is widely thought to be "X". Alexpl (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

By "X", I take it you mean Victoria Nuland. – Herzen (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You certainly make it hard to assume good faith on your part. And how exactly is your assumption supposed to improve the article? Lklundin (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It should not be that hard to figure out that I am acting in good faith. Alexpl made the gratuitous remark that there is a "guy" who "is widely thought" to be "responsible for this war". That remark does not help build an encyclopedia; it is a provocative instance of using Talk pages as a forum. My comment used irony to point that out. Since that irony evidently went over your head, you forced me to spell this out for you. – Herzen (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a real proposal. If someone already knows what happened, they must have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. USchick (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Untold Story Documentary

A new documentary has come out called "MH-17: The Untold Story". http://rt.com/shows/documentary/197540-mh-17-crash-ukraine/ It claims that there was no BUK launch, because no trail was seen. The trail should last about 10 minutes in that weather. It claims that SU-25 Wiki pages have been edited to downgrade its ability to reach 10km. It shows an example of SU-25 cannon fire, which looks remarkably similar to holes in MH-17. They also interview witnesses who claim that a second plane was in the area at the same time. All of these are good candidates for addition to this articles.118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I love the smell of napalm propaganda in the morning. Lklundin (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

For once, please try to be mature and respond to the raised topic.118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

On reflection I believe your pitch for the RT story received exactly the response it deserves. Lklundin (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It is propaganda and nothing more. Tlsandy (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We decided before that RT is generally not a reliable source for this page. So I don't see why this changes anything. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You never responded to my observation that you appear to be a SPA. – Herzen (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you say that "we" decided something, you should give a link to where "we" made this decision. In any case, even if such a decision had been made, it does not apply in this case, because Western news outlets are taking this particular RT documentary seriously. Here is another story about this RT piece. – Herzen (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting so old. Anything that deviates from the truth is Russian propaganda and "Putin's alternate reality". If this were propaganda, a mainstream Western news outlet wouldn't have given serious coverage to this documentary, only to delete the story from its Web site, because the story undermines the current intense US anti-Russia propaganda campaign. How some editors can't understand that they believe that there is one true theory about MH17 only because Western propaganda is highly effective is beyond me.

After I wrote that, I went back to the original link, and it turns that this story has been put back on the IBTimes Web site. So thanks to Google, the effort to make this story disappear from the internet failed. – Herzen (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Was is getting old is the attempt to push the speculation regarding ballistics from a civilian aviator (Haisenko) and with it the super-capable SU-25. The latest attempt by rt.com (pushed above) even tries to argue that on the English wikipedia the specified service ceiling of the SU-25 has been reduced (from at least 10km to 7km) after the downing of MH-17. However, rt.com fails to notice the inconvenient fact that prior to the downing of MH-17 (when the desperate diversion of the super-capable SU-25 still had to be concocted) the SU-25 service ceiling was indeed just 7km. In the mindset of a state controlled news organ it must be hard to accept that the information available to the public is not just a matter of the will of the state. Lklundin (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

OR can't be used in articles, so you are wasting your breath. Also, see the next section. You haven't got a leg to stand on any more to push your one truth. – Herzen (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless we are free to label a theory proposed by someone with exactly zero knowledge on military issues (Haisenko) as unreliable or fringe. His opinion is about as much worth as my claim the cause was a pulsating laserbeam from a high orbit North Korean satellite. Arnoutf (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If he wrote about his theory VKontakte, it would be fringe. If reliable sources report about his findings, it should be mentioned in the article. USchick (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a point to your comment?  Volunteer Marek  21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are fringe comments in the lede and RS are being ignored. Why? USchick (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dutch prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down MH17

Reuters: MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner - Der Spiegel

Dutch prosecutors investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 believe the aircraft might have been shot down from the air but that a ground-to-air missile attack is more likely, a senior prosecutor said in a German media interview. …

In an interview published by German newsmagazine Der Spiegel on Monday, prosecutor Fred Westerbeke said the Dutch would ask Moscow to provide the information that had led them to believe a Ukrainian aircraft was nearby.

"Based on the information available, a shooting-down by a ground-to-air missile is the most likely scenario, but we aren't closing our eyes to the possibility that it could have happened differently," Der Spiegel quoted him as saying.

Dutch prosecutors are open to the possibility that a fighter plane shot down MH17, but some editors game the system to prevent English Wikipedia being open to that possibility. Are our the truth is out there editors now going to tell us that Dutch prosecutors are conspiracy theorists and FRINGE?
Spiegel article: MH17-Chefermittler Westerbeke: "Wissen die Russen womöglich mehr?"
Herzen (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiegel International: Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence' SPIEGEL: So you're saying there hasn't been any watertight evidence so far?

Westerbeke: No. If you read the newspapers, though, they suggest it has always been obvious what happened to the airplane and who is responsible. But if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one.

SPIEGEL: Moscow has been spreading its own version for some time now, namely that the passenger jet was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet. Do you believe such a scenario is possible?

Westerbeke: Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have happened differently.

