Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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: [1]. 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. [2][3]. 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)

The Telegraph says 'Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17' and 'Russia caught editing Wikipedia entry about MH17'? Tlsandy (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a much easier solution: [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RfC Should political commentary be limited?

Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article? USchick (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support It adds nothing. But I'd go further and remove ALL political commentary. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't seen your aggressive, politically motivated reply here. My vote is motivated by the aim of making a better encyclopaedia. Political comment on any topic rarely helps on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. – Herzen (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. First, folks, you really could work on being a little bit less obvious here. Second, didn't we just discuss this several times? Do I need to start an RfC on limiting the number of times that stubborn users can keep bringing the same issue up for discussion over and over and over and over again? Third, the RfC is badly phrased. It's too vague. Who are "parties not directly involved in the crash"? What specific commentary are we referring to? This seems like some attempt to ask for a carte blanche to remove whatever one wants from the article. In other words, once again, just like the twelve, fifteen or whatever it is, times before, it's a demand that you get to edit the article according to your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.  Volunteer Marek  22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support . The article has become ridiculously biased. This comment may change, so please don't directly reply to it.SaintAviator lets talk 23:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek  00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith and not harass people as they vote? USchick (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please actually ACT in good faith rather than haranguing others about ASSUMING good faith towards you, even when it's clear you're engaging in WP:POINTy behavior?  Volunteer Marek  01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just change your comment to add a "don't reply" message after someone's already replied? Stickee (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion of material is decided by content guidelines, not whether the party is "directly involved". This comment may change, so please don't directly reply to it. Stickee (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Above I have a comment, here is my Procedural Oppose. The RfC proposal is so vague that it could be used to justify removing anything whatsoever from the article. File a better RfC if you must, specifics, details and all. This is just "let me removez some stuffs plz lol" kinda request. Volunteer Marek  00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In the 21+ archives, this has already been discussed. No one else seems to have any questions about what it means. USchick (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me what it means. The only thing I can tell it means is "let me remove anything I want". Volunteer Marek  02:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural Oppose reply. Disagree Marek. Its clear whats political. You yourself need to reconsider WP:IDONTLIKEIT SaintAviator lets talk 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have questions as well, quite a vague RfC. Stickee (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be helpful if USchick gave some examples or definitions yes. In General the thrust of the RFC is clear but could be refined. In this way it may attract more support. SaintAviator lets talk 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

" the thrust of the RFC is clear" - well, we agree on that part. The thrust of the RfC is "let me remove anything I don't like so I can push my POV". And I thought you were done editing with this article. And now you pop up... right along the three other folks. Volunteer Marek  01:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The thrust is to remove POV political comments. Yes I had no time. Now I have some time. Whats your point relevant to this RFC? In fact stay on topic and open a thread on my talk page thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 01:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article?" Should commentary from parties not directly involved in event X be removed from the article about event X? Of course, not. All secondary sources about event X are normally written by people who are nor directly involved in event X. This so called RfC goes against core policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• WARNING to User:Volunteer Marek. Please stop harassing people as they comment here. This is an RfC. If you have a question about content, please start a new discussion. I have repeatedly started discussions, which are now archived, with questions such as: Who are the involved parties? Who should comment? There was no interest in discussing it. It's all archived, please go there to discuss further if you're ready now. USchick (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Who are the involved parties? There was no interest in discussing it." Yes there was. 20 comments even. See Archive 19. Stickee (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, that's where that discussion should continue. USchick (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So we can close this nonsense here and continue the discussion over there, yes?  Volunteer Marek  02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate discussion over there not related to this one. USchick (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Either that's a "separate discussion over there not related to this one", in which case the relevant question is "why the hell did you bring it up in your comment at 1:29 and endorse it as being on topic at 1:46", or it is NOT a "separate discussion over there not related to this one" in which case we close this nonsense because it's already been done to death. Volunteer Marek  02:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You already voted here, you harassed people who didn't vote the way you wanted them to, is there any further disruption that you would like to do here? Or would you prefer to revive old discussions for your next disruption? I'm not answering, because I don't care. USchick (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I "voted", and now I'm asking a question. It's called "discussion". And I didn't "harass" anybody, stop using inflammatory language and making baseless and false accusations. I asked editors to actually substantiate their !votes with reference to article Wikipedia policies rather than just personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's also "discussion", and that's how these RfC things are supposed to work. It's not actually a vote. Now, can you answer my question?  Volunteer Marek  02:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is "nonsense" please feel free to go do something else, no you can't close it. USchick (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose if political commentary pertaining to this is in RS reportage why not in the article. Sayerslle (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a question that you would like answered? If you're new to this talk page, that's a reasonable question. USchick (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. We keep notable reactions, not just reactions directly involved. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Conditionally support However we do require consensus what directly involved means. I would opt that every country that has a victim on board, the country under which flag the plane was flying and the country over which it was shot down can be considered directly involved and none other. For example: Canada and New Zealand (one casualty each): Involved. United States (one dual Dutch-US citizen): Involved, Russia - not fulfilling any of the involvement criteria - Not involved. If and only if we can avoid a POV debate about this and adopt this idea I would support - otherwise I would strongly oppose as the use of involvement would become another POV pushing thing. Arnoutf (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia got involved when Kiev and Washington accused it of supplying the Buk launcher that allegedly shot down MH17. Also, this article belongs to seven Russian categories. Your claim that Russia is not involved is disingenuous. – Herzen (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And there we go with the debate what involvement entails. (1) Accusation by others is not involvement (unless these accusations are of course true) (2) Wikipedia is not a reliable source; and addition to categories would not even be a usuable argument if it were. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am open for other criteria for what country is involved, but these should be fair and not include the foregone conclusion that one named country is involved. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia is very much involved. Under a number of criteria that one may come up with for "involved". Volunteer Marek  17:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Following what criterion would Russia be involved? By being a neighbor of Ukrain? That would make Romania involved. By being a bully state? That would make the US (among others) involved. By supporting the rebels? Russia denies that. By self-involving them in the debate? That would include every country that made a statement. So please propose a clear list of criteria for involvement; that does not claim any named country to be involved. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

