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)

Stickee reckons this is still under discussion so: 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 envoy to the UN Security Council has demanded Kiev release all records of its air-traffic controllers' communications with the plane. Daily Mail

--87.117.204.133 (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, there's not going to be anything damning on those audiotapes the Kremlin is asking for except for Ukrainian ATC routing the flight down a corridor that was believed to be safe. Any communications between the ATC and MH17 would have taken place over standard VHF frequencies that would have been monitored by every other commercial aircraft in the area and would probably have been recorded on the CVR (along with, "Why is that Su-25 shooting at us?") Further, the DSB would probably just ask for whatever it doesn't have that it needs. But by making allegations about "missing" data, certain parties can make it look like something nefarious is going on that isn't. It's food for conspiracy theories that we normally wouldn't include in the article. Geogene (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So basically, after researching the topic yourself, the conclusion is that these three sources were wrong to have reported it. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting the prohibition on OR (which is a ban on putting OR in article content) to say that we are forbidden from using research/argumentation to debate notability on talk pages and noticeboards (which happens daily). Geogene (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, what are you proposing to add? Something like...Russia asked Ukraine to publish its air traffic control records? Geogene (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am only proposing to add details from what the sources reported, such as:

• 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 envoy to the UN Security Council has demanded Kiev release all records of its air-traffic controllers' communications with the plane. Daily Mail

Please feel free to add any further info from these sources (or indeed any other RS that covered the subject). --87.117.204.133 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a sentence from Reuters about Russia demanding that the CVR and ATC audio be published. I think that meets the notability criteria because it's being repeated and was picked up by Reuters (whether it will be lasting is another matter). This stuff about seizing ATC data doesn't seem to have resonance in the sources. In my opinion, a passing remark from the BBC on it isn't enough. Geogene (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

For anyone with a genuine interest in the possible relevance of the missing ATC data, this covers quite a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.102.128 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The DSB Preliminary Report says that The data obtained was the following:

• Primary surveillance radar recorded by Russian surveillance aids --82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved by the DSB preliminary report:

• "UkSATSE provied the recording and transcript of the radio (RAD) and telephone communications regarding flight MH17."

That's the data which alledgedly was seized and which Russia demanded to be released. There is a transcript of it in the DSB report on page 15, at least the communcation from 13:20:00 on which is not from the cockpit voice recorder. --PM3 (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The data requested by Russia, specifically Russia’s Air Transport Agency, was much more than what was supplied to the DSB, see HERE (prepared by the Federal Air Transport Agency) --82.198.102.128 (talk) 22:37, 22 September 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)

There are the following sources: http://news.rambler.ru/26622925/ , http://www.bfm.ru/news/270419 Saharaza (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

But are these reliable. Rambler.ru appears to be a portal and as such probably not more reliable than e.g. Yahoo in this context. I could not even find any description of BFM quickly. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many others, e.g. http://expert.ru/2014/08/23/ekspertyi-soyuza-inzhenerov-malazijskij-boing-skorej-vsego-sbit-s-samoleta/?n=171 Saharaza (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This report is not OR and should be included. It is a very thorough and neutral investigation. It presents all its evidence in a nice concise manner.121.45.26.144 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is another secondary source, the International Business Times: http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/566834/20140919/russian-union-engineers-point-ukraine-airforce-responsible.htm#.VByfTKLUc4z --PM3 (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's probably the only secondary source for this out there (at least when I put "Russian Engineers Union" into Google News). IBT Australia's coverage is odd, they've also used Global Research as a source in their previous coverage of MH17. I'd say that makes them non-RS. Geogene (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So it's published (written?) by these guys: Russian Union of Engineers? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and now available in English: [9]. Geogene (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that "The situation was also analyzed with the help of the Su-25 aircraft flight simulator." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There are several other secondary sources in Russia: [10] Of course, this papar is - among other - based on some obviously forged material published by the Russian military, so I dont't trust it. It is just useful to prove that air-to-air-strike theories are circulating, especially - but not only - in Russia (I mentioned another one above). --PM3 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that'd be okay, as long as there are some good Russian sources. I have no idea whether this particular organization is very notable over there. Usually the test for notability is their having a Wikipedia page, which they do, on both EN and RU. But the page history of both the EN and RU articles show a lot of weirdness in this case. Seems to have been unnoticed at EN but associated with blocks at RU. Geogene (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

PM3: if it's covered in Russian media, there's already a mention of air-to-air in the "Russian media coverage" section. Stickee (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In "Russian media coverage" no air-to-air shootdown theory is mentioned. In "Cause" one is mentioned - that's the basic theory published on 21 July be the Russian military. There are other theories which have other arguments and are partially based on other sources, one of which is the Russian Engineers Union theory.

@Geogene: This source also has RU and EN wp articles Zvezda (TV channel) and ru:Звезда (телеканал). A state-controlled nationwide Russian TV network. --PM3 (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that satisfies my notability concern as an example of the media coverage in Russia. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the material published by the Russian military is forged? I am unaware of Western governments commenting on that material, much less claiming that it was forged. And why do you say it is obviously forged? That is not obvious to me at all. – Herzen (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: For example this graphics is obviously forged: It claims that MH17 flew in northeastern direction along Donezk, before making a sharp turn to the southeast. This contradicts both, the radar images shown later in the same source, and the flight route as recorded by Flightradar24 (compare it to the map!)

The same video also claims that the radar echo appearing near MH17 at 21:00 is a fighter jet. This has been questioned by the Russian general and former air force commander Peter Deynekin, who said that radar just showed multiple fragments of the B777 [11].

Also, the comment made at 28:00 in the same video is a lie. There are publicly available webcam and streetview-like pictures which show that the still picture shown there was made at exactly this street crossing in Luhansk, not in Krasnodon as claimed in the video. I have spent a whole night comparing all those pictures, they match perfectly to the Luhansk site.

(Disclaimer: This is mostly OR by me, not to be included in the article.) --PM3 (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of that Russian general's remarks. He says that there was no Mig-29 or Su-27 near MH17 when it was downed. How does he know that? The briefing by the Russian defense ministry suggested that a Su-25 might have been near MH17. But it could as well have been a Mig-29, since the latter appears the same on radar as a Su-25. Also, according to eyewitness accounts, one or two fighter jets were near MH17 when it exploded.