Unlike Dutch prosecutors, some Wikipedia editors do close their eyes, because they already know the truth. – Herzen (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You and your truth. In the specific case you left out the most significant statement from Westerbeke: 'We are preparing a request to Moscow for information ... including the radar data with which the Russians wanted to prove that a Ukrainian military jet was nearby". He is basically calling the bluff of Moscow and asks to see what cards they hold - and the fact that he uses the past tense (the Russians wanted to prove) is rather telling of his expectations. This puts Moscov in quite a dilemma. Moscov's decades of experience in faking evidence presented to the public via state controlled media will be hard pressed to come up with something that holds water in an actual forensic analysis. Time will tell how that goes. Lklundin (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, this is what any investigator should do. Keep all options that are not proven nonsense open; however implausible/unlikely. If they would say anything else the investigation would be flawed. However as the investigator also states is that they think the SAM missile theory most probable. So this does not change anything to our discussion Arnoutf (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If investigators are keeping all options open, why don't Wikipedia editors do the same? USchick (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE WP:UNDUE.

Also a new version must require consensus before adding; the mere removal shows no consensus and puts the onus of bringing it to the talk page on the editors who want it in. Not the editor who removed the addition. Arnoutf (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please link to a policy with that requirement. A brief statement properly sourced does not need special approval as far as i can tell. WP:BRD USchick (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe that you're still clinging to the FRINGE smear. If Reuters runs a story with the headline "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner" which many news Web sites pick up, this theory is not fringe. And as I said below, reporting what the chief prosecutor says is UNDUE. The chief prosecutor is quite possibly the main actor now when it comes to MH17. – Herzen (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in your OR. I can see that you honestly believe the preposterous theory that the rebels shot down MH17 with a Buk missile. Russian "state controlled media" don't have anything to worry about: Russia did not botch a false flag: Ukraine did. As for cherry picking, instead of adding "the most significant statement from Westerbek", Arnoutf just reverted my edit, instead of raising his objections to my edit here, which is what he should have done.

This is his edit summary: "Sorry but words like "preferred" are non neutral by nature. Also the lenght makes this unduly long." Why was that "unduly long"? That was an interview with the chief prosecutor. Significant further developments regarding MH17 will now come from the criminal investigation arena, not the technical investigation. So making my addition to the article any shorter would not have given due weight to this interview. As for "preferred", I really don't see what's wrong with that, but I can easily take it out. Doggedly sticking to his battleground attitude, instead of discussing what edits could be made to the text I added, Arnoutf unilaterally undid the edit. Such behavior makes it very hard for one to assume that Arnoutf is here to build an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin: If that is "the most significant statement from Westerbeke", then why doesn't the English Spiegel article mention it? – Herzen (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

First, my contributions are not belief-driven I just report from reliable sources (although I allow myself some digression on the talk-pages). Also, I am not convinced that it was rebels who actually pulled the trigger on the BUK, it could also have been 'green men' from Russia. If you like to refer to that as 'preposterous' then that says a lot about the strength of your beliefs. As for Westerbeke I don't consider any of his statements regarding the super-capable SU-25 as notable - with a possible exception if they cause Moscow to show their hand. But I cannot speak for Der Spiegel. Dismiss also this as OR if you like. (PS. If I inserted this reply in the wrong place, then I am sorry - I am unsure about the meaning of the highly variable indentation in this thread). Lklundin (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) This is an obvious attempt at a ... creative, interpretation of a source in order to push a POV. Volunteer Marek  20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

a) It is not brief. b) it is not properly sourced. See my analysis of the most obvious problems in this 'short' section.

As I was unable to edit bias information about MH17 so I went here to look at the discussion and realize POVs are the real editor. Clearly the relevant information from Westerbeke is a) No info from US 100+ days after accusations, b) They now ask Moscow for evidence, AND c) They do not rule out the version Moscow have presented on the 21st of July. Sadly there are several bias history writing examples, i.e. citing a Polish source for RT claiming mistaken identity with Putins plane. Reading the *actual* RT story clearly shows wiki-article is factually wrong and only serves to ridicule and cast doubt on anything coming from Russia. Godvad (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Time magazine --Unencyclopedic to quote a secondary source like this--, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred --Highly biased word; is not in the source hence original research--. in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing --biased word; is not in the source hence original research--. theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.[200] In an interview with Der Spiegel, the chief Dutch MH17 prosecutor Fred Westerbeke indicated that he is open to theory --not what the source states. The source states that they do not close their eyes to the possibility which is magnitude of order less than being open -- that another plane shot down the airliner, saying "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one." -- This now looks like it is on the plane shooting down, but it is not. Take out of context hence clear violation of orginal research/synthesis ---