following the criterion that RS have discussed Russia being very much involved - it keeps pushing its theories too, odd if it has no direct interest really - seems interested - its latest half-arsed disinformation didn't take long to look feeble either - [5] - and do they deny supporting the rebels? they deny supporting them in certain ways, but do they deny supporting them at all? Sayerslle (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the correct approach is to discuss whether a specific comment or statement of a specific person or organization should be removed. We should not write a blank cheque for USchick or others to vastly change the content of the article. Specific changes should be proposed and discussed (hopefully not debated) here. We need to start having civil discussions that reference Wiki policy. If editors are unable to discuss issues and seek consensus then they should consider whether they need to take a break from editing this article.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - this crash has created political tension around the globe, with leaders of nations not directly involved engaging in commentary. Of course there is a political dimension extending well beyond the usual factors of aircraft, pilot etc. A similar example is the shooting down of an Iranian A300 airliner by the USN, which had political repercussions. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this proposal could be interpreted any number of ways, and I doubt that is accidental. Should cited opinions be attributed? Yes. Should opinion commentary or sources with a clear and present bias be cited to present claims of fact? No. Should the political positions of factions, i.e. the Australian government, Dutch government, Novorossiya separatists, etc., be presented with due weight? Yes. Should they be presented with undue weight? No. There is clearly a lot of nuance that this proposal seems to ignore, for whatever purpose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• If opinions are citable and reach WP:N, they should be included. The event, tragic as it was, invited a lot of notable commentary in world media, and it seems a bit strange to ignore that. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment in my view being citable and notable is a lower threshold for inclusion. For this article there are literally thousands of citable and notable opinions. It would be impossible to include all those and end up with anything readable. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but notability is a relative thing. Notability means something pokes up above the base level of background noise that is the world; the more notable a subject, the higher a bar thoughts about it must clear. So what the governments of (say) the USA and China have to say about this would be rather more notable than what the government of Angola has to say. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally would be very interested to find out why the government of China or the US is "rather more notable" than the government of Angola. Because the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias. To claim this outrageous claim, one would need a reliable source, otherwise, it's Original Research. If all three governments are equally uninvolved in the crash, the only reason for any of them to get involved after the crash would be political. USchick (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just accuse a user of racism? Again? After you were almost banned for making false accusations of racism previously?  Volunteer Marek  23:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you harassing me again? After we just came back from ANI? Would you be interested in going back? USchick (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not harassing you, not now, not ever, so quit trying to play the victim. You just accused another user of racism, yes? Quote: "the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias", directed at User:Ipsissima Verba's comment. Can you answer the question? If you blurted out something you didn't mean to blurt out, then at least strike the false accusation. Volunteer Marek  00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you're stalking my edits, maybe you could leave me a "to do list" of things you want me to strike out, on my talk page. USchick (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What?!?? Stalking your edits??? Are you just making random nonsense accusations? Please explain how in hell I'm "stalking your edits". Please explain why you just accused another editor of "racism", after almost being banned for making such odious false accusations. Or strike your comments. Volunteer Marek  02:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My question is specifically for Ipsissima Verba. When they come back, I would be interested to find out how those three countries were chosen as examples of notability and what makes two of them more notable than the other one. USchick (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And my question is specifically for you. Did you just - AGAIN - falsely accuse another editor of racism?  Volunteer Marek  02:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No I did not. If you have any other personal questions please make them in a personal space. USchick (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then can you clarify by what you meant by this comment: "the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias.", directed at User:Ipsissima Verba. It very much looks like you're saying their comment was "racist". If I'm missing something, please enlighten. If not, then strike it. Serious accusations like these directed at other users need to be substantiated or else they are personal attacks. Quite nasty ones at that. The fact that you have a history of making such attacks is also relevant. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking a question. What's relevant, is the reason for choosing three completely unrelated countries of three different races, with two races being claimed as more notable than the African country. I would like to hear an explanation of how this decision was made and a source to support it. I would like to point out that this is an RfC, and not a place for unrelated commentary and I will not answer anything else in this location. USchick (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are asking a question and then providing your own answer, which involves a baseless and vile accusation against another user. The obvious reason why China and US's reaction might be more notable than Angola's is that China and US are super powers and Angola isn't. Nothing to do with racism. Yes, this is an RfC and hence certainly not a place for making disgusting personal attacks like you did. Don't pull any more stunt like this. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The focus of the article should be about Flight 17 and the parties involved, we have a separate article International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown for outside parties. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have trouble keeping track of spinoff articles. Maybe we should try to agree on a list of the "parties involved"? (This discussion can be split into a new section if others want to pursue it.) It is not as if we need to debate on an abstract level what involvement entails. We can just try to agree on a list. My proposal: Malaysia, Netherlands, Australia, Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. I did not include in the list countries that had fewer than thirteen of its citizens among the victims. Doing that allowed me to cut down the number of countries involved for that reason from 10 to 3. If someone objects to the inclusion of the US, that can be discussed. – Herzen (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What other countries are mentioned in the article? Germany. Because of their intelligence report. That certainly belongs here, not in the spin-off. Volunteer Marek  23:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well some countries are a given these include Russia, Ukraine and the Netherlands. Malaysia should also be included as it is their plane. Can you think of any others and why they should be included? The USA in my opinion was not directly involved in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course US should be included. The point is, that other than the countries mentioned in the US, the only other country mentioned is Germany, because of the intelligence report that was released by their services. So this supposed "excellent point" is "beside the point". Volunteer Marek  00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. No other countries than these seven are mentioned by the article. So my list is useless. (Sorry, but the article is so long-winded I just have trouble following what's in it.) Anyway, Knowledgekid87's idea is still excellent, because some material that is more "human interest-related" than technical or factual can be moved to the international responses article. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe that the US is involved, but I don't want to get into an argument about that, because it would get into political issues. If it appears that a majority of editors do not believe that the US should be considered an involved country, I would go along with that. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well from the standpoint of coverage you can say that seeing this is the English Wikipedia it would include English speaking countries but I feel it should be for things like presentation. This is hard though how many sources do we need for a country to be more involved versus less? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that this isn't going to go anywhere. But you gave me an idea when you brought up the international reactions article. I am inclined to boldly move some less significant material from this article to that article and see what the response is. That would at least reduce the bloat a little. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to wait for the RfC to close first. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, thank you for the suggestion. I was actually thinking of doing that tomorrow. Anyway, I think we've accomplished some productive brainstorming here. – Herzen (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, good point. There was also that reply given by the German Ministry of Interior to questions submitted to it by die Linke (which I believe is not mentioned in the article). So that makes seven involved countries. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I support Knowledgekid87 idea. Its too long winded. SaintAviator lets talk 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Is it not time to close this RfC? My take is that no consensus was reached. However, Knowledgekid87 made the useful implicit suggestion that some material in this article should be moved to the International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown article. So I suggest that we should close this discussion and proceed with that plan. – Herzen (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Which material should be moved? As pointed out above, and my understanding is that you agreed with this, there really isn't that much about "international reactions" in the article currently. Volunteer Marek  20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the "Reactions" section, I think that some material can be moved to the spin-off article. This article should only mention reactions that have some practical consequences, as opposed to being little more than the expression of a sentiment. Things like flags being flown at half mast and musical events being canceled should be moved. So should the whole paragraph on the Australian response. What the Americans and British are quoted as saying is also of little consequence, especially since they are not members of the Joint Investigation Team, so I think that material should be moved as well. That the mention of a poem being written about MH17 should be moved is a no-brainer.