Finally, since you work on German Wikipedia, I direct your attention to this Spiegel article, in case you don't know about it: Bundesregierung zu Flug MH17: Keine "gesicherten Erkenntnisse" über Abschuss:

Zur Frage, was die Bundesregierung über Aktivitäten von Raketenstellungen am Tag des Absturzes weiß, heißt es darin, aus den vorliegenden Informationen ließen sich "keine gesicherten Erkenntnisse auf etwaige Einsätze von Flugabwehrlenkflugkörpern gegen das Luftfahrzeug (MH17) ableiten".

This means that the hypothesis that MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile is highly speculative. This WP article should reflect that. The response of the German foreign ministry to the Left Party's questions about MH17 is available here as a PDF file. That document indicates that NATO AWACS detected anti-aircraft radar being activated, which the Russian defense ministry also mentioned in its briefing, but AWACS did not detect a SAM being launched. – Herzen (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

He says that there was no Mig-29 or Su-27 near MH17 when it was downed. How does he know that? – By loooking at the radar recordings of the Russian military? The press conference only presented civil radar data, I would expect that the military has the best capabilities to detect fighter jets, and that Mr. Deynekin hass full access to that data.

With the rest, you are going offtopic, this section is not about the rocket shootdown scenario. --PM3 (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course military radar would give better information about whether there were fighter jets in the area, but Mr. Deynekin having "full access to that data" is pure speculation on your part. He retired in 2002. From the MH17 press conference given by the Russian ministry of defense, and from the US/NATO not offering any evidence to counter what was said at that press briefing, the only reasonable conclusion is that military radar did indeed indicate that there was at least one fighter jet in the area. And that document from the German foreign ministry is relevant, because it does not deny that there were military jets in the area. That document is consistent with the Russian Engineers Union theory. – Herzen (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As an example of "media coverage in Russia" it may or may not satisfy notability. But then we get into WP:UNDUE. If there was an article - as some have proposed - on conspiracies and theories about MAF 17 it could go in there. Here's it's undue, even for "media coverage in Russia". At this point. Volunteer Marek  01:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The latest Ukrainian account of who downed MH17 is a rather implausible conspiracy theory. According to that account, the Novorossian military conspired with the Russian military in order to shoot down a Russian jetliner, so that Russia would have a pretext for invading the Ukraine. According to this theory, the Novorossians/Russians shot down MH17 by mistake; they wanted to shoot down a Russian plane. If that's not a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is. – Herzen (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this theory in the article? No? Then what's your point? You seem to be saying that "because pro-Ukrainian conspiracy theories exist, even though they're not included in this article, we MUST include pro-Russian conspiracy theories in the article, presumably for balance". How does that make any sense?  Volunteer Marek  20:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This theory is in the article: "The SBU later concluded that rebels intended to shoot down a Russian airliner in a false flag operation to give Russia a pretext to invade Ukraine, but shot down MH17 by mistake." And this conspiracy theory is put forth by the head of the SBU. So yes, this whole Wikipedia article is nothing more than advocacy of a Ukrainian conspiracy theory. And this new conspiracy theory, by the way, which is the official position of the Ukrainian government, falsifies a lot of material in the article, such as the original Ukrainian claim that the rebels intended to shoot down a Ukrainian military plane. – Herzen (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The report must be covered in the article and the info must go into the "Cause" section.
(I'm not going to respond to random links to policies. Cause the Western media coverage is already being given an WP:UNDUE weight and everyone can see it.) --Moscow Connection (talk)

Why must this report be mentioned. This is made by people who are neither involved in the official investigation, nor have had any access to the crash site or any official materials. Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This report must be mentioned because the Dutch Safety Board preliminary report itself calls out for the consideration of the theory that the Russian Engineers Union report develops, because the DSB report is so vague. The word "missile" does not appear in the DSB report. That a surface to air missile downed MH17 is pure speculation at this point. There is no evidence for that conspiracy theory. The only "evidence" that has been put forward is from social media and hearsay. To quote Time magazine:

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

There you have a reliable American source saying that the theory that MH17 was downed by fire from a fighter jet must be considered along with the theory that it was downed by a SAM. Since both scenarios are nothing more than speculation at this point, NPOV requires that WP gives the two theories equal weight. The theory of the Russian Engineer Union report is the prevailing theory in Russia. That the West prefers a rival theory should not influence WP in the least. That just leads to clear systemic bias:

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

Herzen (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No there you have a source stating that the cause is not determined yet. Not that the cause is a fighter plane. But in any case, even if the fighter hypothesis would be relevant, the report by the REU may not be as they have no more access to the crash site than you or me. Also, that a lot of Western speculation is present (I just now moved it to a speculation subsection) is problematic, but adding Russian speculation does not make that right. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, not including the Russian speculation is a clear case of systemic bias. That you did not respond to that point suggestss that you have no counterargument to my claim. The relevant section is called "Speculations about cause and responsibility": speculations, plural. Thu Russian theory is clearly notable, because a reliable secondary source, Time magazine pointed out that the DSB preliminary report is neutral between the SAM and the jet fighter theories. DONTLIKE is not a valid reason to not to mention the Russian. – Herzen (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. We still include the bullshit from Tony Abbott, who with no evidence at all, and after only hours had passed after the crash, blamed the Russians. Our article is very biased. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What's Tony Abbott got to do with this? His views are mentioned in the reactions section. Stickee (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're happy for propaganda based bullshit to be in one section of the article but will tackle anything you don't want in the Causes section with a fine toothed comb? No. It's one article. Same standards should apply throughout. Our article is very biased. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So reactions shouldn't be included in the reactions section because you think they're propaganda-based? Sorry, but the media is reporting on them. Stickee (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What we report about Abbott is a lot more than a simple reaction, like saying how sad it is, and other nonsense like that. We say "Tony Abbott said in an address to parliament that the aircraft was downed by a missile which seems to have been launched by Russian-backed rebels." That's obviously a statement about the cause. Why isn't it in the Cause section? HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Abbott is a politician with an agenda, not an expert.

Consider my addition of discussion of a memo produced by the German government about what it knows about the downing of MH17 which I made with this edit. I put it in the "Cause" section, but Stickeee moved it to the "Reactions" section. What I did then was move the discussion of the official German government statements about what it knows about the downing of MH17 back to the "Cause" section, but kept the response by a German politician to those statements in the "Reactions" section. – Herzen (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree that Abbott is a politician with an agenda. Why do we help him promote that agenda so much? HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a blog post about the report: Reconstruction MH17 Crash by Russian Union of Engineers. I am giving it not because I think that it can be used as another secondary source, but because it gives a good summary of the report, which I have not read myself. It also has a photo of a contrail left by a Buk. – Herzen (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sensors, missile, shrapnel - or aircraft autocannon / machine gun?

