Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Air traffic control data

There is lots of contradicting information on the recordings of communication between MH17 pilots and the Air traffic controllers:

• Media reported on 17 July that they were confiscated by the SBU, referring to a "source in Kiev". [1]
• The Ukrainian ambassador to Malaysia denied on August 8 that the recordings where confiscated [2].
• DSB announced on August 11 that cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder (the black boxes), air traffic control data, radar and satellite images ... is currently being compared [3].
• The Russian ambassador to the UN demanded today: They [Ukraine] have to provide records of conversations between their air-traffic controllers [and pilots] ... [4]

Is there any additional information which clarifies this issue? When DSB says "air traffic control data", could this mean anything else than the ATC conversation with pilots? It can't mean radar data, as this is mentioned separately. --PM3 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian ATC tapes: the turd that will not flush! Strange how the "bad" guys handed over the flight-data and voice recorders that would prove their guilt whereas the "good" guys held back the ATC data that would prove their innocence. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

82-The talk page is not a place to talk about the topic of the article, the Ukrainian-Russian situation generally, or your views on such things. It is a place to discuss how to improve the article. Frankly, there are a lot of possible reasons why the investigators have not made the information on the data recorders public at this time (but this isn't the place to discuss them). You seem to be interested in the topic, I hope you will help us all improve the article further. Best Regards--64.253.142.26 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728660/Ukrainian-air-traffic-control-sent-doomed-flight-MH17-conflict-zone-Donetsk-region-says-Russia.html (as an example): "Russian envoy to UN demands Kiev release communications with MH17". The story being suppressed on this article is not that the investigators haven't made things public it is that the authorities in Kiev seized ATC recordings and have still NOT handed this over to the investigators. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Find a collection of reliable sources that discuss the issue, and we can examine the sources WhisperToMe (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As if western mainstream media would cover this: it's not in line with the official (US State Dept) narrative. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources from other countries, Malaysia included. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/the-moscow-times-churkin-says-ukraine-should-give-investigators-access-to-mh17-audio-files-361175.html

quoting: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/churkin-ukraine-should-give-investigators-access-to-mh17-audio-files/505346.html

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/563210/20140820/russia-ukraine-air-traffic-control-malaysia-airlines.htm

http://www.nation.lk/edition/breaking-news/item/32450-kiev-must-publish-record-of-mh17-communication-with-traffic-control-russia.html

http://rt.com/news/181300-mh17-flight-record-public/

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/745999 --82.198.102.128 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! The RT source (re-posted at Sri Lanka) identifies the Russian envoy as Vitaly Churkin. Would it be fair to state his demands within the article? RT and the International Business Times both mentioned this demand, so it may make sense to state this in the article. I am aware that the DSB has not mentioned the ATC data anymore. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would have thought that a statement by Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations since 2006 would be worth mentioning (notable in Wikipedian?) Even the BBC reported off-hand in their timeline that in the immediate hours after the crash the Ukrainian regime intelligence services confiscated the air traffic control records in Kiev. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the statement relevant? Is Churkin speaking for the DSB now? Geogene (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No he's speaking as Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Is the UN not relevant?

--82.198.102.128 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ambassador Churkin doesn't speak for the UN, either. But that is beside the point. Do you think that this comment of his is of lasting relevance? And don't you think that if the ATC recordings are not available to the DSB, and are needed in the investigation, that the DSB would comment on this on their own behalf? Geogene (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What I think doesn't matter. After all - its not a forum. Surely it's the secondary sources that count:

• Malaysia wants the ‘missing’ Ukrainian ATC tapes New Straits Times 82.198.102.128 (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Russia Wants Regular, Transparent Reports on Boeing 777 Crash Probe - RIA - 82.198.102.128 (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that if the Malaysians are also wanting the tapes, it's a strong indication that this is something that should be addressed in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Examining the quotes themselves, we have "Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said Malaysia would make a formal request for the ATC recordings. However, he did not commit to a definite timeline." and "the Ukrainians have yet to receive any formal request for the tapes [from the DSB official investigation]". So it seems no-one has actually requested them (officially) yet anyway. Stickee (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding on to what's been said earlier: the DSB has previously said they have the ATC data [5], as has been repeated by other sources (IB Times). In regards to new FAQ not mentioning ATC, the list wasn't exhaustive: "...information from various sources, such as the...". The "such as" means they have other data, which would likely mean the ATC as well. Some more sources saying the DSB has the recordings: RIA/Reuters, China Central, Indo-Asian News/The Hindu NBC News.

Also, just found this interview in which a DSB spokesman says they have ATC information: "This team has collected a lot of information ... For example ... radar information from air traffic controllers" RT. Stickee (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

None of these sources say where the radar information from air traffic controllers came from. Russia has very publicly made their recordings available, so they would obviously be a source. If Ukraine is saying that they ". . . have yet to receive any formal request for the tapes [from the DSB official investigation]" then how can they be a source of info for the DSB? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The day after my posting, DSB relased an FAQ (Dutch original, English translation) which differs in one point from the August 11 statement: While flight recorders, sattelite and radar images are still mentioned, ATC data is no longer mentioned. I have also directly asked the DSB about the ATC data, but I got a "we won't tell" reply. So no helpful information from that side so far. --PM3 (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: , regarding your comments, the conclusion of the english-language Wikipedia editors appears to be:

• Yes the BBC did report that "Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukranian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency."
• The Ukrainian ambassador to Malaysia actually said: "There is no proof or any evidence that the tapes were confiscated by the SBU". This is not strictly a denial that that the recordings were confiscated. I doubt most native-english speakers would spot the subtle difference, so there's no need to feel bad about interpreting these words as a denial.
• DSB does not say exactly whose "air traffic control and radar data" is being compared".
• Yes, basically, the Russian ambassador to the UN did demand that: They [Ukraine] have to provide records of conversations between their air-traffic controllers [and pilots].