So, I'd say that about half of the material can be moved. There being an article about "International reactions" gives us an easy way of making this article a little more concise. – Herzen (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The stuff about flags being flown at half-mast refers to Netherlands and Malaysia. I think it's fine and relevant. It's not like it takes up a lot of space. It's just a mention and it's perfectly fine in this article. I'm not sure what you mean by "expression of a sentiment" - you'd have to be specific with this. The Australian response is also relevant although it does rely too much on direct quotes rather than an encyclopedic paraphrasing of such. There is actually very little from the US and Britain so I'm not exactly clear on what you think it should be moved. The Russian poem is noteworthy for obvious reasons, so it stays. Volunteer Marek  02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your dictatorial manner is not appreciated. And please don't place your comments in the middle of my comments. You freak out when other editors do things like that, so you should take care that you don't. – Herzen (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If I somehow put my comment into the middle of your comment then I apologize, but I don't think that's the case. I might have put it in between two different comments by you but that's to make it clear what I was replying to, and it's how discussions work. Anyway. Can you be clear on what parts about US and Britain and what "expressions of sentiment" are you referring to?  Volunteer Marek  06:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Some would want to use this as an invitation to delete or move content they want out of here but we keep notable reactions not just reactions directly involved. Tlsandy (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Note: this RfC will close soon. Stickee (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Note: As User:FelixRosch has mentioned, it may be appropriate to close this RfC so that the DRN:MH17 can begin.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I am going to pretend that this has been officially closed and open the discussion at WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MH17