And these are only a few obvious problems. The last remark of Herzen is clear violation of WP:AGF and pretty close to a personal attack. Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Time magazine, there are conflicting claims. Would anyone like to talk about that now? USchick (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not the topic of this thread. So no. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It happens to be the topic of the current edit war and the topic of your preceding comment, so feel free to discuss it at any location you feel is appropriate. USchick (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What don't you understand in this Reuters headline: "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner"? Please stop making false allegations against me. – Herzen (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about me: The phrase "Doggedly sticking to his battleground attitude, instead of discussing what edits could be made to the text I added, Arnoutf unilaterally undid the edit. Such behavior makes it very hard for one to assume that Arnoutf is here to build an encyclopedia. " Is a smoking gun for WP:AGF. The claim "false allegations" is another. Arnoutf (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• One should really read the publication by Reuters quoted above [29]. It tells: "An interim report issued by the Dutch Safety Board, which investigates air crashes, listed several passenger jets in flight MH17's vicinity, but no military aircraft that would have been capable of shooting it down.", and also: "The Russian government has always said it has radar imagery proving the fully laden Boeing 777 was shot down by a Ukrainian military aircraft flying in its vicinity, but Western officials have never publicly accepted this scenario." Dutch investigators believe that the plane was shot down by BUK missile, however, they are ready to examine Russian radar data (meaning no one provided them such data so far). This is far from endorsing the alternative version. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Quoting from the publication; "We are preparing a request to Moscow for information ... including the radar data with which the Russians wanted to prove that a Ukrainian military jet was nearby," he added. Dated today, Mon Oct 27. So we already have the initial report, but the request is still being prepared. No endorsement has been made yet. Also, The Russian government is just as uninvolved as the American government. In order to include either opinion, it would be helpful to explain why their opinion counts. Right? USchick (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick. If and when they receive these data and come up with new conclusions, that could be a time for revision, but I do not see any new information about the crash right now. Filing a request by investigators is hardly something notable.My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Quoting more: Dutch prosecutors investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 believe the aircraft might have been shot down from the air... What's new about this is now we have an RS (dated today) that says the investigators believe in an alternative theory. Not fringe, not POV, investigators are considering this as a real possibility and requesting more evidence. It seems like it's time to update the article with this new information. USchick (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

False, the source does not say that "investigators believe in an alternative theory". This is just more misrepresentation. Volunteer Marek  00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"shot down from the air" is not the same as "shot down from the ground" USchick (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

and your "..." = "but that a ground-to-air missile attack is more likely". Stop playing games. Volunteer Marek  00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So even you admit, there is more than one possibility, and the investigators are considering ALL of them. USchick (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It was precisely my point (see above) that Dutch investigators do not believe in alternative theory, which is clear after reading whole article. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigators investigate and report. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant. And the same should go for Wikipedia editors. USchick (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. There is no reason to think that prosecutors "believe" the Buk missile theory, either. What the chief prosecutor said was that "it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario." He was careful not to say that "it is my opinion that a surface to air missile shot down MH17." He said that he believes that that is the most likely scenario. And he is clear about there being two main theories, with one more likely to be true than the other. This article must consider both theories, because Wikipedia policy is to " describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"." You do not stop insisting that there is one "best view". The only conclusion I can draw is that you do not understand the Five Pillars. – Herzen (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that prosecutors "believe" the Buk missile theory, either. Uhh, yes there is. The "most likely" part. Volunteer Marek  02:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between "It is more likely that event A occurred than that event B occurred" and "event A occurred", then there is no point in having a discussion with you. Also, why do you insist on using OR to read investigators' minds? The chief prosecutor is a lawyer; hence he chooses his words carefully. Why not let Wikipedia report what he says, instead of making guesses about what he thinks? You are not even trying to maintain the appearance of being reasonable anymore – just making wild, unprovable claims. – Herzen (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Look, I'm not interested in a discussion about epistemic logic so let's just say that the prosecutor obviously believes that the most likely explanation is that it was a BUK. Yes, we can say that. But we can't cherry pick, twist his words, or quote them out of context, as you and USchick are trying to do. *That* is OR. Volunteer Marek  04:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How is giving an extended quotation "twisting words"? And the quotation I gave actually provided context: the investigation, unlike the press, needs evidence, precisely because it is a criminal investigation. That is the context of the investigators' remarks. I let the investigator provide this context by letting him speak for himeslf; Tlsandy took that context setting out. And how are cherry picking – which is precisely what you want this article to continue to do – and "twisting words" OR? All I can see going on here is one sustained IDONTHEAR and various random incoherent arguments produced to game the system so that editors who are here to build an encyclopedia are disrupted at every turn to prevent them from making the article attain neutrality. What part of "we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"" don't you understand? – Herzen (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Toronto Sun and Chicago Tribune have picked up the story. [30] [31] And The Sydney Morning Herald [32], MSN Phillipines [33], Irish Independent [34], NDTV India [35] USchick (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, they're all the same Reuters story, "This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source". Stickee (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It's the same story. Reuters is a wire service. Volunteer Marek  04:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, both of those are the Reuters story, as Stickee points out. AP and AFP have not picked this up. Predictably, the usual suspects – the NY Times, Wash Post, BBC, and Guardian – are ignoring it. I found one German story which, like the Reuters story, reports on the Spiegel article:

Schon länger gibt es die Theorie, dass ein Kampfjet den Flug MH17 im Juli abgeschossen hat. Nun äußert sich erstmals der holländische Chef-Ermittler zu der Frage. Er erklärt, dass sein Team nur noch von zwei Szenarien ausgeht.