So the apparent contradictions could actually be reconciled - if somebody really wanted to. But the thing is: so what? This subject is not mentioned in the english-language article anyway.

PS: the german-language version has a much more neutral tone to it. Well done. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is normal to impound the ATC recordings after an incident or accident most if not all the relevant discussion is also on the aircraft voice recorder, so I am not sure what all the fuss is about it doesnt actually appear to be relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Aye, I was thinking the same thing. The cockpit voice recorder would have all the ATC-Aircraft conversations on it, and the DSB confirms they have the CVR [6]. There's also the fact that the DSB hasn't requested the tapes yet anyway, according to the NST [7]. Stickee (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not strictly true - 1) The CVR will only reveal what ATC said to MH17, not conversations with other aircraft in the area (or show that there weren't any). Ukrainian radar data will also show what (if any) other aircraft were in the area. 2) Humennyi said that "if a formal request was made by Malaysia or the international investigation team, Ukraine would extend its cooperation". The international investigation team is not the same thing as the DSB. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(1)Slight error the VCR will record all transmissions from atc to all aircraft on the frequency in use by the aircraft it has no way of knowing the air traffic are talking to somebody else. MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes: "on the frequency in use by the aircraft" - not traffic using a different frequency --82.198.102.128 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is on a different frequency it is not under the control of the FIR sector so not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that all aviation frequencies are under the control of the FIR sector - not just the ones in regular use. See here for some common civvy ones in Ukraine or here (and search for Kiev) to find 22 military ones. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

True but none are relevant to the incident or investigation as MH17 was probably only using one frequency plus guard at the time, if MH17 talked on other channels it will be in the voice recordered data, suspect we are in the realms of original research so perhaps just need to wait for the preliminary report and then we can judge if any of this is actually relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's just it - an accident investigation HAS to consider ALL possibilities - including what OTHER aircraft were in the area. Only ATC data can help with that - VCR won't. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

re: "It is normal to impound the ATC recordings." Normal, yes, if not obligatory, but it would normally be done by those authorised/certified to do so (in this case authorised/certified by the EASA, probably). What's not normal is confiscation by security services. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• It seems clear to me that no editor is going to include this subject in the main article, so why don't we just call it quits here and let it disappear down the memory-hole into the archive? I think that @PM3: - the OP - has enough info here to make his mind up for the german-language version. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My thinking on notability is this: what is the most damning thing that could possibly be on that ATC tape? That a Ukrainian controller sent the aircraft, along with many others, down a corridor that international agencies considered safe? It suddenly became unsafe when somebody gave the guerrillas a launcher that could reach airliner cruise altitude, and that happened with no warning. The Churkin remark is a Soundbite of the Week for the domestic media consumption, and at most a foot in the door for Russia to try to discredit the Dutch investigation in a few weeks (note that they're laying the groundwork for that now). But I won't come behind you and remove it. Geogene (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is related to the request for the ATC records: [8]. Getting ready to reject the report's findings. Geogene (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

re: "what is the most damning thing that could possibly be on that ATC tape?" - that miltary aircraft were operating close by the civilian aircraft - directed by Ukrainian ATC. Why do you bother trying to trivialise the issue - as a way of dropping it - when it has already been effectively dropped anyway through being ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.204.133 (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As no-one seems prepared to cover the subject - or offer convincing reasons why not - I have made it the subject of an edit request, --87.117.204.133 (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

BBC quote in lead

I think the quote from the BBC which I put in the lead has a good claim to come in that position as it is far more recent than the material from other. It could be paraphrased so that it isn't a direct quote. Western governments do seem to have rowed back from condemnation of Russia since the days following the crash, they will have their reasons. Why can't wiki editors be similarly cautious and await the results of the enquiry? Sceptic1954 (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of issues. Firstly it largely duplicates the information in the paragraph below. Secondly there are due weighting and WP:GEVAL issues. The media is still stating that their is the general belief that the rebels were responsible. For example, in an even more recent article the BBC says "Flight MH17 is believed to have been shot down by a missile fired by pro-Russian rebels. They deny the claim." (link). Stickee (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Stickee, I replied to this on 22nd August as per following. Unfortunately I inadvertentlywiped out various intervening edits and it was deleted and I was accused of vandalism (not upheld by 3 adminstrators) "The problem with the BBC Asia quote is that it doesn't say by whom 'it is believed'. It certainly isn't universally believed. Perhaps it means by the population and government of Malaysia. When faced with two slightly differing sources I think the clearer take precedence. If you want to have 'it is believed' in the lead, lets be really clear and say 'by unspecified persons' because the sources aren't specifying who is doing the believing. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)" In the face of no reply from me you were entitled to deleted my addition to the lead but I think we must restore it. If we are too take the our reliable surce at face value, and the given that according to many editors interpretations of the guidelines the guidelines do not permit us to apply intelligent judgement whoever does the believing does not include western governments who merely suspect so everything must appear in the lead. You'd need to find a source saying 'generally beieved' It is believed that the Americans never landed on the Moon and it is also believed that they did, it only requires one person to do the believing for something to be believed.217.26.11.122 (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) This is from Sceptic 1954, I see I am not logged in.