Soap/Forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
why did the Russian shoot it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.4.58 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits Again

One of the lawsuits previously discussed here has progressed one more stage to the filing (read more). Notable? I think not: same thing as last time. Also read about the other lawsuits here, here, here, here. Stickee (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

They look like dragging on. SaintAviator lets talk 07:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "same thing as last time". Last time, there was only talk of filing a lawsuit; this time, a lawsuit has been filed. I don't see how you can claim that that is not notable. Before, I said that this was not notable, because I did not think it would go anywhere, but now we see that is going somewhere. It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Herzen. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Herzen WP is like that. Most of us know it right? WP is not some sacrosanct place where its all explained. Of course that case is relevant. But getting relevant material 'in' is a war by numbers with some occasional reviews and decisions by other outside editors. SaintAviator lets talk 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I expect this issue will come up again, so I will restate some of my comments about lawsuits here in the hope that they may be somewhat helpful to the continued discussion:

• As some of you are aware, I am concerned that mentioning lawsuits in articles creates a risk of WP:UNDUE because the claims in the lawsuits have not yet been tested in Court.
• The fact that a lawsuit is filed means very little. Anyone can file a lawsuit, and until a Court makes a ruling, a lawsuit is nothing but allegations.
• Unfortunately, there have been recent examples of people filing lawsuits without any legal merit, sometimes in an attempt to sway public opinion (ie. Jian Ghomeshi wrongful dismissal lawsuit).
• My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that, concerning MH17, lawsuits have either been proposed of filed against the Ukraine government agencies, Russia/Putin?, and Malaysia Airlines (and perhaps others?). A basic mention of these lawsuits (simply that the crash has lead to various civil lawsuits, and perhaps who against) is likely appropriate, but detailing all of the allegations (in each of the lawsuits) is likely undue (at least until judges determine whether any of these allegations have any merit).
• Using the existence of lawsuits to prove allegations is never a wise endeavor. If we are going to include mention of the lawsuits, we need to make sure we are not deviating from NPOV.

Regards--64.253.142.26 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

reward

The issue of the reward, which USchick has tried to re-insert into the article again [6], has been discussed numerous times. Here, here and here and there was no consensus for including it. Yes, that was a different (?) reward, but the issue is the same. To try and sneak in this text after discussion concluded otherwise, *that* is an example of a disruptive edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, an unknown person or organization promsing 38M Euro. At least my Nigerian benefactors have a name. People, let's be serious. A private detective claiming without any evidence, that some guy offers 38 Million. Extraordinary claim, hardly extraordinary evidence of its truth. (and that does not even starts about the whole thing being undue). Arnoutf (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we playing detective now? I wish people would question the investigation with the same amount of scrutiny as the reward. So we're cherry picking sources again to fit the idea already in some editor's heads about a predetermined outcome of what "the truth" is. Again. Sorry, I forgot. You don't need "evidence" of a reward when the sources are reporting about it. Can someone please link to a policy on "evidence" or at least discredit the source? Or present a reasonable argument for excluding it, other than "I don't like it?" USchick (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick, we should not question the investigations with the same amount of scrutiny. The Dutch Safety Board and Dutch Public Prosecution Service both are strong accountable public bodies in a democratic society. They both start with a degree of credibility that the unnamed person(s) offering a reward does not. Furthermore, as you have been told there is a problem with placing undue weight on the issues you have raised, relying on unreliable sources to present them, and doing original research to suss them out. As was recommended by Arnoutf in the conversation above, you may wish to read WP:COMPETENCE carefully.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my competence. The reward is the largest in history and it's reported by reliable sources like USA Today [7]. I'm asking for competent editors to link to a policy about presenting "evidence" before this information can be included in the article. I would also like to see a policy where a series of gatekeepers need to approve a sourced edit before it can be added to the article. Because removing sourced content is against policy. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles where it clearly states: "you should not undo their edits without good reason." My edits have been reverted and I'm still waiting for a good reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. USchick (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks USchick. The USA Today article seems to offer a lot more information, perhaps a short mention of the reward is appropriate. We should discuss. At the same time it seems that the only information we have about this "reward" is what this investigator Josef Resch (of Wifka) can tell us. Based only on the articles, it seems he 'believes' the reward is real, and 'says' that the reward money is in a Swiss bank account, 'but' I think it is fair for us to question the weight to place on the article given that it appears to be reliant on only one source (Resch). I don't know much about his or Wifka's credibility in Germany (perhaps another editor does, or there is mention in a reliable source somewhere). We don't know who is offering this reward, and Resch admits that even he has no idea who his client is. I hate these sort of new stories that just report what one guy says without doing any follow-up. Whatever happened to investigative reporting? Is the money in the bank or not? Is this real or just some publicity stunt? I think the numerous questions and mystery surrounding the reward might make its mention undue, but what do others think?--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the source is not Josef Resch, but USA Today, The Telegraph, [8] and NBC [9]. And according to those sources, "The reward for "information and evidence" was being held in Switzerland." USchick (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The articles use Josef Resch and his firm as the sole source of the information:

"The reward is advertised on Wifka’s website, and the agency says the money is already on deposit in a Swiss bank in Zurich."