What kind of sensor can differentiate between a surface-to-air and an air-to-air missile? How do you differentiate holes made by shrapnel and 30mm aircraft autocannon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.HUN (talk • contribs) 08:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As this is not a discussion forum you will have to use your favourite search engine to find if it is being discussed elsewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah not a forum, but I think Rob's comments were in relation to these taggings. The tags don't really belong since as you say, this isn't a forum, and it's exactly what the source given says. Stickee (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So in an age a falsifiable digital material you treat claims of one side as facts and claims of the other merely as blaming. That's the true Wikipedia spirit. Rob.HUN — Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Russian Federation pressconference on the 21 July made no straight claims on who did what. They told the world that there were ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in the area and that was it. Then private webblogs and forums jumped in and began to interpret visual damage on the wreck to be a result of cannonfire. Since inapplicable facts to that theory are simply ignored by those sources, its hard to see why they should be used for this article. Alexpl (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Rob.HUN, please get consensus before re-ordering the section again. It's been reverted by both myself and Volunteer Marek, so please discuss it first. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I opened this section NOT for the "Cause" section of the article. Please discuss the "Cause" section in a separate Talk section!--Rob.HUN (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is what the DSB preliminary report says:

Damage observed on the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft appears to indicate that there were impacts from a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft.

There is nothing there about "the direction of the blast from above with shrapnel entering through the roof and leaving through the floor of the cockpit". That is original research. If the DSB wanted to rule out bullets as opposed to shrapnel producing the holes in the fuselage, it would have written "shrapnel" instead of the strangely ambiguous phrase "a large number of high-energy objects". On a side note, as I noted in this edit which I just made, if a Buk had been fired, it would have left a prominent contrail which witnesses would have seen. There's a Russian language BBC report in which several witnesses say that they saw MH17, and also a military jet or jets flying near it; they also saw and heard the explosion. They did not, however, say anything about a contrail. Finally, as I noted in this edit, NATO apparently has no evidence from military radar that a missile was fired, although it did detect radar from a missile system being activated. All this taken together makes it highly unlikely that a Buk downed MH17. And that was reflected in the Western media's virtually ignoring the DSB preliminary report when it came out. And the only member of the UNSC who shows any interest in a thorough investigation being carried out is Russia. – Herzen (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

$30 million dollar reward

Let's see it in there; might help put to end the theorizing. The Independent, USA Today, and lots of other smaller RS sources in a search. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The info was removed by user:Volunteer Marek [12] pointing to WP:undue. Which is a bid weird. Alexpl (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, seems more like a news item than an encyclopedic entry, unless/until something tangible comes of it. Geogene (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden reward mentioned a few times and no one got it. Well, it will be interesting to see, anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Whoever was involved on the ground is likely to be dead by now anyway. If something new comes up we can discuss this again. Alexpl (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically what Geogene said. If something comes of it, we can put it in. As it is right it's just the equivalent of "trivia". Volunteer Marek  20:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Audio recording and satellite imagery provided by the United States and Ukrainian media were fabricated, which were confirmed by independent experts.

  With statements Ukrainian army pro-Russian separatists shot down the plane by using S-11 "Beech" surface-to-air missile fired from whose territory they controlled.   However, images from the crash site and inspection OSCE representatives from the wreckage were traces presumably

from falling from aircraft machine gun and pointed to the nature of the debris hit the small missiles "air-to-air."

  We also learned that there is no pro-Russian separatists S-11 "Beech". That also corroborate the OSCE staff.

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

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

Some Cause content in the Reactions section

The Reactions section contains comments from Vladimir Putin and from Tony Abbott which are clearly making statements about the cause of the crash. That content should be moved to the Cause section. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the cause section should help readers to find out what might be the cause of the accident and therefore rely on experts and other people who are competent in the field of aviation safety, SAMs etc. Politicians are regularly not, and they usually say what fits their political goals best. No good advisors on the cause of an aicraft accident. --PM3 (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But to nitpick, I think everyone agrees that the crash of MH17 was not an accident, but was caused by some kind fire being directed at the aircraft. The DSB preliminary report was clear about that. What remains to be determined is whether MH17 was deliberately downed or whether it was downed unintentionally – either because the intention was to down another plane or because a missile was fired inadvertently – and which side did it. The current Ukrainian position is that the rebels downed MH17 inadvertently – their intention was to down a Russian airliner in order to blame this on the Ukrainians and hence give Russia a pretext for invading Ukraine. The prevailing Russian position is that the Ukrainians downed MH17 deliberately, because they began being defeated by the Novorossian army, and to give the US a pretext for applying further economic sanctions against Russia. And indeed, the EU initially did not join the US in imposing a new round of sanctions; in response downing of MH17, the EU changed its position and joined the US in imposing new sanctions. Thus, Ukrainians downing MH17 in a false flag is completely understandable. What motive the rebels could have had to down it, in contrast, is perplexing. Certainly the rebels would have known that they would instantly be blamed for this tragedy. As I explained with this edit, Kiev's current story is that the rebel's downed MH17 by mistake; their intended target was a Russian airliner, as a false flag to provide Russia with a pretext to invade Ukraine. But that story doesn't make any sense, since, by bombing its own people, Kiev had already provided Russia with all the justification it could possibly need to intervene military in Ukraine on humanitarian grounds. Note also that Kiev's current story contradicts Kiev's original story, which was that the rebels thought they were shooting down a Ukrainian military plane. – Herzen (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not nitpicking. It's simply way off-topic. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The cause of an airplane crash is a scientific fact that does not allow for "mights" and "mays". That cause is not determined yet. What might is speculation. Either we keep the cause section extremely short (like my edit yesterday) or we go back to the mess of theories (from all sides) in which case the whole section is about speculations about the cause, and any further subdivision is useless; and even worse likely to have a bias to some point of views. Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal of the subdivision; the "pro & con"-like section splitting and titles should be avoided, as discussed in this archived discussion. The information inside it has been covered significantly in the sources as being information pertaining to the cause of the crash. Stickee (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the subdivision, adding Russia as a possible suspect along with the rebels, in response to an edit summary. I really don't see how the article can provide clarity for readers without these subheadings. German Wikipedia has subheadings for the various scenarios of who shot the plane down and how; it has three subheadings, distinguishing between the theory that the Ukrainians shot down MH17 with a Buk and the theory that they did it with a fighter jet.