It's highly doubtful that the BBC would say that "it is believed X" if the belief was as fringe as moon landing conspiracies, or if only one person held that. When they say it without attribution they're quite clearly referring to it in general, and there's plenty of other sources that say the same thing. Regardless, the current version of the lead has been in place for over a week now and appears to be mostly stable. A better option could be just to leave it as-is now. Stickee (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The argument that something should not be changed becasue it has been in place for sometime is an argument for not editing wikipedia at all. In any event I changed the lead and you reverted it. If you are going to take it on yourself to interpret a RS, which is of course, then I think it reasonable the BBC are saying it is widely believed in the west and I am sure that this is the case amongst the western public. I'm not completely sure it is a majority belief in western Europe but would expect to be in the USA. The trouble with interpreting RS is that someone else is going to interpret them in a different way and what does one do when they conflict? Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO (also WP:SILENCE), the long standing status-quo lead should stay until/if consensus forms.

There is no interpreting going on. The RSs are saying "it is believed X", so the article should say "it is believed X". Simple as that. When you go morphing the quote into "it is widely believed X in Y country only", that's when the interpreting is occurring. Stickee (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

When RSs contradict what do you do? It is not generally believed in Russia and according to one BBC source western governments merely suspect rather than beieving. Do you just pick the RS which you like and leave the rest, that's what happening. Your revert of all my edits was unthinking, as the first of them simply improved the source for the existing wording.Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed up the ref. I think it got that way when User:Geogene condensed the lead a week ago. The original "it is believed" statement was in there before then, but was removed for brevity. If anything extra is to go in, it should be the "it is believed" statement as many other sources are saying the same thing (and thus per WP:DUE). The 2 refs I just replaced say that, plus there's a couple more in the body of the article. Stickee (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am continuing this in changes to lead below.Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Some disambiguation needed here

A previous 'Not to be confused with MH370' hatnote was voted against, but as time passes there's bound to be plenty of readers who will inevitably mix up two accidents that involved:

• Same airline
• Same aircraft type
• Similar flight number (both containing '7')
• Within four months of each other
• Both under unusual circumstances

You can't expect people to remember which flight number relates to which accident, and it's just annoying having to read a three-paragraph article lead before finally finding the link to the other Malaysian Airlines accident you were looking for. I'm usually quite strict in applying WP:NAMB, but this case qualifies for an exception, in my view. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's likely to help at least a few casual readers, and does no harm. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because of our stupid convention of naming a crash after a flight number, which was obviously also used on hundreds of other occasions, some clarification is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not that stupid as the flight number is by far the most common name if not the only name used for this one incident, most of the worlds media dont have a problem with the flight number being tied to one event. MilborneOne (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's at least a very unfortunate convention. If the airline retires the flight number after an incident, it makes some sense (while obviously not being ideal), but when it's a less serious incident and the number is not retired, it's definitely a stupid convention. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's like saying "Bus line 7E crash", instead of "BPO-125 crash" or "Random City, Variable District bus crash", where 7E refers to a route, and BPO-125 refers to an individual vehicle. Since people generally don't care about the individual identifier of the vehicle involved in a crash, they either connect it with a place (for example used with train accidents here on WP) or a route name/number the vehicle served. That's why most of the aircraft accidents and incidents here are named after the flight number, and they only use the registration number/tailmark when the aircraft wasn't a commercial passenger plane. Or just the operator, type and maybe place/year if it didn't had any (public) identifier at all, as with military vehicles. It all makes sense. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if we connected the article name with a place, because it's pretty clear to me that it's how this incident and most others will really be remembered by the bulk of people. I suspect that to most people this is stored in their minds now as "that plane crash a month or so ago in the Ukraine war zone". No flight number. Not even an airline. They're irrelevant. The place and time are far more important than both those factors in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? "Ukraine plane crash" generates 4,640,000 results, "Malaysia airlines ukraine" generates 1,470,000 results. "MH17" generates 157,000,000 results. And this is not a Wikipedia convention. Geogene (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. Google hit counts have nothing to do with the point I was making. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In any case, a person who can remember a flight number can probably remember the correct flight number (or none at all). If the casual person ends up on the wrong page there are more than enough cross links on the actual page to get it sorted out, as both flights are related. So I do not see the need for a hatnote; and would opt not to use it. Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The point of the hatnote is help people realize they're on the wrong page without reading through the whole article. The fact there's discussion here about the inherent confusion in the flight number is ample evidence that we should spare a single line to clarify this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact there's discussion here about the inherent confusion in the flight number is ample evidence Euhm... No! This is speculation about potential inherent confusion by editors who are not at all confused themselves. If that is already considered ample evidence we can shut down all our courts and science departments. Arnoutf (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf; It's your speculation that there is no confusion. You're own assertion that they "probably" remember the number, or remember no number, actually supports that confusion exists. Besides, the effort to address confusion is negligible; the evidence for no confusion would have to be very significant to justify our not doing this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian health director document in Malay

I found this Malay document from the Health Director: http://www.hkl.gov.my/content/Kenyataan%20akhbar%20Ucapan%20Aidilfitri.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6S2gu5Bs6 WhisperToMe (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes to lead