"The reward for "information and evidence" was being held in Switzerland, according to the firm's statement."

This is what lawyers call hearsay. The reward may or may not be important enough to keep in this article, but do not pretend that the news sources cited say that the money is there. All they have said is that Wifka/Josef Resch says it is.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's compare that to what Igor Girkin said VKontakte about claiming responsibility for shooting down a different plane. That information is in the lede. Is it more reliable than this reward? USchick (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That is what lawyers call an admission or Declaration against interest. And yes, usually it is considered more reliable than a simple hearsay statement.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally, a reasonable explanation! Thank you for that. Thank you very much! :-) USchick (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just simply undue. Feel free to start an RfC on the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The reward is "undue" only because it poses a threat to the "accepted" version of events as it points out that: 1. There is no evidence. 2. No one knows what happened. 3. The investigation is not likely to produce a result. (Yes, there was a crash, no one knows what happened, but Russia is blamed for it. The end.) USchick (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How many times now have you been told to cut it out with the WP:SOAPBOXing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what makes it undue? USchick (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@64.253.142.26 who claims that the investigators are competent. Victims’ families disagree. [10] USchick (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick, grieving families rarely have good things to say about investigators until the perpetrators of a crime are brought to justice. Their opinion of the investigation tells us nothing about whether the investigators are competent or not. If you have any specific evidence from reliable sources which shows that there are flaws in the investigation, I invite you to raise them here. Until such evidence is provided, allegations that the Dutch investigations are incompetent or corrupt have no place in the article: WP:NPOV. Best Regards--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

[11] [12] [13] USchick (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links USchick but all these articles seem to say is that some of the families (and their lawyer) say that the investigation is taking too long and that not all of the materials from the crash site have been recovered. The fact that the investigations are still ongoing after about half a year does not mean anything. The troubles recovering materials has already been well documented in the article. These articles do not establish that the Dutch investigations are corrupt or incompetent as you have suggested. Using them to build such an argument is WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and not WP:NPOV.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply pointing out that reliable sources report the investigators are under scrutiny even though they are strong accountable public bodies in a democratic society. USchick (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That is usually what happens in democratic societies. Well if you are not recommending any changes to the article, we do not need to continue discussing those sources. Cheers--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm recommending a mention about the reward. There is no policy to provide "evidence" of a reward. There is no "evidence" of investigators being more credible than the person offering the reward, which is the largest in history, which makes it notable. USchick (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is only the largest ever reward, if there actually is a reward. As we have noted above, the statement of one private investigator (one that doesn't know who his client is) is not sufficient to conclude that there is indeed a reward, never mind the amount. All the sources prove is that some guy says there is a huge reward available. As Volunteer Marek noted its inclusion in the article without any solid reporting that there actually is a reward would certainly be WP:UNDUE.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed it should not be there. Tlsandy (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on what policy related reason? USchick (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, unsubstantiated claims of one person (and his firm) do not warrant inclusion. If an article is published that actually verifies the reward (instead of just taking Josef Resch's word for it) then we can reconsider.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please link to a policy with that requirement. USchick (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been told by several editors that this is WP:UNDUE. I invite you to read the policy and reconsider your position. I am not going to continue beating this dead horse.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

copyvio edit

Whatever the other merits or demerits, this edit is a copyvio which violates WP:PARAPHRASE. Honestly, I should remove it right away (since I don't see any value added in this info, another WP:UNDUE violation I wouldn't reword it myself).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. See what you think. USchick (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No longer a copyvio, but still undue for much the same reasons as outlined by MVBW a few sections up. Stickee (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian, German and Asian sources report that people from all over the world are asking questions. Several lawsuits have already been filed, and now more family members are joining the list of people asking questions. I'm not making this up, it's all reported by RS. What will it take for Wikipedia editors to take them seriously? USchick (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, stop with the soapboxing. It's beyond tiresome. You're abusing Wikipedia article talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it's UNDUE because at this point it's just a letter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And one more time, the "nationality" of the source is not the issue here, so stop pretending that it is. This has been explained to you a dozen times, you keep on pretending otherwise, that's also disruptive. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will have to be rewritten especially because of you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a letter, it's an article in a newspaper. How does Wikipedia policy compare a letter to a social media post VKontakte when both are reported in a news article? USchick (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears you haven't bothered to actually read the article you yourself added as a source, just copy-pasted some sentences from it. It's a letter.