For some time it has been theorized that a fighter shot down flight MH17 in July. Now for the first time the Dutch chief investigator has expressed himself on the question. He explains that his team goes out from only two scenarios.

So the journalist who wrote that can understand what the chief prosecutor said, even though some editors here can't. Also, it's funny how Dutch prosecutors are considering the exact same two theories that the Russian engineers' report considers. – Herzen (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's the same story according to Wiki policy, there's no question now about what the investigators are investigating. Can we please update the article? USchick (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed regarding the (criminal) investigation since a month ago when he said they're still investigating. There's no new information presented. Stickee (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why is there a news wire? The headline could have been, "No New Information" but that's not what it says. And it confirms what the Malaysian and other international sources have been saying all along. See "Conflicting claims" section for links. USchick (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it would be a bit hard to sell newspapers with a headline like that. Stickee (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys Im curious, for the Buk proponents, where was the 10,000 plus metre 5 min lasting massive smoke plume? No one saw it, or filmed it. Nothing. Odd. SaintAviator lets talk 07:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Lklundin (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

True but its on topic, the Dutch will know this about the plume, hence the interest in the 2nd aircraft theory. There is too much counter evidence for the Dutch to ignore it. If this encyclopedia article is to be balanced, well it needs to be constantly updated by NPOV entries.SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not on topic. You just assume that there is always a massive smoketrail which stays there for minutes - based upon what? Maybe a youtubevideo? Leave that to the investigators. Alexpl (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Theres no need to get personal. WP itself covers the fuel supply of rockets. Unless you know something rocket scientists dont know, ie a source of smokeless fuel, I suggest you do some research. SaintAviator lets talk 23:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean exotic stuff like wind, clouds and the effects of a hot summer day? Good point. Alexpl (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if Alexpl proves himself to be an actual rocket scientist the suggested research would still be OR. Btw my own, non-notable experience with rockets is that while a large rocket like the Space Shuttle Booster leaves a smoke trail visible from far away, a much smaller (BUK-sized) rocket can leave a thin trail that quickly becomes difficult to see. Lklundin (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a fine clear day wind very low, you guys should know this. Buks are not small. A visible plume would point to a Buk. The lack of a plume has not been explained adequately by team Buk SaintAviator lets talk 09:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "team BUK". The highly questionable experts, who promoted the SU-25 theory, are the only reason, why the BUK theory seems to be dominant. Maybe you should send an email to the dutch investigators and point them to the smoketrail. But we cant help you. Alexpl (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There most certainly is a team Buk 'out there'. Its naive to ignore the politics, but WP should, I repeat should, be above it. Im not going to send an email to the dutch investigators nor Im sure have you. There was no Buk plume, perhaps you need to think on that and stay away from personal attacks to distract from the point. SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You did not really think that through. "The West" with all its conflictive movements is stable and diverse enough to life with every possible "truth" coming up. Russia is not.

Again: EOD until you bring something sourced and helpful. Alexpl (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

New "Criminal investigation" section

I noted above several times that the criminal investigation is where most interesting developments concerning MH17 are going to occur. Thus, I created a new Criminal investigation section. I found two other relevant sources besides the ones discussed here. I'm actually surprised that the article had said essentially nothing about the criminal investigation. I have taken into account objections that had been made to my presentation of the Spiegel interview. I believe that my edit fairly represents the Spiegel interview. Note that Reuters' take on the interview was "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner". A reliable source found this notable, so this fact must be kept in. I have made clear that even though the prosecutor is "open", he nevertheless strongly favors one theory. Thus, I include the quote "Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have happened differently." I just include the first sentence; I don't include the second one. But the "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence…" bit must stand, because the headline of the English Spiegel article is "Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'". Thus, according to English Spiegel, that is the most notable thing that Westerbeke said in the interview.
We need a new section about the criminal investigation. So please don't anyone undue my edit. This interview with Westerbeke is highly notable, and must be included in the article. If somebody thinks something needs to be changed, please bring it up in Talk, instead of engaging in aggressive editing. Note that I am following BRD: "When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." – Herzen (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, can you please put a heading on this comment, so it doesn't dangle off the bottom and I don't get in trouble again??? Please? :) USchick (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) USchick (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first source that says investigators are considering other theories. We have Malaysian Japanese and Singapore sources, but no one likes those and to this day we have no explanation why they're not acceptable. They were very early reports, and now we have a later report (dated today) that confirms all those early reports. USchick (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Our new SPA once again made an aggressive edit instead of following guidelines and raising the matter in the ongoing Talk discussion first. – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If this section is getting too long, I support the idea of a new article for the Investigation. USchick (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The section is long because of all the hearsay and speculation in the "Cause of crash" section. Now that there is a real criminal investigation underway, and the chief prosecutor has said "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site" (something the SPA with the username ‎Tlsandy instantly deleted), all of that hearsay and speculation has become utterly irrelevant, and thus should be removed from the article. – Herzen (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be removed from the article. For the thousandth time, you can call it "hearsay and speculation", but what it is is actually info from reliable sources. The existence of a criminal investigation does not change anything. Volunteer Marek  00:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) and to this day we have no explanation why they're not acceptable - again, blatantly false. This has been explained several times, you just keep pretending that it hasn't. In fact, it was explained to you in an ANI discussion which was started because you falsely accused an editor of being racist. So there's no way in hell that you can sincerely believe that "to this day we have no explanation". Stop playing games. Volunteer Marek  23:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of ranting, would you like to give the reason? So we all know? The section with the links is called "Conflicting claims" there's a proposal there, but there's no discussion there. USchick (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever "explanations" may have been given, they have become obsolete, given that Reuters has published a story with the headline "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner" and IBTimes has published a story with the headline "MH17 News Update: Pilot Was Targeted Right In The Stomach – Expert Alleges" (which IBTimes pulled from its Web site, but then put back again). The "game" has changed. The idea that considering the possibility that MH17 was shot down by a fighter plane is a conspiracy theory and FRINGE just doesn't work anymore. I'm sorry to have to break this news to you. – Herzen (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For further discussion, I would like to point out that Indian Reuters published this information. So now we have all kinds of foreign sources that contradict American sources. I like America (it's in my user name), but to ignore all these foreign sources, someone needs to provide a very good reason. If you need to me link them all in one place, just let me know. And we also need to explain in the article why America has anything at all to say about this event. They're on the opposite side of the globe and not at all involved in the crash. USchick (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please try to distinguish between America and the USA. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The IBTimes just notes that there's a video out there which claims that a jet shot down the plane. And that this is the official position of Russia. So what? That's already in the article. Haisenko is still a fringe source, this is still a conspiracy video, this is still junk (come on, use some common sense - pilot was targeted right in the stomach? Even if a jet tried to shoot down the plane that is just stupid). So no go.