I consider Stickee has misused his rollback rights. He reverted five edits of mine without, apparently, considering each separate one. the first two were just improving the references for the existing version. BRD means that if he is reverting he should discuss the reasons. Substituting 'silence' for 'discuss' is not appropriate. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The revert was immediately followed up by a comment by me here. Discussion is ongoing 3 sections above. As per WP:BRD, the changes that are being discussed are only to be made with consensus. Stickee (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you are characterising a series of five reverts as a single revert which deserves only a single comment. You should have commented on each part of your 'revert'. Just reverting everything I do in toto is basically saying I am not welcome as an editor. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 Note: this conversation was continued and concluded on my talk page. Stickee (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't concluded there as far as I am concerned. The last words there from me were

"Nonetheless the removal of my edits en bloc was something of an abuse and to characterise the third of the 5 edits as simply returning to the BBC quote is absurd. I don't think much of your use of BRD to stamp out edits you may not agree with. I will continue on talk." Please respond to my comment regarding the 3rd of my edits. Thank you Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

continued from BBC quote in lead above. Stickee wrote Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO (also WP:SILENCE), I think Stickee's policy should be entitled Bold, Revert, Silence/Don't discuss. If you are going to start quoting policies please quote specific sections. He appears to be reverting edits just because they are recent.Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Don't discuss"? Now that's a fairly baseless accusation; I've been discussing it quite a bit with you here.

Moving on. You've made 2 recent edits to the lead, specifically the first sentence (here, here). Both have been an attempt to weaken the US stance on the issue. Looking at the first, the edit summary is "Leaves room for doubt and subsequent changes of mind.". Leaving room for change isn't our job, our job is to report what the RS's are saying, and the source for that sentence doesn't leave room: "...intelligence that [US] officials say show Moscow had trained and equipped rebels in Ukraine responsible for the attack." [9].

Your second edit introduces the word "claim", which is a loaded term per WP:CLAIM. The wording you deleted said "according to", which is recommended by the MOS. The use of the word 'claim' was also discussed at length in Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_12#Claimed.2FSaid_POV. Stickee (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I undid the edit in which "according to" had been changed to "claim". Geogene (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, Sceptic1954, but I think you are wasting your time, here. It is what it is, and that is it. I really doubt we will ever know the truth about this whole story, otherwise it would have already come out. The "undeniable proof", the "smoking gun", the "hard facts" would have already been released. With every day that goes by, the chance of knowing the truth diminishes dramatically. Possibly, in 30 years, some low life, CIA thug will admit that our government was up to no good, as usual. Who knows... I am not going to be holding my breath, football season is starting soon (the pre-season does not count), i.e. I have better things to think about. YAY!. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"our job is to report what the RS's are saying" I've heard this said beforeon wikipedia. It simply means we select those RS which suit our point of view and disregard others. "Both have been an attempt to weaken the US stance on the issue." There we have it, quite explicit, someone effectively saying that the purpose of this article is to report the U.S. stance. Makes this article about as reliable as Russia Today. Thanks Stickee for being so candid. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I said. It was about misrepresentation of US views. Your edit made it sounds like the US had large doubts about it (edit summary: "Leaves room for doubt and subsequent changes of mind." [10]), when that's not the case ("...intelligence that [US] officials say show Moscow had trained and equipped rebels in Ukraine responsible for the attack." WaPost). Both edits have now been reverted by myself and Geogene. -Stickee (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reader comment approval-ratings in RS as guide to what is believed.

At least one editor wishes to quote 'it is believed that' because this wording appears in RSs. However judging from comment approval ratings in RSs this is far from universally believed.

Look here for example.

I'm sure I could find something from the Guardian which may be considered more reliable than the Mail. Is there some policy on this?

A point to considerthat if there is considerable public disbelief in the 'western governments' view and this is not reflected in wikipedia this may impact negatively on the credibility of wikipedia. After all Jimbo wants the public to regard Wikipedia as more reliable than Britannica. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Or scroll down through about 8 main comments (not replies) to Kommentariat here in the Guardian.Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Using the comments section in an attempt to disprove what the RS's are saying is original research (also the fact that news comments are not reliable sources). Here at WP we say what the sources are saying. The RS's are saying that "it is believed [to have be pro-Russia rebels]", so the lead should too. That's according to the policy on due weighting. If you think the RS's are wrong or that the news article comments section show otherwise, then you'll need to change the WP:OR policy. Stickee (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say or imply that the "Separatist Buk" theory is "universally believed" (nor should it, because clearly it isn't). As far as public disbelief goes, where I live, a substantial proportion of the population denies various scientific facts. Should we re-write the evolution and global warming articles to avoid offending their sensibilities? Geogene (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This might be a silly question, but how can I, a regular individual, you know, goes to work every day, owns a house, has a family and kids, does not devote their entire life to Wikipedia and arguing on talk pages about rules, regulations, etc. how does said individual get to know what a reliable source is and what is not (RS, for short, for those who hang around Wikipedia, or WP, a lot)? Is there a page that lists all the reliable sources? Or maybe a page that lists all the unreliable sources? Is there an elected body that decides what is reliable or not? I am not trying to be a pain, this is a bona fide, honest to Gosh question. I have worked some on Wikipedia, but generally on smaller Wikipedias, and therefore I really don't know. Thanks in advance for your courteous answer, --Mondschein English (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Google wiki+reliable+source and I'm sure you'll find an answer. Arb Com who are elected will presuambly make rulings on these, but then there are so many editors arguing about interpretation IMO to suit their own ends that it gets tiresome. For myself I just try to stick to the main principles.