And I see, this is about the VKontakte stuff again. Please drop it. We've been through it a million of times. The obvious difference to anyone who's not just trying to waste people's time is the extent of coverage and the significance of the phenomenon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So an actual letter written by an attorney is less significant than a deleted social media post? Here's the extent of news coverage [14] [15] [16] [17] USchick (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the nature of the deleted social media post, obviously. So in this case, yes, very much so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And those are all obviously the same source - Reuters - you're just posting different links to the same story. So the extent of news coverage still looks thin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Who makes the decision about what's "obviously" more important? Is this a good question to ask at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? USchick (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be, if it hadn't already been discussed to death and if you hadn't WP:FORUMSHOPPED fruitlessly all over the place. You're basically threatening to waste more of our time. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This news story is dated Dec 5. Today is Dec 8. This is the first discussion. USchick (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not about VKontakte, which you are the one who brought it up, and you are well aware of all the previous discussions (since you've initiated them over and over and over and over again) Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Flight path update

The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution". This warning did not include the MH17 crash region. This information is outdated according to this [18] [19] USchick (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, actually it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Because? USchick (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the articles you link. I'm starting to think that you're not actually, you know, reading the articles, before you link them here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read your mind. USchick (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with reading the article. The words "American", "Federal", "Aviation", and "Administration" do not appear in the article you link.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. So for a Malaysian flight, the American Federal Aviation Administration is completely irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article at all. So we can remove it, right? Is there any objection to the sources linked? USchick (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't access the Australian paper, but the first article does not mention the American Federal Aviation Administration even once. So I can't see where this is outdated. The other article is about an advice of the European air traffic control to Kiev, not to airlines. So again, the line you quote is not related to the phrase from the article you are referring to. That makes it unclear where you want to go with this, and hence I cannot comment on possible merits of whatever you propose. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how the AFAA is mentioned by reliable sources, it apparently is not "completely irrelevant" and does belong in the article. But feel free to write a letter to Reuters and the Telegraph informing them of the fact that they are writing stories about irrelevancies, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. The FAA has no authority over a Malaysian airline in Ukrainian air space. Clearly, this is undue and does not belong in the article. The second part of my question is about the two sources I linked. "European air traffic control regulator urged Kiev to close the south-east of the country for civilian aircraft days before the MH17 flight was downed near Donetsk, but the plea was ignored by the Ukrainian authorities." Is there any objection to this information being in the article? USchick (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not FAA has authority over a Malaysian airline in Ukrainian air space is not something that determines whether the info is undue or not. What determines whether the info is undue or not is determined by how and to what extent it's covered in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think both are more or less equally relevant. FAA warning airlines about flying over parts of Ukraine, Eurocontrol warning Kiev aircontrol to close its airspace -- Both are examples or foreign air traffic controls with no formal authority that warn about the region. So in my view if we remove FAA we should not add Eurocontrol. In my view I think it is best that both go. But if we decide to keep FAA we could rephrase it as something like:

Foreign air traffic control adviced to avoid the air space before the incident. The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution. This warning did not include the MH17 crash region. Eurocontrol adviced Kiev to close its airspace over Eastern Ukraine Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The other very relevant fact is that "Ukrainian authorities ignored the warning." This explains why Ukraine is being blamed for the crash since they are ultimately responsible for providing security over their air space. Russia is not the only country saying this. There is a lawsuit about this exact issue from the mother of one of the victims. Is there any objection to saying this in the article? USchick (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We've been over the lawsuit issue and you know damn well that there are objections, so stop trying to bring up previously discussed issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... again. (Same goes for the Vkontakte stuff).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to the story Eurocontrol has denied giving advice or warnings or recommendations. https://www.eurocontrol.int/press-releases/response-sunday-times-article-7-december-2014 Tlsandy (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary source. Are we willing to accept other primary sources? That would be great! USchick (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you at least try and keep up the appearance that you're acting in good faith?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That Eurocontrol press statement sheds serious doubts on the quality of these specific reports; so we need a secondary source rejecting that statement before we can keep the original sources. Probably better to remove FAA and not add Eurocontrol all together. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How about we just wait a little.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: responsibility that is another topic altogether, which we should discuss in a different thread not to confuse things. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem considering primary sources, and policy allows it. I urge editors to come to an agreement about whether or not primary sources should be considered or not in this article, all the time, and not only when it supports a predetermined viewpoint. USchick (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to use this as an opportunity for gaming the system and WP:WIKILAWYERING. Under some circumstances it's okay to use some primary sources in some way. Under different circumstances it's not. This has nothing to do with any "predetermined viewpoint". There's no blanket "either we use all primary sources or no primary sources whatsoever" in Wikipedia policy or guidelines because... well, because that'd be a pretty stupid policy for an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just like cherry picking sources only when it's convenient is clearly against policy. USchick (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the news story "Eurocontrol experts spoke privately to their Ukrainian colleagues" and according to the press release they have no authority to make an official recommendation. So both are correct. USchick (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Eurocontrol felt strongly enough about this to issue an official statement suggests otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the "report" contradicts this earlier statement from Eurocontrol, from a secondary source (thought not sure about reliability) [20].Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. They talked about it, considered the danger, and decided to raise the minimum height. Just like some airlines decided to reroute their planes, but not Malaysia. And according to chief executive of the International Air Transport Association, Tony Tyler, “It is very similar to driving a car. If the road is open, you assume that it is safe. If it’s closed you find an alternate route.” [21] and that's why there's a lawsuit now. Is there a reason why we can't talk about it in the article? USchick (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We've been over the lawsuit issue and you know damn well that there are objections, so stop trying to bring up previously discussed issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Are there any policy based objections? USchick (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't hear a policy based reason, that's why I'm asking. USchick (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you have. Perhaps you should have a look through the archive. The issues that you continue raising have been discussed many times. I have no interest in reading though the archive to rehash this issue again, but I invite you to do so.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