Immediately after MH17 crashed, both Kiev and Washington accused the rebels and Russia of being responsible for the downing, without providing the least bit of credible evidence. Thus, Kiev and Washington put the issue of who was responsible out there. That the DSB preliminary report was completely neutral on who was responsible for the downing does not change that in the least. Thus, the only way Wikipedia can responsibly inform its readers about how what is known about the downing of MH17 currently stands is to make clear that there are rival theories of who the guilty party was. Having section headings for the two possible guilty parties is how one makes that clear.

Please, do not remove the subsection headings without first making an argument for why that is called for in this Talk section. I really think that not having these subsection headings just leads to obfuscation of where public knowledge about the downing of MH17 currently stands. – Herzen (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The article cannot show clarity at all, because who did it is unknown. Anything we include, apart from the official report, is POV. Your little game with headings is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all social media narratives, and purported witness statements to the effect that the rebels had a Buk launcher on the day that MH17 was shot down, should be deleted from the article? As the article stands, it contains mostly unsubstantiated allegations against the rebels. If you think the article should mention nothing but the official report, I would be fine with that. – Herzen (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what Wikipedia should be doing. HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

They've all received significant coverage in the media sources. The article is to reflect what they're saying on the matter. For more info, see a discussion at archive 15. Stickee (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Coverage by the media, all of which has its own biases, is necessary, but never sufficient to require us to include it. And as you can probably guess, I don't care what you think past discussions have agreed on, because I have never agreed to including all the propaganda driven bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Coverage in the media is exactly what makes something notable. I can see you don't like what's being said, but the article is to reflect what they're saying. Stickee (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I said that, but I said more than that. Why did you ignore the rest of my post? HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV edit

This [13] edit is problematic for a whole host of reasons.

Adding in headings "Speculation about Ukrainian anti-government forces and/or Russia being responsible" and "Speculation about Ukraine being responsible" is pretty obvious original research. And it is also POV pushing as it tries to reflect the Russian government line that "we don't really know what happened, it's all just speculation, so it just as likely that the Ukrainians did it as the rebels, in fact, probably the Ukrainians did it". Which is nonsense, and it is not based at all on reliable sources. Undoing it. If you're gonna go that way, raise it on talk first.

Adding the opinion of Maj. Gen. Mikhail Krush violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. This one particular opinion is not noteworthy (wp:undue) and it is contradicted by the opinion of pretty much everyone else who's not a conspiracy wing nut or who doesn't have some political agenda at play (wp:fringe). It should not be included. Removing it. If you're gonna try to cram this into the article, raise it on talk first.  Volunteer Marek  19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure how the Russian propaganda version is compatible with the report if the source which is supposed to confirm this says it is not.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the article is propaganda and speculation. It's one of our worst. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of DONTLIKE. Buk missile systems were designed and built by Russians. Thus, to say that the opinion of Russian experts should not be given – apparently all Russians are "conspiracy wing nuts", no matter what their level of professional expertise, whereas the opinions of alleged experts from Five Eyes countries, who are obviously going to be inclined to back the Ukrainian story, should be cited – is to engage in obvious point of view pushing and exhibit systemic bias. To say that mentioning Krush's opinion is UNDUE is absurd, given that Russians know more about Buk missiles than anyone else, and that Krush says pretty much the same thing as was said at the Russian defense ministry's press briefing on MH17. Russia has been accused of supplying a Buk launcher to the rebels (something which it would make no sense for Russia to do incidentally, since the rebels were doing fine destroying the Ukrainian air force with MANDPADS and anti-aircraft cannons), and the rebels have been accused by Kiev and Washington of shooting down MH17. Thus, according to Kiev and Washington, Russia is indirectly responsible for the MH17 tragedy. Unsurprisingly, Russia has defended itself against these accusations. But Volunteer Marek wants to keep what Russia has to say in its defense from Wikipedia's readers, in effect turning Wikipedia into an outlet for anti-Russian propaganda. (This is pretty obvious from his characterization in an edit summary of a military expert's opinion on his own weapons system as FRINGE, so please don't anyone accuse me of being uncivil. I am still learning how to deal with WP:Civil POV pushing.) Wikipedia readers deserve to know both sides of the story. This is precisely what Volunteer Marek wants to prevent, so it is he who is engaged in obvious POV pushing, not I. Several editors pointed out Volunteer Marek's pattern of behavior in this regard in Volunteer Marek's (rejected) Request for Enforcement against Haberstr.

As for the subsection headings, I was just following the practice of German Wikipedia. It has three subsections of this kind: "Suspected missile launch by separatists", "Suspected missile launch by the Ukrainian military", and "Suspected downing by Ukrainian fighter jets". Note that there are more sections considering Ukrainian responsibility than there are considering rebel responsibility. French Wikipedia also has three subsections in this regard: "Ground to air missile", "Air to air missile", and "Mutual accusations". Since both the German and French Wikipedias thus take the possibility that Ukraine was responsible for the downing of MH17 seriously, I think it is clear that this is not a fringe theory, so, that English Wikipedia not giving considerable attention to this possibility would be a grave case of systemic bias. And as I said earlier, having a subheading for each possibility of who the guilty party may be aids the reader in understanding the issues involved.

As for Volunteer Marek's suggestion that I am pushing "the Russian government line that 'we don't really know what happened, it's all just speculation…'": sorry, but that is not just the Russian government "line", but also the position of the DSB and the German government. And to engage in a little original research for a moment (which is not forbidden in Talk), Kiev had a clear motive to shoot down MH17, whereas the rebels most certainly did not. And Kiev has now resorted to a "crazy conspiracy theory" that the rebels shot down MH17 by mistake. Their intended target was a Russian airliner, which they wanted to shoot down to give Russia a pretext to invade Ukraine. The reason they shot down the wrong airliner was that they shot the Buk missile from the wrong location, having confused two different villages that have the same name. Crazy doesn't get any crazier than that. – Herzen (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of DONTLIKE. - No, it's actually a case of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. It doesn't matter whether Russians build the Buk system or not. What matters is if this person's opinion received wide coverage in reliable sources. It hasn't. Rest of your comment is just original research. Volunteer Marek  00:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lawyering. Your comment that "What matters is if this person's opinion received wide coverage in reliable sources" is a transparent attempt to maintain systemic bias in the article. Russia is the second largest arms exporter after the US, and Russia is the only nuclear superpower other than the US, so to claim that what a Russian officer says in an interview by a Russian defense industry trade publication is WP:fringe is just bizarre. – Herzen (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment ... is a transparent attempt to maintain systemic bias in the article. No. It is an attempt to follow Wikipedia policy in regard to reliable sources and neutral point of view. You keep dropping this phrase "systemic bias" all over place. Not sure you actually understand what it means; you seem to think "systemic bias" means "reliable sources don't agree with me but I don't care". In fact your repeated comments about "systemic bias" pretty clearly indicate that you want to insert WP:FRINGE material into the article (to fight this supposed "systemic bias"). That's not how it works in a mainstream encyclopedia which relies on reliable sources. There's other websites for that kind of thing. Here, if reliable sources are not giving this particular Russian officer's opinion credence or coverage, then yes, it is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Volunteer Marek  01:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You absolutely refuse to desist from WP:lawyering. You keep on mechanically throwing out legalistic Wikipedia terms, instead of making some kind of effort to engage me on matters of substance. You don't even bother to give any arguments at all for why the Russian military trade publication in question is not a reliable source. The Russian military is successful, which suggests, unless one can produce reasons to the contrary, that publications associated with it are reliable. Please explain to me how, by any stretch of the imagination, the professional opinion of a major general in the military of one of the world's two nuclear superpowers can be construed to be WP:fringe. To quote from fringe theory: "Examples include pseudoscience (ideas that purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support), conspiracy theories, unproven claims about alternative medicine, pseudohistory and so forth." How can a senior officer from one of the world's two nuclear superpowers explaining how one of his weapons systems works be equated with any of those examples of fringe theories??? – Herzen (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are misusing words. What you call "lawyering" is just pointing out that we need to follow Wikipedia policies. What you call "Idontlikeit" is actually me pointing out what these policies are. What you call "systemic bias" is just the fact that we rely on mainstream reliable sources, not fringe ones.