Wording such as "it is believed" is explicitly mentioned in and strongly discouraged by WP:WEASEL. Don't use it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Here at WP we say what the sources are saying." Is this the 'royal we' or what?. Tends to mean that a group of editors with one point of view take over a page, as per criticism of Larry Sanger, and select the RS which suit their point of view.Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV template

Heavily unbalanced, many claims are presented in a way that suggests they are factual. The wording implies the plane was already crashing when fighter jet is alleged to come into proximity i.e. suggestively discrediting alternative theories. Fails to mention counter-claims or the myriad of references which do not adhere to the POV expressed. Disproportionate volume of text given to one theory, NOWHERE does it mention there are multiple theories. This, quite frankly, stinks

The lead is way unbalanced. We have one editor who appears to admit it should be giving the US government point of view strongly. Sources which state that Western government merely 'suspect' separatists shot down the plane are not given space in the lead. The Russian government point of view is given little pscae and placed well down the page even though there is evidence that most of the Russian population subscribe to it. The lead is effectively controlled by a group of editors who seem to wish to promote only the US government point of view. That is not the function of wikipedia. Given the discussions which have been ongoing here this template should have been in place for weeks past. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone, please don't edit war over the NPOV template such as happens in articles in Wikipedia that are controlled by activists. Please let it be. Even if you don't agree that the article is not neutral, the template helps draw more people to the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cla68, if you want more editors involved, then call for protection to be lifted so more editors can edit. What's "controlled by activists" here is the contention that the article does not given enough credence to Kremlin claims and therefore should be templated. WIkipedia does not owe either the White House or the Kremlin anything. What we owe to our readers is the presentation of reliably sourced material. That, right there, explains why the Kremlin view is not dominant and as far as I'm concerned bogus, demonstrably false Kremlin contentions are given too much space as it is such that the NPOV problem is going to far the other way. But rather than template I provide SPECIFIC reasons why a source is or is not reliable.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has attempted to remove the NPOV template, Cla68. Geogene (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An article that is templated simply because an editor believes the "Russian government point of view" is not featured prominently enough is not sufficient reason to maintain a template. If there is an objection, then spell it out. See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead reflects reliable references so just because you dont agree with it is not a reason to add a npov tag. The lead is not controlled by anybody and is a combined effort from all the editors that work here and is driven by consensus. The lead reports what is being said on all sides (and as far as I know the conflict in the area of the incidents has nothing to do with the United States so cant really be a "side" if you want to be neutral). The fact that "Russian population subscribe" to the view of the Russian media is not really relevant and both the Russian and Ukrainian view is mentioned, although perhaps if different the Dutch and Malaysian view should be stated. Dont really know what you mean by "that Western government" as far is know a "western government" doesnt exist. So you really need to reconsider adding the non-neutral template as "I dont like it" and "they wont let me change it" is not a matter of neutrality. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant 'Western governments.' As this wasn't clear to you please state if this affects your conclusion.Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of truth in what Sceptic1954 is saying: a lot of other Wikipedias, the ones in languages I can read, at least, have balanced articles on this subject. They have articles saying that the truth is not known, yet, and that there are different theories on what happened. This article, on the other hand, is clearly a copy of the official US government's version which is also the version that Western news sources, which are all blatantly controlled by the US government and US interest groups, have been spreading since day one: Russia is GUILTY!!! GUILTY!!!! GUILTY!!!!!!! Off with their heads! They are the judge, the jury, the DA, the public defender, etc. They have "undeniable proof", "a smoking gun", etc., yet, they have not released any of that to this day... They have not even released what they found out in the black boxes... Once could wonder whether they are hard at work on fabricating "smoking guns" and "undeniable proofs"... One could also wonder whether the US government is paying some of the many, many, many jobless people in the US to spread propaganda on, and control, not only news forums, but also Wikipedia... I really hope that is not the case, but who knows.... Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your point would be much more convincing if you actually presented a coherent set of concise arguments in a neutral manner, backed up by actual facts, instead of going off on a rant containing unproven clichés, such as the accusation that all Western media are directly controlled by the US government. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What is a rant is debatable, and I do not appreciate your accusing me of "going off on a rant". It is a rude accusation that I would hope you would take back. Is it a cliché or is it an observation that western news sources are blatantly controlled by US interest groups? They sure seem to always all give the same version of international facts, don't they? Nonetheless, it is my government and I say what I want about it. Are you an American by any chance? Nichts fuer ungut, --Mondschein English (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: it's a rant (judging by the number of exclamation marks alone) and does not warrant an NPOV tag. The US intelligence has offered an explanation for the accident; the Russian government totally disagrees; both views are mentioned in the lead. Sorted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The exclamation marks were obviously not a rant of mine but my poking fun at the rants of the western media. Also, the lead does not simply say "The US intelligence has offered an explanation for the accident; the Russian government totally disagrees", but it goes into the details of the US version and at the very end it simply says "the Russian government disagrees" without mentioning any theory confuting the official US government's version. There is a big difference. :-) --Mondschein English (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that Sceptic started a thread at the NPOV message board recently as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Malaysian_Airways_Flight_MH_17 Geogene (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If anyone further tries to remove the template I will raise it on administrators notice board. Clearly there are other editors who share my concern on this. The dispute is ongoing and the template contains a request not to remove it until consensus is reached. This means all round agreement, not majority voting. First a recent BBC report said 'western governments suspect...' The lack of certainty needs to be reflected high up in the lead. What we have is claim + details of claim + brief mention of counterclaim. It should be brief statement of claim followed by brief statement of conterclaim then anything else sutable afterwards. Whether the Kremlin claim is valid or not is neither here nor there the fact is it is a significant view held by many people and desrves due weight. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The first 2 statements of the 2nd para in the lead are sourced to the Washington Post, here are some comparisons:

the officials said the intelligence assembled in the five days since the attack points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists in territory they control in eastern Ukraine.

which WP editors turned into: According to US intelligence sources, the plane was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists.