With the Reuters story you guys are seizing - and misrepresenting the sensationalist headline. Why not focus on what the article actually says. Like "An interim report issued by the Dutch Safety Board, which investigates air crashes, listed several passenger jets in flight MH17's vicinity, but no military aircraft that would have been capable of shooting it down.". All that the article says is that prosecutors will consider all possibilities, even the unlikely ones. It does not say that the prosecutor considers all theories equally possible. In fact it explicitly says that that isn't the case. This is just another attempt at pushing a POV in this article. No go. Volunteer Marek  00:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin, yes, please excuse me, US sources. USchick (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So the headline is both "sensationalist" and "misrepresented" by me? How does that work, exactly? How do I "misrepresent" a headline by quoting it verbatim? And no matter how many times you accuse me of pushing a POV, it is you who are pushing a POV, by trying to keep the article from abiding by Wikipedia policy. All I am doing is "striv[ing]… [to] document and explain the major points of view". If Reuters reports that the "MH17 prosecutor [is] open to theory [that] another plane shot down airliner", then that is a major point of view. That the prosecutor does not find this theory to be the most likely one doesn't change that in the least. Wikipedia policy is to "describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"." You keep insisting that the Buk missile theory is the best view, but that does not matter to editors who understand Wikipedia policy. – Herzen (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

 Volunteer Marek , please link to a discussion that you claimed happened for this edit [36]. Please self revert or I will call for sanctions to be enforced. Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time Magazine thing is all over this page. Read the talk page, stop playing these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, don't threaten people with sanctions when your own behavior has been quite egregious (like falsely accusing others of racism, misrepresenting sources, moving people's comments, misrepresenting editors, etc.), and quit wasting other people's time.

I should add something about the title of this section "edit war". USchick has been trying to add a POV tag to this article for some time. There is no consensus that such a tag is warranted, much less that it has been meaningfully substantiated. USchick's response has been to initiate and inflame edit wars on this article based on some kind of logic which says "if there are edit wars then that means the article is not neutral". See similarly titled section above. This is obviously acting in bad faith. Stop it. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's an open RfC about the tag specifically for people to comment there. Your attempt here is to edit war after a BRD process. I call for an admin to review the history and enforce sanctions please. USchick (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Then gather your evidence, provide the diffs and file the report in the proper venue, WP:AE, where the accuser takes as much risk of being sanction as the accused. Generically "calling for admins to enforce sanctions please" is just a smear-intimidation tactic which alleges sanction worthy behavior without actually offering any proof to that effect. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And let me point out that you've repeatedly tried to force text into the article despite numerous objections on talk. And then you come to the talk page and pretend that these objections don't exist, endlessly asking "show me the discussion". It's right above. Volunteer Marek  21:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is sanctioned for a reason and I'm calling for enforcement. The discussion above gives no reason to remove sourced content except WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and shows repeated refusal to discuss. Proof [37] Since you have to have the last word, go ahead, I'm done arguing. USchick (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The BRD process you refer to above demands that after a bold addition (by Herzen) and a revert (by me) discussion is finished before anyone (including USchick) adds it again. So you reverting me already goes against the idea of the WP:BRD process which you yourself bring to the table. In that light Volunteer Marek had every right to revert your edit in turn. Arnoutf (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I think you're right about that! I just read the BRD more closely, and my edit was wrong. VM continued the edit war. Ok, I recall my request for sanctions, but we still have an edit war. Now do we want to discuss it? USchick (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: after the above comment (22:29) a new section was created above regarding this topic. Stickee (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I reported the incident to ANI, without much hope though.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Pure disinformation.