As to the particular source in question, that was already addressed by Alexpl below. And if it is such a reputable authoritative source, then why hasn't it been mentioned or taken seriously by ... any actually reliable sources?  Volunteer Marek  02:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Lawyering:

Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;

Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

I should think that the "underlying principles" of Wikipedia would enable Wikipedia to explain both sides of a story, in this case, deal with the mutual accusations of Ukraine and Novorossians/Russia regarding the downing of MH17 in a NPOV manner. Yet you are using a "technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines" to prevent that from happening. – Herzen (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, except I'm not violating the spirit. I am arguing that the spirit needs to be followed. I am not arguing technicalities. I am arguing it's pretty straight forward and common sense - what you are trying to cram into article is neither NPOV nor based on reliable sources. There's no "technicalities" involved here. It's just inappropriate, period. And I am not misinterpeting policy as its pretty damn clear that your edits are POV.

And you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of "underlying principles" of Wikipedia (or Encyclopedias in general for that matter) and of NPOV in particular. Perhaps because in this case misunderstanding it justifies trying to insert non-neutral text into the article. NPOV DOES NOT mean "explain(ing) both sides of a story". On the article Earth we don't "explain" that some people think the Earth is round, while others believe it's flat. NPOV DOES NOT mean that every cranky theory gets put in the article and is given the same weight. That's what WP:UNDUE is all about. And no, that is not "lawyering". That's just simply pointing out what the policy says. You don't like the policy because it says you shouldn't be doing what it is you're doing? Fine. Don't edit the article. Edit some other webpage. But don't harangue others just because they do think policy should be followed. Volunteer Marek  04:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is a perfect example of our systemic bias at play. Editors who support the western world's political view can use the western media's content with gay abandon, but will jump on anything that doesn't follow the same conventions. I really don't know what it is you're afraid of. One day we will have the full official report, and all the propaganda driven crap from all sources should disappear. (It shouldn't be here now. It serves no purpose, except for that of the propaganda machines.) Why don't we remove ALL the content that adds no certainty to what happened? Don't tell me it's been reported. We are not a newspapaer and don't have daily column inches to fill. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. In this particular case what all this crying about "systemic bias" (an essay, pretty decent, but not even relevant to this dispute) amounts to is: "Reliable sources don't say what I want them to say. But I still want my POV in the article! Therefore... systemic bias!".

You're actually doing disservice to the actual, real, and important problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia by hitching this little slogan to your the pursuit of your "cause". Volunteer Marek  04:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Aye, what HiLo's saying sounds like an "I don't like it" argument. We're a tertiary source and cover what the secondary sources are saying. Stickee (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you make absolutely no effort to substantively engage my arguments. All you can do is put forth solipsistic claims – "I am not arguing technicalities. I am arguing it's pretty straight forward and common sense". Yes, everyone likes to think that he is just following common sense. But how is it common sense that a senior officer in the military of a major power expressing his professional opinion on one of his weapons systems is formulating a fringe theory? That is not common sense: that is being in denial of reliable information which undermines your worldview. All you can come up with to reply to the points I have made is that a Russian general explaining how his weapons system works is a flat earther. Resorting to name calling instead of making a valid argument is a sign that your position is not rationally defensible. – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you are just not listening. If this guy's theory is "reliable" then there should be reliable sources which report on it. You ain't got those. Anyway, this discussion is becoming pointless and we're well past the point of diminishing returns. Volunteer Marek  05:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

People who are part of the systemic bias quite often don't recognise it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So... we're gonna have you as an arbiter of who's guilty of systemic bias and who's not? See, that's why we got policies, such as NPOV, FRINGE, UNDUE and all that. But pointing that out is somehow "lawyering". Can't win I guess. Volunteer Marek  06:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You are making a circular argument. There is no reason to consider a Russian military industry trade publication not to be a reliable source, unless one can produce arguments for why it is unreliable. So yes, I have a reliable source; you are just gaming Wikipedia policy to suppress information which undermines your world view. – Herzen (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No I am not. A circular argument is one which assumes its conclusion. I am not doing that. I am saying that you don't have a reliable source. You don't. A reliable source is one which has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Your source doesn't. And actually, the burden of proof is not on me - I don't have to prove that this source is unreliable, you need to prove that it's reliable.

Couple things.

First, is this a "military industry trade publication"? It looks more like a Russian version of Soldier of Fortune (magazine). You know, scantily clad women holding big guns and all that.

Second, any source which praises the neo-fascist Aleksander Dugin (and which appears to be really into this "war is a natural state of mankind" and "Russia in a permanent conflict against the West" thing, just isn't going to be reliable.

Third, even putting all that aside, the article doesn't even say what you pretend it says! Even that general says that "this is just hypothesis" or "this is just speculation" or even "I don't have the competence to comment". Etc.

So yes, it's an unreliable source. Yes, you are misrepresenting it. Yes, you are POV pushing and violating Wikipedia policies and using this whole "systemic bias" as a cover. Volunteer Marek  06:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Alexander Dugin is not a neo-fascist: he is a neo-Slavophile. Only Russophobes consider neo-Slavophiles, and hence Dugin, to be (neo-)fascists.