The U.S. intelligence officials, who included experts on Russia’s military and its relationship with separatists in Ukraine, said they do not know the identities or even the nationalities — whether Russian or possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military — of those who launched the missile from an SA-11 surface-to-air battery.

which WP editors turned into: They said their conclusion was based on sensors that traced the path of the missile, shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, and photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile.

Apart from the cherry-picking required to generate these statements from the Washington Post article, even those chosen don't accurately quote the source. Sceptic was correct to insert the NPOV template and it should remain there until the article becomes neutral. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair I gave this as the source for the wording as it refelcted better the wording than the previous. Quite possibly the original wording did derive from this source. Also the source opens with "The Obama administration, detailing what it called evidence of Russian complicity in the downing of a Malaysian airliner, on Tuesday released satellite images and other sensitive intelligence that officials say show Moscow had trained and equipped rebels in Ukraine responsible for the attack." The RS appears contradictory "The U.S. intelligence officials, who included experts on Russia’s military and its relationship with separatists in Ukraine, said they do not know the identities or even the nationalities — whether Russian or possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military — of those who launched the missile from an SA-11 surface-to-air battery." for one thing if they were defectors from the Ukrainian military how can it be certain that Moscow trained them? However identifying contradictions in or between RS is usually condemned as OR.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also state in the lead that the US government is holding back on releasing the evidence they gathered. Relevance should be given to the on-going investigation and the lack of hard evidence, at this time. --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@IP82, the WaPost article [11] does state that the US says the evidence points to the separatists ("...points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists"). They don't know the exact identities or nationalities of them, but they say the evidence indicates overwhelmingly those responsible were separitists. Stickee (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The source does NOT say it is a conclusion. What gives you the right to interpret it as such? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Very true. --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And even if it is a conclusion what gives anyone the right to present it as fact. The fact that the Washington Post present the US government's conclusion does not make this a fact, any more than if they reported the Russian government's conclusion. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Also very true. --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@IP82: A "conclusion" is a judgement made by reasoning, which is what the WaPost article explains. It's seemingly fairly straightforward paraphrasing. But if you're still not sure, here's some more sources: "U.S. officials have concluded the missile was fired from rebel-held territory." ([12]), "[US officials] had concluded that separatists fired the missile" ([13]). Stickee (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first source does not support the statement in the lead that "Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile" - only that "U.S. officials have concluded the missile was fired from rebel-held territory."

As for your second source: "Obama stopped short of publicly accusing the separatists, or their Russian patrons, of pulling the trigger. "... .“Whether it was a Russian military unit that did it or it was a separatist unit . . . we don’t know,” ...Privately, U.S. officials said intelligence assessments, based on weapons believed to be in separatist hands and the tracked location of the launch site, had concluded that separatists fired the missile, although it was unclear whether they knew their target was a commercial airliner." So, yet more cherry-picking and distortion of what the sources actually said. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimous (WP:NOTUNANIMOUS). Take a look through the AfD log and look how many articles are deleted/kept without unanimity, or a look through RfA applications. Firstly, the US government's view on this has not changed. The BBC quote does not indicate their view has weakened (and it doesn't even refer to them). Also, in regards to escalating to sysops, an administrator has already commented in this very section. Stickee (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The wording at NOTUNANIMOUS suggests that one dissenter may be overridden. Here we have 2 or 3dissenters at least. Please give specific reference to administrators comment. Thank you Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The sysop is MilborneOne, whose comment is currently the 6th from the top in this section. Stickee (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have offered a different lead. There is no issue over sources. I'm not even debating the amount of space given to different aspects of the question. The main thing is that the mention of claim and counter-claim should be prominent. The fact that the Russian government have made a claim which many editors here reject (and I personally feel is rather unlikely) is a significant fact in this story.Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)To add to this, I consider the fact that there are other views than the US view should appear before the evidence which supports the Russian view. This is the key difference. It's a question of prominence rather than amount of material. BTW regarding the adminsitrator above, I'd take issue with the assertion that the US government is not a 'side' in this. The head of the CIA has visted Kiev since fighting began and the US press for sanctions on Russia. I would seek views of more adminstrators were the tag to be removed without consensus. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The US government is deeply involved n this. Biden's son is in the Ukraine doing who knows what, the US is pressing for Ukraine's NATO membership, etc.