No single mention of the bullet decalls holes in the Plane debris. This its a shame of article. A complete whitewash, and "investigations are under way" panflet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what a "bullet decalls hole" is, can you please explain and provide a reliable source that whatever it is is relevant, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No vapour trail

Discussion that is turning off topic - welcome to start a new topic with any further concerns

If the BUK theory is true then we would see a vapour trail from the missile that would last 10 minutes and be seen for many km. This is what the Untold Story documentary claims. However, we don't see such a trail. Here is the best video we have from the crash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbAirCuNnA&list 118.210.196.217 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Here is what the trail would look like: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/sciencetech/video-1106139/Watch-SA-11-Gadfly-Soviet-SAM-System-works.html 118.210.196.217 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC) You're just repeating nonsense from various internet conspiracy sites. WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  07:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Wait but this is just pure logic. "Where there is smoke there must be fire". You can't have a BUK missile launch without a vapour trail. It is physically not possible. None of the numerous witnesses saw such a trail... 118.210.196.217 (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Also why is this nonsense? Why is this conspiracy when we have already shown that it's not (see posts above).118.210.196.217 (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC) If it was a Buk I have not yet found a good reason for no vapour trail. Fine day no wind. What gives? BTW I have not seen the so called conspiracy sites. Can supporters of the Buk idea please explain with good refs why there is no plume from a Buk? SaintAviator lets talk 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Maybe they didnt ask enough people if they did see one? Or those who did are afraid to talk? We cant tell. Dont bring that up again until you have reliable sources which are helpful for the article. EOD per WP:forum and WP:No original research Alexpl (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC) This whole discussion is nonsense and a poor attempt at OR from ignorant POVs. (The ignorance is apparent from the observation that they confuse the vapour trail that an aircraft engine may produce with the exhaust from a rocket). Lklundin (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) This was claimed to be the trail of the missile, photographed ~ 6 minutes after the plane was hit, from a distance of ~ 10 km (obviously using a tele lens). This picture spread over the net already on 17 July. I guess the rocket would have flown for about 20-30 seconds from the claimed launch spot to 10 km above Roszypne (~ 25 km horizontal distance), where the plane was hit. As the trail is said to dissolve within 10 minutes, it may well look like this after 6 and a half minutes. --PM3 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks PM3, "no smoke without fire" as they say. Tempted to add image to the article, but there may be copyright problems, of course. (not really) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Here is a twitter link which proves that the picture was published already on July 17: [38]. The Ukrainian Secret Service reproduced it on 19 July: [39]. You can find it in many Blogs using Google picture search. --PM3 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I don't see what the point is of linking to an alleged photograph of a vapor trail of the SAM that allegedly shot down MH17 when there is a criminal investigation going on. The fact remains that there are videos of several eyewitnesses who say they saw MH17 who say they also saw a military plane near it. I have never heard of any eyewitnesses saying they saw a SAM contrail. You don't find it worrisome that we have no idea of where that photo came from? I think that the most significant recent development concerning MH17 is that the Dutch are expressing frustration at the US not giving them satellite imagery which the US claimed it has showing that the rebels had a Buk. It remains to be seen what the Russians do when the Dutch formally request them to hand over intelligence information they have. (Note by the way that the headline of the Reuters piece is "MH17 investigators still awaiting U.S., Russian intelligence reports", whereas in fact, Russia should not have been mentioned in the headline, since Holland has not yet formally asked Russia for any intelligence reports, so Holland can't "await" them.) – Herzen (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I thought we were discussing a vapour trail? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I posted this link to disprove the claim of 118.210.196.217 and SaintAviator that there are no indications of a vapor trail at all. This picture may show the trail of a SAM which shot down MH17, or it may show somehing else. But the claim that there is no evidence at all of a vapor trail is wrong, that's the point. And those who made the "Untold Story" documentary must have known that, so they probably lied. --PM3 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC) How would one verify the location at which the photograph was taken, the time and date it was taken, and the direction of the camera? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC) @PM3: Good point. PS to several. Please stop using 'contrail' and 'vapour trail' when we are discussing exhaust from a (solid-fuel) rocket. The rocket exhaust is smoke from a chemical reaction, while the contrail/vapour trail is a phase change of water already in the atmosphere due to pressure changes from a moving aircraft. They are two very different things. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Quite agree, it's not a contrail. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC) @Martinevans: This analysis (which as to my opinion has some flaws) shows how the location and direction may be determined. Regarding the time and date, there is no way to be sure, EXIF data can easily be faked. --PM3 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I would ask you what the flaws are. But, of course, this source is not considered WP:RS, so we can't even discuss it, can we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Hmmm a blog post from a pro-West Ukranian. We don't know where the photo came from. We don't know where it was taken. We don't know when it was taken. We don't know what is in the photo - it could be a trail left by the falling plane. None of the hundreds of witnesses saw a trail. The video of the crash that I linked to at the start doesn't show a trail either. In my mind the lack of the trail is the BEST evidence we have against the BUK theory and simply cannot be ignored.118.210.196.217 (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I really don't think anyone apart for your good-anon-ip-self (geolocated to Adelaide, Australia) claims this image shows "a trail left by the falling plane". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I am not claiming it, just saying that it is a possibility. It could also be clouds. The photo could have been taken at some other time. Oh no you know my city, my cover has been blown :) 118.210.196.217 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Nobody seeing an exhaust trail is one of the reasons why I think no Buk was fired. (Another reason is that the German government said that NATO received no indication from its AWACS that a SAM was fired.) But that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. It is absurd to pay attention to what is going on in social networking sites when there is an official criminal investigation underway (which USG is stonewalling, as I noted). If somebody hats or archives this Talk section, I would have no problem with that. There is no way to discuss the issue of the "vapor trail" based on reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC) What do you mean "nobody seeing"? Someone took a photo. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I guess he´s still talking about the crappy Russia Today documentary "MH17 - The untold Story". Guess who is quoted there: Peter Haisenko. Alexpl (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Watch out folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC) If someone took a photo, why hasn't he been interviewed by a TV network? This claiming that evidence exists that a Buk downed MH17 because someone uploaded a photo onto a social networking site is very primitive conspiracy theorizing. The truth is out there! I think this discussion should be hatted, but I can't do that, since I am not "uninvolved". Reliable sources have nothing to say about this, so all of the discussion in this section is OR. – Herzen (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Maybe he or she wants to remains anonymous? Maybe "TV networks" aren't interested? But hey, maybe we should give RT a call and get something set up? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Who are you kidding? The BBC is very interested. To quote the article: On 8 September BBC released a new material by John Sweeney who cited three civilian witnesses from Donbass who have seen the "Buk" launcher in the rebel-controlled territory on the day when MH17 crashed. Two witnesses said the crew of the launcher and a military vehicle escorting it did not have local accents and spoke with Muscovite accents. The BBC could dig up alleged witnesses of the proverbial Buk launcher in "rebel-controlled territory", but no witnesses who saw an exhaust trail. Really, I'm getting the impression that the only people who still believe that a Buk shot MH17 down are some English Wikipedia editors. – Herzen (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Buks fly oblique, on an angle to meet target, probably a 12,000 to 14,000 distinctive trail. It would have been over many houses, it it existed for 10 minutes. By now someone would have come forward, esp with so much controversy and emotion going on. SaintAviator lets talk 23:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) There's a few sources on the matter (but not too many). "a surveillance photograph... showing a signature trail of smoke emanating from beyond a hill in rebel-held eastern Ukraine." - National Post, "based on a photograph of the missile's smoke trail released by Ukraine's Security Service." - The Telegraph, "Leaving a vapour trail in a clear blue sky, this was the scene seconds after a missile was sent screaming towards Flight MH17 at 1,900mph." - Daily Mail. Stickee (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC) From the first article "The location of the site tallies with a surveillance photograph, released by Ukraine’s intelligence service, showing a signature trail of smoke emanating from beyond a hill in rebel-held eastern Ukraine." Where is this surveillance photograph? Why was this information not used in the Dutch report?118.210.196.217 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC) BTW that hazy long range photo of some smoke someone posted above has an original time stamp and hour and a half or so after the crash. So the origin and the authenticity of this photo is so dubious I wonder why it was even posted. It keeps doing the rounds but its the same photo. Still no good refs for any vapour trail. I think its safe to say at this point, there isnt any and wont be any. Leaving a big hole in the Buk story. SaintAviator lets talk 04:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC) One more telling point. Where are the recorded live feeds from the 24/7 US satellites? Where is the undisputable US evidence mentioned? In such a politically charged case its hard to believe, IF it existed, its not all over You Tube by now damning the Pro Russian Rebels in guilt. Could it be its not been presented because there was no plume to film? There may be another reason for not releasing footage, but I cant think of it. SaintAviator lets talk 05:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOR. Volunteer Marek  05:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Feel free to hat this discussion. You're not really involved, since all you've said is "not a forum"; I am. Since there is a criminal investigation underway, there is no need for the kind of speculation going on here. Very little of the discussion in this section is about how the article can be improved. (This is not to say that I do not believe that the RT "Untold Story" documentary is excellent. I do.) – Herzen (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Ah The point here is that the article under 'causes' is biased. It favours Buk. The neutrality is being questioned. No ones knows the cause yet do they? Thats why this little chat is not a forum. SaintAviator lets talk 06:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Sigh. Been over that more than ten times already. Volunteer Marek  06:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Sighs slightly longer. IKR its The Ghouta Gas Attack all over again. The article ends up being a convoluted piece with no real evidence either way. Yawns. Its still way biased SaintAviator lets talk 06:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) I certainly agree that the "causes" section is ridiculously biased. It is a disjointed melange of speculation and tedious recitation of hearsay. And it's interesting that you mention Ghouta. Because that false flag made anyone who pays attention realize, as soon as the MH17 story broke, that the downing of MH17 was a Ukrainian false flag. The rebels had been warning for weeks that the Ukrainians were going to pull a false flag. – Herzen (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC) It´s not interesting - it comes in handy. If you have nothing to offer but unsourced allegations, this thread should end here. Alexpl (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Agree Herzen, I mean I like WP in general, but its articles like this with sections like 'Causes' that bring WP down. What does not amaze me anymore is trying to get it unbiased and NPOV. It wont happen. People tend to want to keep what they wrote. Its WPs big failure. Thats one of the reasons people dont take some WP articles seriously and indeed WP itself. I dont know if it started out better or became this way. It is what it is, but definitely its these high stakes articles that are a fail. For instance trying to even closes down discussion of an important piece of evidence. What should happen in a NPOV article is mention there was no plume trail, videotaped to date. The second plane theory gets an airing. That sort of thing. Frankly its disturbing. But I could be wrong, this thread may lead to a better causes section. SaintAviator lets talk 09:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Shall we all have a big circular rambling discussion here about what's wrong with WP? And throw in some edit warring for good measure? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No Cherrypicking

