Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Claim of responsibility by the rebels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

That so many reliable sources have reported on it means it belongs in the article. Also, reliable sources (such as the Christian Science Monitor article used as a source) attribute the post to Girkin/Strelkov and treat it as a claim of responsibility for shooting down an "AN-26". As far as I can tell, the wording seems to reflect the situation as it is understood, wrongly or not, by the sources. But I see some sources have been presented above that may be different, so it may be that we should review it. Geogene (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not yet confirmed that the plane was shot down

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

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

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

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

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

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

no its not about your personal views so if it is routinely described as 'shot down' in RS that is all wp cares about I believe, - so in the guardian they write straightforwardly MH17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine on 17 July, killing all 298 on board. Around 228 coffins have been returned to the Netherlands. [1] Sayerslle (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The plane was shot down. Hundreds of sources say so. Therefore, the article should say so. If reliable sources later decide that aliens did it, then we'll change the article to reflect that. The only standard of truth is RS. Geogene (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How do those sources know it was shot down? Unfortunately, this incident happened in the middle of the propaganda war. A lot of people have been impacted by that propaganda, including many here. I don't believe anything about this plane crash yet, apart from the fact that it crashed where it did, and everyone on board died. The standards for inclusion of a lot of the content of this article is far too low. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worried about it. That's because if you could prove to me that the sources were wrong, through your own original research, I might change my mind on what happened, but it wouldn't lead me to change my mind on what should be in the article until it got picked up by enough reliable sources. I know that sounds like a stupid way of doing things, and sometimes it really is, but this core policy has allowed WP to be successful enough that we are willing to debate the content of its articles. It's imperfect but it usually works. One imperfection, speaking hypothetically, is that WP has no resistance at all to a propaganda campaign from sources otherwise considered reliable. I'm not saying or implying that that's what it is, but you seem to have noticed that this weakness does exist. Even though the sources could be wrong, I accept that as a limitation of the system. Geogene (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You must have misread my post. I have no intention of trying to prove that the sources are wrong, or right, nor do any original research. That's because, unlike them, I don't claim to know what happened.. We do need, at times, to think about what sources the sources are using. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You opened with a rhetorical question, which I interpreted very broadly, probably more so than you intended. I used that as a pretense to write a reply that isn't really intended to be a rebuttal of what you said, so much as it is a statement of a central issue in the recent content debates here, as I see it, followed by an appeal to pragmatism. I see your argument here as an appeal to Skepticism, which there's never really an answer to other than to say that it's healthy in moderation but experience shows not to be practical in excess. Where the line is drawn is usually set by opinion. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, opinion on this matter was already massively distorted before it even happened by the worldwide propaganda war covering matters where it happened. HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen 'shot down' in RS very often, but I have also seen wording like ' the plane went down ' in RS - that could be a form of words that is incontrovertible, and doesnt 'claim to know what happened'. Sayerslle (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And here it's best that when we do say 'shot down' in the article we attribute that as somebody's statement rather than saying it in WP's voice. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah as Geogene said, the article reflects what the sources say, as is standard here at wiki. If you believe the sources are wrong it doesn't really matter, the article follows what the RS's are presenting. Stickee (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

All the sources are so sure about it being shot down because of the circumstances surrounding the incident. Lets all be real, NOBODY on this planet can be sure the plane was shot down (except the perpetrators, if there are any). NONE of the sources know it either, but (as I said) the way they write their articles is due to the circumstances surrounding it. Let's be smart people, the ONLY way we all can be sure about the shoot down is if PHYSICAL EVIDENCE on the shoot down is found (I take back what I said about claiming responsibility). Let's not create articles just by rephrasing sentences from sources (I'm NOT saying everyone does this). Nobody knows for sure if the plane was shot down, not us and not even the people who wrote the news articles.

My request, change the way this article is written. Say it was "likely shot down" instead of "shot down". Rihaz (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good start towards improving accuracy. We must try harder to not just repeat unsupported and politically motivated claims. My country's Prime Minister declared, virtually within seconds of this crash happening, that pro-Russian separatists had shot it down. Now, there was no way he could have known that at the time, but his statement was widely reported, and added to this article, BECAUSE he's a Prime Minister. This guy was really sagging in the opinion polls before this incident, and guess what? Now his poll standing has gone up! All because he made loud anti-Russian noises. His statement was nothing more than part of the propaganda war, and we added it to the article, and helped his political standing. Wikipedia should never be part of that game. We CAN ignore media content that doesn't fit our needs, and should. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"All the sources are so sure about it being shot down because of the circumstances surrounding the incident.": Yep, and we say what the sources say. That's how Wikipedia works, and how it has always worked. Don't like it? Then go change the policy. Stickee (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

Neutrality

What happened to the neutrality section and others? Where did they go? Have a look at the Russian version of this article - it is neutral and presents a variety of theories. The English version is trailing behind in this aspect. 14.2.7.123 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It was archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III due to no comments or activity in 2 days. Stickee (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Try the search box for the Archives near the top of this page.

Here's a question about neutrality and reliable sources. How can the Western mass media be deemed reliable sources on this issue, when they are part of the corporate military-industrial-media complex that has a dog in this fight?