One question to those who put this article together: how is "The Christian Science Monitor" a reliable source? The name alone and a quick visit to their site would lead to believe otherwise. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite their name, they're not actually some big Christian preaching mouthpiece (unless it's an opinion editorial piece, as goes with any newspaper). See a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Christian Science Monitor. Stickee (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't oppose the lead as it stands currently. "Conclusion" --> "Judgement" I do not find objectionable. I still think that emphasizing the 5 days is somewhat POV, but it doesn't stick out in the article; nor is it technically incorrect. Geogene (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The five days isn't that important, although it gives something of a chronological sequence. I'll be happy to remove the template if no other objections to the change. In fact if Stickee doesn't object I am happy for them to remove the template whilst I sleep! This discussion may soon be rendered redundant anyway by the publication of the Dutch report. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To summarise the locus of the NPOV dispute in relation to your comment 3 levels above, there doesn't appear to be dispute about the content of the lead, nor any dispute about the air time of the content. It appears to be focused around the order of the content of the lead. I still have some concern that the "claim and counter-claim" ordering results in false balance, but I'll leave that for another time. Perhaps after the prelim report comes out? Anyway, I've taken off the {{POV-section}} tag now.

By the way, the Dutch preliminary report won't discuss liability or blame (according to the BBC). And the DSB says their final report won't be out for another year, so there's still quite a bit of a wait yet. Stickee (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This is Sceptic1954, my home internet is down and I can't sign in at the public terminal. Yes the difference was over order. If any governments intelligence statements are questioned then I think the reader should be aware of this before reading the detail of the statement, that way they may read it more critically. Let's see what the preliminary report says, it will hopefully say how the plane came down, even if I can't identify who217.26.11.122 (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Now signed in, I can confirm that 217.26.11.112 was me. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Report by Russian Engineers Union, full version. Technical point of view.

Here is the report prepared by Russian Engineers Union. They are re-constructing the attack on Boeing, compare possibilities, analyze the facts and photos. The report presents technical point of view on what happened.

Google translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.odnako.org%2Fblogs%2Frossiyskiy-soyuz-inzhenerov-rekonstrukciya-ataki-na-boing%2F&edit-text=&act=url

Original text in Russian: http://www.odnako.org/blogs/rossiyskiy-soyuz-inzhenerov-rekonstrukciya-ataki-na-boing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.247.53 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced this is sufficiently relevant / reliable and would rather wait for the official investigation. As far as I understand this (through the large untranslated sections) this report suggests that the plane was shot down by cannonfire from a fighter plane; as they more or less conclusively rule out the air to air missiles (to weak) and doubt the BUK scenario. The plane would have been a Mig29 (as the Su25 cannot maintain the cruising altitude of MH17 long enough to effectively use the gun). Apparently the Mig29 has a similar radar profile as Su25. Wow and all that without access to anything but freely available internet information (their claim). Arnoutf (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you were too busy to actually read the report because you are misinterpreting it. I have just checked: the report is fully translated in English by Google translate, and authors did not rule out Su25 plane as you mention, neither they insisted on using gun only. The report is written in a neutral manner and logically explains probability of different options, whether BUK or plane. Until the official results published, which may be not soon, this report is a good review of the facts community already have. Apparently the report has more information and is better structured than many of the source links at the bottom of the page. Saying that the report is not quite relevant is ridiculous - I believe the only explanation is biased opinion based on sticking to official US government version, while the report considers several options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.247.53 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UPD Unfortunately, not all text was translated by google. My bad. Sorry for misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.247.53 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is what we call original research so is not really relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. Quite fascinating. But classic OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. For the opinion of the Russian Union of Engineers it isn't OR. I would prefer to find the document at the REU page, but their page does mention their taking part in this conference. Geogene (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if it isn't OR, it's WP:PRIMARY. If there are reliable secondary sources which discuss the report then maybe we can say something about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Way too much US Side in the Lead

This part belongs in the cause, the lead is fine without it:

The US sources stated that their judgement was based on sensors that traced the path of the missile, shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, and photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile.[6] The Dutch Safety Board is now leading an investigation into the incident and is expected to have a preliminary accident report at the end of August.[7]

Immediately after the crash, a post appeared on the VKontakte social media attributed to Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, claiming responsibility for shooting down a military aircraft,[8][9][10] but after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement. The Ukrainian government says the missile was launched by "Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia".[11][12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondschein English (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This was literally just discussed in the "NPOV template" section above, and it was agreed it's fine as it is. Stickee (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You agreed it was fine as it is - some others did not agree. Yet you still removed the NPOV template --82.198.102.128 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Which is acceptable. See WP:NOTUNANIMOUS. Geogene (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention unanimity, but If we're going to have to go down the policy-shopping route, let's try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions for starters --82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Add the essay at WP:TENDENTIOUS to the list. You say we have had to "cherry pick" sources in order to claim that US intelligence blamed the downing on a Buk missile fired by pro-Russian separatists from rebel-held territory. I don't understand your argument here. Do you not agree that if you had convinced us to disregard that one, that we could find thousands of other, equally credible sources for this very basic information? Geogene (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So why not pick some of these "thousands of other, equally credible sources" to insert what you want to say into the article- instead of picking three that don't support the statement? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks

Now that the dispute regarding the lead has come to a conclusion, I'd like to bring up the paragraph breaks. Here's a couple of different paragraph breaking options:

• Version 1 - by Sceptic1954
• Version 2 - by Meganesia
• Version 3 - by me
• Version 4 - by me

I've made 2 edits to the article (and reverted them) to demonstrate what Version 3 and 4 looks like. Currently the article is in version 1, but that's not for any particular reason. I'm not a fan of version 2, since it breaks the lead into 5 small paragraphs, and WP:LEAD suggests you should have 4 paragraphs maximum ("ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs"). But I'd be interested in hearing feedback about the other options too. Stickee (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at version 4 if we loose the repetition about the US view and delete the long sentence "The US sources stated..." the point of view is already stated at the beginning of the paragraph and the detail can be dealt with in the body (although this is also true for other versions). I would support four with that change. MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - missing source on YouTube/External Audio in Cause section

The link to The Bellingham Herald article by Landay, Jonathan S. "WASHINGTON: U.S. officials still don’t know who shot down Malaysian airliner".. Retrieved 24 July 2014 now only produces "Unfortunately, we are unable to locate the page you have requested. This could be due to content on our site having expired, a broken link, an outdated bookmark, or a mistyped address. Please use the site map provided on this page."