On this whole 'we discussed it previously, so dont discuss it again' argument. This isn't always a correct argument. In fact its false lots of times. Editors change, links change, mistakes are corrected, new things come up, articles evolve. WP is not static. Im tired of this false logic being presented over and over and ... again to block NPOV. SaintAviator lets talk 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Flight path discussions, no discussion about lawsuit. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 22#Flight path of MH17 Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 19#No ICAO standards to determine whether a flight path is safe Lawsuit discussion, no discussion, mostly ignored, nothing about flight path Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Lawsuits Again. Lots of stonewalling. USchick (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

no discussion about lawsuit - Dude. There's a section entitled "Lawsuit again" right above. If you're gonna tell non-truths, at least make sure that it's not ridiculously easy to show that you're telling non-truths.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a lawsuit is filed means very little. Lawsuits are allegations until a court rules on them. People file lawsuits without any legal merit all the time, sometimes to forward their own version of events, in an attempt to sway public opinion -- a recent example of this would be the Jian Ghomeshi wrongful dismissal lawsuit, which was shown to be without legal merit. Mentioning lawsuits in articles creates a significant risk of WP:UNDUE because the claims in the lawsuits have not yet been tested in Court. Once the trial is over, the decision will be relevant, but before going into detail of allegations amounts to a lot of speculation.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the speculation that's already in the article? Why not just delete the article and wait for the investigators to complete the report? USchick (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. The article contains references to evidence. Incomplete evidence, but evidence. Allegations in lawsuits are just that allegations (usually being made by people who have no more, often less, information than you or me).--64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The topic of this thread is flight path update; so I will not even consider topics that are not about that (like lawsuits). From the Eurocontrol press statement it becomes clear that the institution Eurocontrol did not issue a warning. What some private persons (employed with Eurocontrol) may have told people in their private networks is another issue as they have even less authority to suggest anything than Eurocontrol. That the newspapers mention the institution makes these specific articles flawed and therefore unusable. Based on this I think this update report is turning into a dead end. I suggest we let it go and wait until something substantial comes to the table. Arnoutf (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion has come to a dead end. I would like to point out, however, that the argument being used is flawed and not consistent with policy. Since we can't discredit the source, now we're going to discredit the reporting? But only in this article, and not in other articles that some editors like better. Some articles require "evidence" and "proof" and some articles of the same caliber are perfectly fine and end up in the lede as RS. Who gets to be on the cherry picking committee? Does anyone see a problem with this? USchick (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, and it's not clear what you are talking on about anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

When the owners of this article can't come up with a policy based reason to remove sourced content they don't like, they complain about the reporter and "flawed articles." This is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no "owners" of this article. You, like anyone else, are welcome to make constructive edits and improvements to the article based on Wikipedia's policies on reliable source, NPOV, and WEIGHT. The fact that you choose not to, and instead choose to continuously disrupt the talk page with your soapboxing instead, is your own fault. Not anyone else's, yours. Not some imaginary "owners", but yours. Not Wikipedia's, yours. Not mine, yours. Not Santa Claus' or Uncle Putin's or The Great American Conspiracy Against Russia's. Yours.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't seem to be talking about the flight path anymore, but instead about the long standing dispute about what constitutes a reliable source for the purposes of this article and how articles should be used (and how not). The proper forum for latter set of issues might now be the DR/N which was started by Antonioptg. If we want to get back to discussing the flight path, so be it, but if people just want to throw WP:POV allegations back and forth this might not be the right place to do it.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes 64.253.142.26 you are correct, the long standing dispute here colors everything. We need some agreed things like this, base lines to move forward from. Things we cant argue about. 'The “sole objective” of the Dutch Safety Board investigation “is the prevention of similar accidents and incidents” not “to apportion blame or liability in respect of any party.” In other words, this is not a criminal investigation. (Preliminary report, Dutch Safety Board, September 2014)'. I could be wrong, but I think Im not, for some editors, not me, its personal now. SaintAviator lets talk 00:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that to move forward, it's necessary to have meaningful discussion. It's not helpful when people refuse to talk because similar things have already been discussed in the past and people close their ears and go, "lalalalala" and then claim others are also not allowed to talk. That's ownership. It's also against policy. If the purpose of the investigation is only to "prevent similar accidents" they may as well go home. No civilian plane is designed to withstand a military shooting. Obviously people have a different expectation, that's why there's a neutral party in charge of the investigation. USchick (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should see the full phrase which is on the first text page where the mandate of the commission is described and states "In accordance with paragraph 3.1 of ICAO Annex 13, the sole objective of this investigation is the prevention of similar accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability in respect of any party." (prelim report p4)