2. Where does this publication say "war is a natural state of mankind"? That is the position of the US government. You are engaging in projection: the US starts one war after another; Russia does everything in its power to avoid getting into a war. And evidently you have not heard of this book by Robert Kagan, about which Wikipedia says:

Kagan's book, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, published on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, created something of a sensation through its assertions that Europeans tended to favor peaceful resolutions of international disputes while the United States takes a more "Hobbesian" view in which some kinds of disagreement can only be settled by force, or, as he put it: "Americans are from Mars and Europe is from Venus."

As for the "Russia in a permanent conflict against the West" thing: it is the US which has never ended its aggression against Russia. George Bush the Elder promised Gorbachev that if Soviet troops left East Germany, NATO would not expand eastward, but later administrations broke that promise. If Russia had not respected the right of Crimeans to self-determination, Sevastopol would now be a NATO naval base. So yes, Russia believes that it is in a conflict with the West, but that is only because the the US and UK are trying to destroy it. One reads endless opinion pieces in the US about how Putin must be removed from power through a coup or assassinated.

3. Instead of employing crude smear tactics, please show me where the Military-Industrial Courier shows itself to be "a Russian version of Soldier of Fortune (magazine)", with "scantily clad women holding big guns". Here is an example of writing from this periodical which may be considered to be nationalistic:

Literary works, affirming patriotism, national pride, military honor, and selfless service to the motherland, will be received with a resonance from the public and be read and discussed by a broad audience. This is what the founders of the new national literary prize "The sword and Shield of the Fatherland" – the newspaper Military-Industrial Courier and the Union of writers of Russia – see as its aim.

See? Union of Writers. Not scantily clad women. If there was a similar American initiative, most Americans would view it as nothing more than encouragement of a healthy patriotism.

To conclude, your claim that the Military-Industrial Courier is not a reliable source amounts to nothing more than your usual civil POV pushing and DONTLIKE when it comes to all things Russian. – Herzen (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

<-- I read "1. Alexander Dugin is not a neo-fascist: he is a neo-Slavophile. Only Russophobes consider neo-Slavophiles, and hence Dugin, to be (neo-)fascists." and was gonna give up. But then I read the last sentence "nothing more than your usual civil POV pushing and DONTLIKE when it comes to all things Russian". Yep, not gonna bother reading what's in between. Not gonna argue with someone who defends people like Dugin. Not gonna argue with someone who accuses anyone who disagrees with them of "Russophobia" (apparently calling a fascist a fascist now makes one "Russophobic" if that fascist happens to be a Russian and a Putin supporter/consultant). I don't like being insulted and I don't take people who insult others simply because they don't agree with their narrow world view seriously. Conversation over. Volunteer Marek  22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted Volunteer Marek's reversion of my edits. For the sake of civility, Volunteer Marek should have started a discussion in Talk before reverting my additions to the article. I have also adopted the names used by the German Wikipedia article for the two subheadings. German Wikipedia has a third subsection, "Suspected missile launch by the Ukrainian military", but I think that that possibility can be dismissed, since Russian sources tend to dismiss the possibility that a Buk missile was fired by anyone. – Herzen (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your actions are out of scope. The "vpk-news.ru" source for example, you did put in, is obviously a heavly patriotic, pro russ gov and certainly a violation of WP:RS. It offers strange info fragments - like a BUK missile striking the target "from above" - so should we add that information to the Buk M1 article? I dont think so, but that should be discussed there.

Next: That Link to the german "spiegel magazine" "Keine gesicherten Erkenntnisse" you posted, is totally useless for this arcticle, stating only that the german government doesnt have any information on who shot the plane down - that it can make public. We only learn that the AWACS planes were out of range to monitor the events. No "systemic bias", but a lot stuff that doesnt bring us anywhere. Disinformation. Alexpl (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good spotting. Both of those additions are either a mischaracterisation of the source, or a bad source to begin with. If Germany has nothing to offer, why included it? Should we included the fact that the Queen, the Pope and the Dalai Lama have no intelligence to share as well?

Secondly there's the issues of the titles. Just because other crap exists on other language Wikipedias (with different policies) isn't a reason to have it here. Stickee (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Other crap exists in THIS article, such as reporting that Tony Abbott declared within hours of the crash that the Russians did it. But you keep defending the presence of that politically motivated (in more ways than you realise), propaganda driven, POV bullshit. It matches your POV. Funny. Hmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Just because other crap exists on other language Wikipedias" is a flagrant expression of systemic bias. It is noteworthy that you do not make any substantive arguments as to why it is impossible to contemplate that Kiev might have shot the plane down, when you have no trouble believing that Russia and/or the rebels are responsible, even though the independent Ukraine has a track record of shooting down airliners with Buks. – Herzen (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We dont know who shot that plane down. And maybe we never will. That is the current consensus - afaik. But it is not helpful to counter every statement in the article with a contradictory statement - if that means to take that statement from unreliable sources. Like the systematic use of russian state media, or formus, blogs and dubious youtube videos. Maybe you conduct some private net-research on the most ludicrous stories from the russian state media of the past month to help demonstrate their uselessness for WP work. I understand its tempting to kill two birds with one stone here and try to whitewash the Russian Federation from conducting warfare in Ukraine - but that is a totally different article. Try to keep it MH 17. Alexpl (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

And that is a totally POV post, one that highlights the challenges faced by those of us trying to create an objective article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Great statement. If you want to dig though the russian state media publications of the past six month on the hunt for useful facts - go ahead. Maybe things are different here in the en.wp, and a source, which has disqualified itsself by transmitting fake news on a regular basis, can still deliver some useful info. I have no idea how to implement something like that in an article, but I look foward to find out. Alexpl (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The bullshit came when you wrote the text "...try to whitewash the Russian Federation from conducting warfare in Ukraine." That is a blatantly POV position. Once you fly your colours so clearly, your credibility is questionable everywhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the bullshit came ealier. Never mind. Alexpl (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources, reliable sources, or it doesn't matter. Volunteer Marek  00:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You have not made a substantive reply to any of my points. The source I cited is a trade publication; do you imagine that trade publications dealing with the US defense industry aren't "heavily patriotic"? The point is that an officer from the Russian military was interviewed about Buks, and nobody understands Buks more than the Russian military. I should not have to repeat this painfully obvious point. Clearly, your objection to vpk-news.ru is that you don't like Russian sources. Clearly, Russian military hardware works, so there is no reason to suppose that Russian trade publications for the defense industry are not WP:RS.