As this source appears to be used to justify the statement "Pro-Russian rebels discuss the shooting down of an aircraft on YouTube Intercepted phone calls, verified with voice recognition by the National Security Agency", I request that either a verifiable source be used or the statement be amended. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the dead link here. For some reason The Bellingham Herald changed the article ID number causing the link to break. Stickee (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014 - hidden note: incorrect talk page reference

The hidden comment above the YouTube/External Audio in Cause section says:

!-- The audio has been widely published/played in media coverage and is a significant & noteworthy piece of evidence. Discuss on the talk page section: Deletion of External Link to Wiretaps Audio -- ( presumably: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_2#Deletion_of_External_Link_to_Wiretaps_Audio ) but there was a further (later) discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_10#YouTube_ref

I therefore request that the hidden comment be amended to shows this later discussion as the justification for inclusion of this YouTube video in the article. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC) 87.117.204.133 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why it's entirely necessary, but I've added it anyway. Stickee (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014 - Bellingham Herald as justification for inclusion of THIS PARTICULAR YouTube clip

The link to The Bellingham Herald article by Landay, Jonathan S. "WASHINGTON: U.S. officials still don’t know who shot down Malaysian airliner".. (in the YouTube/External Audio in Cause section) appears to be used to justify the statement "Pro-Russian rebels discuss the shooting down of an aircraft on YouTube Intercepted phone calls, verified with voice recognition by the National Security Agency". But the article says: "Voice recognition experts at the CIA and the National Security Agency authenticated communications intercepts posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government in which separatists are heard saying that they’d downed an aircraft."

So the actual source could reasonably be deduced to be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5E8kDo2n6g The YouTube clip actually linked to is a translation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnuHxAR01Jo by "maidanorgua" (an anonymous YouTube account).

I therefore request, for accuracy, that

"released by Security Service of Ukraine with English subtitles".

be replaced by

"originally released by Security Service of Ukraine with english subtitles by Maidanorgua".

--87.117.204.133 (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Replaced Youtube link with the Security Service of Ukraine's official video and translation, rather than some other user's video. Stickee (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014 - Use of Op-Ed as RS for the YouTube/External Audio in Cause section

This Forbes link http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/07/19/what-more-smoking-guns-are-needed-for-mh17-the-worlds-first-sam-terrorism/ used as a source in the YouTube/External Audio in Cause section is clearly labeled "OPINION". Because the hidden comment says "the audio has been widely published/played in media coverage and is a significant & noteworthy piece of evidence." it shouldn't be hard to find a better reference. I request a more reliable source be substituted for this Op-Ed. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC) 87.117.204.133 (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It has 2 references for it already, but I've replaced the 3rd (the Forbes one) with another. Stickee (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014 - Ukrainian ATC data

I would like to request that the following being included in the article:

• On 17 July the BBC reported that "Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukranian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency." BBC
• The Ukrainian ambassador to Malaysia said: "There is no proof or any evidence that the tapes were confiscated by the SBU". NST
• The Russian ambassador to the UN has demanded that: They [Ukraine] have to provide records of conversations between their air-traffic controllers [and pilots] ... Moscow Times

see also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728660/Ukrainian-air-traffic-control-sent-doomed-flight-MH17-conflict-zone-Donetsk-region-says-Russia.html

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine-abroad/the-moscow-times-churkin-says-ukraine-should-give-investigators-access-to-mh17-audio-files-361175.html

quoting: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/churkin-ukraine-should-give-investigators-access-to-mh17-audio-files/505346.html

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/563210/20140820/russia-ukraine-air-traffic-control-malaysia-airlines.htm

http://www.nation.lk/edition/breaking-news/item/32450-kiev-must-publish-record-of-mh17-communication-with-traffic-control-russia.html

http://rt.com/news/181300-mh17-flight-record-public/

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/745999

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Air_traffic_control_data

87.117.204.133 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed/being discussed at the section above: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Air traffic control data. Stickee (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's being ignored, rather than discussed. But let's wait and see. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014 - GMT vs BST vs UTC time

In the crash section, there is the statement: "Malaysia Airlines stated that Ukrainian ATC had lost contact with the airliner at 13:15 UTC,14:15 GMT".

GMT and UTC are the same thing (apart from in definition in astronomical / physics terms) so it is not possible to be both 13:15 UTC and 14:15 GMT at the same time.

13:15 UTC,14:15 BST is a possible - which the note alludes to: "The time stated by Malaysia Airlines is erroneous; the correct time should be 13:15 (UTC) or 14:15 (WEST)."

I request that the line be changed to either BST (more commonly understood?) or (WEST) as in the note. 87.117.204.133 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are BST and WEST? They have no meaning where I live. This is a perfect example of an article that should almost exclusively use UTC, with minor references to the local time zone where the incident occurred if it helps to explain events there. If there's an error, fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)