They can't be, any more than the US State Dep't or any state controlled media could be. They certainly shouldn't be prioritized over Russian, Malaysian or even "fringe" alternative sources. Malaysian sources probably have the best claim to neutrality. Since most sources have an axe to grind, we can't just say, for instance, the NY Times is a priori reliable. We should not exclude other types of sources, and not depend overly on US and NATO country sources, or the article will be partisan rather than neutral. JPLeonard (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a question about neutrality and reliable sources. How can the Western mass media be deemed reliable sources on this issue, when they are part of the corporate military-industrial-media complex that has a dog in this fight? - or the veterinary-industrial complex? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of which, activity has died down a lot so I don't think we need 48 hours. So I've reduced archiving interval to 8 days. Nil Einne (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of varied sources is indeed in line with what the Wikipedia policy says here: Neutral_point_of_view. Basically majority and significant minority views from "reliable" sources should be included. Reliable news sources are basically "established" news organizations. Malaysia's Straits Time or Russia's Pravda and RT/Russia Today are of course well-established national news organizations.

Here Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations it says that

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

The term, "reliable sources," is very misleading. How can they be reliable if they are not neutral, unbiased or objective? If Jimmy Wales doesn't care if a POV is true, but only if it's held by the establishment? This term ought to be changed to "established sources," since that is the definition.

Bottom line, we need to present all significant points of view.

The viewpoint (published by the well-established Straits Times) that MH17 may have been shot down by a Ukrainian jet fighter is certainly significant. Thus, for editors with an anti-Russian, pro-NATO POV to suppress this immensely important contrary viewpoint in the article would deserve a Neutrality in Dispute tag on it. JPLeonard (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue about the WP:RS policy, because it doesn't let you push the POV you want on this article. Try the talk page over there first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - JPLeonard has a point, even if his wording doesn't please some. This incident occurred well into a massive propaganda war. The western media had for some time been reporting statements that were part of this war. So too, no doubt, had the Russian media. The Straits Times IS an excellent source, and possibly further removed from the propaganda war than many. Please don't dismiss it out of hand. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about the Straits Times. We are talking about this article, which appears in the New Straits Times, and no it is not RS in this case, as doesn't involve original investigative reporting of its own but instead says "analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile," misinterpreting U.S. sources to do so. It also relies on GlobalResearch, which fails Wikipedia standards for RS.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Aye, GlobalResearch & Parry are conspiracy theorists. HiLo - It doesn't matter if you think the RS's are wrong; pretty much all of the RS's are saying one thing, so the article gives those due weight. Stickee (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

HiLo is exceedingly obstinate about what's allowed into the article, yet is prepared to green light junk like this particular source JPLeonard wants in! SMH.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent what I have said. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You said you thought the source JPLeonard referred to was "excellent" and criticized the rest of us for taking issue with JPLeonard. Either that or you made a completely irrelevant comment about Singapore's Straits Times. I don't recall you calling the Associated Press "excellent" back when you were yet again offside a clear consensus about including material from AP. What your POV "represents" is a bias against reliable sources rooted in the misconception that "the Russian media" and "the western media" are comparable in terms of reliability. It's ultimately disruptive to adamantly refuse to follow accepted policy concerning what is RS and what is not.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the content has to be in the article. The reality is still that nobody knows what actually happened. To insist that anybody's speculation be in the article is actually POV pushing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-Registered Editors Not Welcome

Why is this article still semi-protected? When is the protection going to end?

I tried to get a conversation going when this issue was last discussed, about a timeline or benchmarks that we might use to move this article towards a point where protection could be removed. Unfortunately, it seems the response from most editors is "not now... maybe never... ask again later". In the meantime, edits to this page have tapered off. It is time to discuss, ending protection on this article. If protections are to remain in place, we must at the very least come to a consensus on how much longer protections can be justified. It is unacceptable for the article to remain on protected indefinitely, without further justification.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think most people are going to change their minds... for now, it would be best if you register an account, make ten edits, then wait four days. Then you will be free to edit the article if I recall correctly. Dustin (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dustin is right. Because of the nature of this event this article will remain a target for new, excited editors for a while yet. Get yourself registered. It gives you more privacy. Right now I can discover in 5 seconds that you probably live in Vancouver, and a little more work could easily narrow that down a lot more. Usernames hide that information. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dustin. I may do that. It is too bad that the protected status is not being discussed in any meaningful way. Most new editors will just give up and leave. I completely understand the arguments of those concerned about potential vandalism. At the same time, the theoretical threat of vandalism cannot justify protection of this article forever. It is unacceptable that the protection on this article is to continue indefinitely. All that decision does, is exclude new users. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Somebody needs to come up with an end date for protection. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, protection forever is too long. At the latest, a short time after the official report on the crash is released should be long enough. After that there can be little argument about what really happened, and we can get rid of all the speculative nonsense. Although we still have the problem that this crash happened not just in a real war zone, but in the middle of a global propaganda war. That is still ongoing, and many of the unacceptable edits have been part of that war. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of airing your opinion for the gazillionth time, HiLo, about how reliably sourced material is "speculative nonsense" in your books (while at the same time exhibiting no skepticism at all with with respect to highly dubious claims originating form Russian apologists like JPLeonard), how about referring to protection POLICY. Policy is quite clear here that protection should be lifted (I have referred to it previously) or at an absolute minimum given a time limit.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

When editors spend so much of their time talking about me rather than about the issues, their posts count for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What counts "for nothing" is opinion at odds with policy. I'll ask you again to stopping talking about your own opinions and instead refer to policy, which is quite clear on this "issue."--Brian Dell (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS could preclude anything said by anyone with a political barrow to push. That includes all politicians, and many employees of governments everywhere. There is no need to include other people's speculation. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE tell us that we don't have to include everything the media says today. We need to choose wisely. And again, please address my comments, not me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Brian Dell is addressing your comments, in that they continue to push an obvious point of view discriminatory against reliable sources stating the consensus belief that the likeliest culprit behind this crash is a separatist unit armed with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system. That being said, if we are all in agreement that this article's protected status should be eased (and reinstated if vandalism and edit-warring behavior comes right back), I think we can probably agree to argue elsewhere, right? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)