As for the Spiegel article, your claim that the German government has information on who shot down MH17 is WP:OR. The German government said it cannot reveal information about satellite imagery or radio intercepts for reasons of state secrecy, but it most definitely did not say that it cannot reveal information about military radar monitoring MH17. The German government said that NATO AWACS stopped tracking MH17 half an hour before it crashed. That is notable, because until this document was released, everybody assumed that NATO's military radar could tell us about how MH17 was downed. The German government has now directly contradicted that assumption. – Herzen (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources, reliable sources, or it doesn't matter. Volunteer Marek  00:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

really looks like merkel trusts every word he speaks, herzen ! - - 'even though the independent Ukraine has a track record of shooting down airliners with Buks.' - but I thought that was in kuchmas time - and he was moscows man – so maybe it tells something different to what you want to infer. " Leonid Kuchma. Remember him? He was widely regarded for improving Russian-Ukrainian ties in the aftermath of Ukrainian independence. He won office in 1994, mostly on the basis of strong support from the Russian-speaking East of the country. His prime minister was Viktor Yanukovych. Sayerslle (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Even after the Ukraine became an independent country, everything it does wrong is still all Russia's fault! – Herzen (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

the point was also after the event they said it couldn't have happened -'the Kremlin and its stooge’s tendency to dig in their heels when involved with such gross displays of incompetence' - Russian officials said a missile could not have been involved - Sayerslle (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Gen. Mikhail Krushs assertions are incompatible with the well-documented findings of the DSB, which indicate that the cockpit section of the plane was hit from above. See the DSB report, pages 24–25. Therefore his statement at least partially looks like bogus and is not a reliable source for the article. --PM3 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"from above the level of the cockpit floor" which the DAB report states, does not mean "from above", which the report doesnt say, if I read correctly. No personal interpretation please. Alexpl (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unprecise. The contradiction lies in "from above the level of the cockpit floor" (DSB) and "below the bottom side" (Krushs). If the warhead exploded below the plane's bottom, it's very unlikely that it's fragments/"shrapnell" hit the cockpit floor from above. --PM3 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Here is the only sentence in which the word "above" appears on the pages you mentioned: "Puncture holes identified in images of the cockpit floor suggested that small objects entered from above the level of the cockpit floor (figure 10)." "Above the level of the cockpit floor" does not imply "above the plane". Also, the report says "suggested", so it does not state that the plane was hit from above the level of the cockpit floor as fact. Finally, the report says, "The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." Whenever the report mentions the aircraft being damaged by numerous "high-energy objects", it always uses the phrase "the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft". This signifies that only the front of the plane was hit, which implies that the plane was shot from its front, not from above it. That is inconsistent with how a Buk missile functions, but is consistent with cannon fire from a fighter jet.

Thus your claim that "Krushs assertions are incompatible with the well-documented findings of the DSB" is false, and your attempt to smear him with your statement "his statement at least partially looks bogus and is not a reliable source for the article" fails. Also you ignore the most significant point that Krush made, which is that no witness observed a Buk contrail, a fact that makes the whole theory that a Buk hit MH17 a non-starter to any objective observer. But at least your making this comment indicates that some kind of argument for why Krush is not an expert whose opinion should be noted is required. Volunteer Marek is not even willing to concede that. – Herzen (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The report also says that objects penetrated from outside the cockpit roof. I believe that that would be "from above the aircraft" for whatever purpose here. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Will you please. Quit it. With the original research. And jeez, talk about "lawyering". Volunteer Marek  18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ukrainian secret service claims that a trail has been witnessed: [14]. This may be forged, but though "no witness observed a Buk contrail" is disputed. Actually, Krush (and we) cannot know that noone witnessed a contrail, we can only know that we are not aware of such witness. --PM3 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

---

In this section, the reliability of the Russian trade weekly the Military-Industrial Courier has been discussed. Claims that this publication is not a reliable source were made, but I rebutted them. Also, the issue of whether a senior officer in the Russian military can be considered to be an expert when it comes to Russian weapons systems was discussed, without anyone being able to show why he should not be. Thus, I see no reason why the views of Maj. Gen. Mikhail Krush on the likelihood of a Buk missile having shot down MH17 should not be included in this article, given that the article reports the views of two Western experts who have an opposing view to that of Krush. I don't see how anyone can deny that NPOV requires that Krush's observations shoud be mentioned in the article, especially since they echo what was said at the press briefing that the Russian defense ministry gave, which received significant coverage in the Western press. – Herzen (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV of the article should match the POV of reliable sources. This doesn't include obscure, cherry picked sources out to glorify the Russian motherland. This denialism of who shot the plane down is only an issue inside of Russia. There should not be efforts to pretend this isn't so by creating false balance. Geogene (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The article should have a neutral POV. The only way to guarantee that is to use ONLY the official report. All else is speculation and/or propaganda. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, what I just described is the definition of a neutral point of view: one that assigns every viewpoint the same weight as seen in the bulk of the reliable sources. Your concept of "neutral" is clearly different from that, that's why I don't agree with your suggestions for the article. In this case, you want to create a "neutral" viewpoint by pretending that most of the sources out there don't exist. What happened to the plane? Who knows! Here are some cat pictures or something. Others have advocated magnifying the Kremlin viewpoint far out of proportion: this is also wrong. I find both unacceptable, and both are certainly non-neutral. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. An article is "neutral" if the content matches what the bulk of the reliable sources are saying. Stickee (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not the case that "this denialism of who shot the plane down is only an issue inside of Russia." In the American blogosphere that is critical of America's empire of bases, it is taken for granted and as self-evident that Kiev shot MH17 down. Attempting to marginalize this point of view as engaging in conspiracy theorizing does not change the fact that Americans on both the left and right who regret the course that America has taken since 9/11 tend to believe that the downing of MH17 was a Ukrainian false flag operation.