It seems that it explicitly underwrites authority granted by a specific ICAO rule and likely used the phrasing to emphasise that. Obviously the prevention of similar accidents would not entail bolting heavy armour and flares to civil airplanes. However it may be concluded that air spaces should be closed more readily, that SAM should have better recognition of non military aircraft or something else (nb these are my own speculations so only take them as examples not as a serious suggestion for the mainspace article). PS USchick I hope you realize you have just been uncivil / rude by placing a belittling comment (lalalala) in the post above. Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

When the final report of the Dutch Safety Board is released, whatever its findings are, its report findings will require significant mention. The goal or purpose of its investigation may not be to attribute blame or liability, but in order to fulfill its purpose of preventing similar accidents the Board will likely need to determine the cause of this crash. How do you prevent something from happening again without determining how it happened in the first place? Obviously, any findings of the Board do not give rise to criminal responsibility, nor civil liability, but this article will need to give the findings of the Board significant weight (whatever they are).--64.253.142.26 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, there are two main investigations. The one above and the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The JIT will focus first on the technical and forensic investigation in Ukraine, the location of the criminal offence. A joint investigation team (JIT) is a team consisting of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement authorities, established for a fixed period and a specific purpose by way of a written agreement between the States involved, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States. However, information on the progress and results of the investigation of the disaster can remain classified.

This may well turn out to be what happens as any one of the signatories (Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Ukraine, Malaysia and Eurojust) has the right to veto the publication of the results of the investigation without explanation. Ukraine is also a suspect in the investigation, which complicates things should liability point to them. Lets wait and see but the wording of the JIT investigations especially may well turn out to be vague or have damning parts withheld to be released years in the future. SaintAviator lets talk 00:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

the online info war is being done everywhere

Soap/Forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
i've been a follower of many sites whose articles also have comments / discussion available. i am pointing out that every single one of them now seems to be full of russian MH17 defenders, whether it is twitter or yahoo news or bloomberg or any other site, denying their responsibility. i present this fact as a significant collateral aspect of the shoot down, since i have never seen such massive foreign presence on other topics. https://twitter.com/hashtag/mh17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎76.176.108.8 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC) "Foreign presence"? I guess you don't understand that the Internet spans the globe, so that the word "foreign" is meaningless when it comes to the Web. – Herzen (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) This is not a forum for wacky observations and soap. SaintAviator lets talk 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Next Steps

I have not been involved in editing this article, but have a few comments now that moderated dispute resolution has failed. As User:Guy Macon has noted, he failed the dispute resolution because some editors would not focus solely on content, and kept complaining about other editors. That is a conduct issue, either by the editors being complained about (if they were in fact guilty of tendentious editing) or by the editors doing the complaining. Dispute resolution does not deal with conduct issues, nor with content issues when conduct makes content resolution impossible. As Guy Macon notes, the next step would appear to be ArbCom. More precisely, there are two arbitration venues available for this case. The first would be the filing of a new case request, requesting a full evidentiary hearing. The second would be the use of arbitration enforcement under Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, since the plane was shot down over Ukraine, which is in Eastern Europe as usually defined. It is possible that the ArbCom might decline a new case and request that enforcement be used. If any editor wants to request a new case, I would advise that they specify why a new case is desired, such as a request for the ArbCom itself to review conduct. It is likely that any filing with the ArbCom or with Arbitration Enforcement will result in multiple editors being topic-banned. I haven't reviewed the details and have no comment on who is at risk. Read the boomerang essay before requesting any arbitration remedy.

Any editor at this point has probably five options. First, recognize that the community is tired of the WP:ANI and dispute resolution threads about this case, and leave it alone. Walk away from the article if you can't edit it collaboratively. That would probably be prudent. Second, recognize that the community is tired of the threads about this case, and so edit-war the article instead. That would be imprudent, because it WILL result in blocks or topic-bans at some point. Third, file new WP:ANI threads. That would be imprudent. Since the community is now aware that this case is headed for arbitration, those threads will probably also be closed, but their filing will be considered further evidence of battleground editing when the case goes to arbitration. Fourth, file a request for arbitration enforcement. Bear in mind that an editor who requests arbitration enforcement who has been battleground editing is likely to be topic-banned, blocked, or both. Fifth, file a request for arbitration for a full hearing. Bear in mind that an editor who requests arbitration who has been battleground editing is likely to be topic-banned, blocked, or even banned if they have a previous history. Those are the options at this point. Leave this article alone, or try the same approaches that haven't worked yet, or try arbitration, knowing that your own conduct as well that of other editors will be reviewed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wise words from Robert McClenon. I hope that they are taken to heart. I am unwatching this page now. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)