No cherrypicking please, see WP:CHERRYPICKING. User:Stickee and User:Lklundin. If you have issues, discuss here on the Talk page. As Stickee says that it is a quote from the article, we can consider putting your extract in quotes, as long as the statements correctly represent the source's contrast with Western media. Otherwise you are cherrypicking, contrary to WP policy NOR. Tennispompom (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The actual headline of the quoted source is: 'The Russian Public Has a Totally Different Understanding of What Happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17'. This does not contrast Russia with the West but Russia with everything. I do not see my quote from the article as cherrypicking. Lklundin (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I take it that you accept that cherrypicking is not according to WP policy. So, having established that fact, we can move on to whether it is cherry picking or not. The title doesn't say whose understanding differs from the Russian one. There is a single sentence in the summary which uses the ambiguous phrase "much of the rest of the world" - firstly, that doesn't mean "most of the rest of the world" and secondly it qualifies it by referring to the "stand-off". That stand off, is further elaborated in the source as being between West and Russia, and there are at least 5 references in the article which clearly contrast the Russian Opinion with that of the West. No other contrast is provided, no other world opinion is mentioned except the western and Russian. Any reader can see that is the case. Selectively picking an ambiguous phrase from the article instead of any of the numerous and specific phrases, constitutes cherrypicking.

Therefore, save me the effort of undoing your undo - and correct it back to state clearly and unambigusously "Western media", which is what it is. Let's not get into an edit war over a no brainer. Tennispompom (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "The picture of the catastrophe that the Russian people are seeing on their television screens is very different from that on screens in much of the rest of the world, and the discrepancy does not bode well for a sane resolution to this stand-off"? Where else in the body of article does the headline of that article refer if not to that sentence? Has the author cherry-picked her own headline? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where? Here! Here are quotes from the source:-

1) "Western media has been vacillating for days ... But in Russia, television..."

2) "Though this is not true of Western media, Russian television has ..."

3) "But though it may look unconvincing to us in the West, that is because we have seen and read other things that contradict it. The Russian media space has ..."

4) "So whereas the West sees the crash as a game-changer, the Russians do not see why..."

5) "And the more we insist on it, the less likely the Russians are to agree." (Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of source was digital campaign strategist for the 2008 Obama Campaign, i.e. "we" is clearly Western).

To top it all, there is no contrast with any other named media except Western media. Are you looking at the right source? Tennispompom (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing up audience (We in the West) and references to Western media. Only the latter could do anything to support your point. Arnoutf (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree. The Western media is part of the "rest of the world" and so can be used to provide examples of the more general statement. But I'd be interested to see how many examples there are of non-Russian coverage that supports the Russian view. And that this demonstrates that the "much of the rest of the world" is a misguided claim. Perhaps you can find a source that does this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

China opinion

I've found a brilliant source for Chinese take on the tragedy. Where shall I include it? Separate section on "Chinese Media Coverage" or under "Reactions"? Ideas please. Tennispompom (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems like you're just playing games here. No need to create a new section to prove a point when your comment clearly relates to the dispute in the section above. Stickee (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. As China is about as involved as Tuvalu, we might have to consider adding a Tuvalu media coverage section too. Arnoutf (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Playing games?!? USER: Stickee, please remember good faith principle. I've been recommending a restructuring of this article for reasons of neutrality for weeks now, this should not come as a surprise. As the restructuring didn't get much support, I can accept it, and am trying to fit in within the existing structure. Tuvaly is a ridiculous example, because it would clearly fail on undue weight grounds. China and India do not - one could argue that their views are more due weight than the US view, but I won't go there. I will be adding India's view too, when I have found out what it is. I am not playing games here. Perhaps the Talk section on Restructuring which i proposed earlier, should be brought back for a review. Tennispompom (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you really insist, throw them in International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown. Stickee (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A China section might get priority over Tuvalu, but should not over New Zealand and Belgium (who suffered casualties and are thus involved). We cannot start all these sections so if relevant it should go in a larger section indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)