Furthermore, consider what German Wikipedia says about the possibility that Kiev was responsible for this atrocity:

The Russian military announced on 21 July 2014 that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been present during the Malaysia Airlines crash. [143] As evidence, a radar image was shown on the order 13:21:35 UTC another, unmoved and unmarked radar echo near the emerged from MH17. [3] the Ukraine has denied that its own fighter planes were in the air at this time. [143] [12] The former commander of the Russian Air Force Peter Deinekin later explained, the radar images were of fragments of the disintegrated Boeing.[144]

The Malaysian newspaper New Straits Times (NST) took up the Russian assertion of a fighter jet being present and published several articles that talked about a shooting by Ukrainian warplanes. And relying on an article by Robert Parry, a study of a former Lufthansa pilots and - following Parry - a quote from Michael Bociurkiw, spokesman for the OSCE observer mission [12]. Bociurkiw - who is according to his own words, "not an expert on such things" [145] - had said, two or three aircraft parts were pockmarked," looking almost as holes produced by (very strong) machine gun fire", [146] which had been interpreted by Parry as fire by warplanes. In particular, the uniformly round shape of some holes in the aircraft parts, according to the NST sources, point to that. [12]

The theory published by the New Straits Times theory was also reproduced in the Russian, Iranian and Slovenian press [13] and was spread on various Internet sites away from the mass media. The Süddeutsche Zeitung spoke of "wild conspiracy theories" on the Internet. [104]

This is what NPOV on MH17 is like. German Wikipedia can do it, but English Wikipedia fails utterly. – Herzen (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that German Wikipedia uses a secondary source to introduce the idea that the idea that Kiev shot MH17 down may be a conspiracy theory. In contrast, what happens in English Wikipedia is that aggressive editors take for granted that the belief that Kiev shot down MH17 is a crazy conspiracy theory. This is even though the current Kiev story about why MH17 was shot down is an even more crazy conspiracy theory: according to the head of the SBU, the rebels shot down MH17 by mistake; their intended target was a Russian airliner, in order to give Russia a pretext for invading Ukraine. The article in its present state completely ignores that Kiev has changed its story, so that all those reports from social media about the rebels thinking that they had shot down a Ukrainian military plane are now invalidated by the head of the SBU himself. – Herzen (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be uncivil but I can state my position very briefly: I can't reconcile a POV shift of the article with my understanding of the neutrality policy. Therefore, I won't agree to a POV shift. Geogene (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I am trying to do. I am not proposing "shifting" the POV of the article. I am proposing making an effort to make this article minimally NPOV by giving two sides of the story, instead of just the Ukrainian/NATO side.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

As the article stands, it represents only the Ukrainian point of view. The way to make the article NPOV is to represent the other significant view: the Russian/Novorossian one. But every edit that I have made doing that has been reverted. – Herzen (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The article in its present state completely ignores that Kiev has changed its story... - except, nothing of the sort is actually true. Or relevant. I believe the Argument Clinic is couple doors down. Volunteer Marek  00:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. Here is what the SBU chief says

The head of Ukraine’s secret service has claimed rebels intended to down a Russian airliner to give Vladimir Putin a pretext for invasion – but blasted Flight MH17 out of the sky by mistake.

Valentyn Nalyvaichenko said that Russian-backed fighters were supposed to take their BUK rocket launcher – which had been transported across the Russian border – to a village called Pervomaiskoe in Ukrainian-held territory west of Donetsk.

Instead, they mistakenly positioned it in a rebel-controlled village of the same name to the east of the city.

If they had gone where they had been ordered, he said, they would have hit an Aeroflot flight carrying civilians travelling from Moscow to Larnaca in Cyprus.

Crucially, the crash site would have been in Ukrainian-held territory.

The mass killing of Russian tourists could then have been blamed on the Ukrainian army, giving Moscow a justification for invasion, said Mr Nalyvaichenko, head of the Ukrainian intelligence service, the SBU.

This cynical terrorist act was intended to justify an immediate military invasion by the Russian Federation,’ he said.

Aeroflot flight AFL2074 was close to Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 when it was blown out of the sky on July 17, killing all 298 on board, he said.

‘It is incredibly cynical that the act of terrorism was planned against peaceful innocent Russian citizens who were on the way to their holidays with children,’ added Mr Nalyvaichenko.

He claimed this was a significant conclusion of Kiev’s probe into MH17’s downing.

The WP article has a link to the Kyiv Post story about this. You can also find plenty of Russian language stories about this from Ukrainian sources by googling "Валентин Наливайченко боинг".

Contrast that story with the lede from the Wikipedia article:

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,[6][7][8] but after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement

Why would Strelkov (Girkin) make a post on social media saying that the rebels had downed a military aircraft, when, according to the head of the SBU, the plan all along was to down a passenger jet? Can you not see the contradiction here? The Ukrainian government can't keep its story straight. – Herzen (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed contradictions between differend theories published by the SBU, also regarding the launching spots: In the phone call recordings it was Chernukhino, in all other SBU publications it was near Snizhne. This is an interesting point, however to include it into the article, we need a notable source which comes to this conclusion – we MUST NOT pubish own conclusions (WP:OR) there. So if you could find such a source which outlines the condradictions within SBU statements, please let me know. The same is true for the contradictions within the Russian military statments as well as within the Russian Union of Engineers theory. They all have flaws, and notable sources which analyse this and point out the flaws are needed.

Even the DSB report has flaws, e.g. they give a wrong aircraft type for AI113 on the aispace map on page 12 (A330 instead of the B787 which virtually all other sources say) and probably wrong last A-Check date for the Malaysia B777 on page 16 (Malaysia Airlines published another date on their website, 11 July 2014, which looks more plausible to me when taking into account that - as to the DSB report - an A check es done each 550 flight hours). We are dealing with lots of flawed material here, but unfortunately we cannot fix this in the articles as long as there are no reliable sources which fix it. --PM3 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Herzen added the SBU statement with this edit, and now he's complaining about it's presence? Stickee (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess he included that to enable the readers to see the contradictions between different SBU theories. So far that's fine. --PM3 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're gonna do original research: with regard to this false flag theory. First note that there is the factual question of who downed the plane and then there is the speculative question of why they did so. As far as I know Ukrainian officials have always maintained that it was the separatists who shot down the plane with a Russian supplied BUK, most likely with Russian help (crew, training etc). Period. No contradiction. Consistent story. Now, some Ukrainian officials might believe the *reason* the rebels shot it down was because the rebels are a bunch of incompetents, others may believe the *reason* they shot it down was because it was a false flag operation and yet others may believe that it was shot down as part of a false flag operation by Russians, which the rebels, being incompetents, were not clued in on (hence Girkin bragging about it). But who cares? Establishing someone's motives is always speculative and just because there are different theories as to *motives* that doesn't mean the theories about *what happened* are contradictory. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest rhetorical tricks.

On the other hand note that the Russian government theories *about what happened* are all over the place. Ukrainians shot it down with a jet. Wait, no! They had a BUK in an area and shot it down with a BUK! Except photos clearly show machine gun fire on the cockpit so it must've been a jet! Wait no! The plane actually had the dead bodies from the other Malaysian flight that disappeared earlier and was blown up mid air as part of a cover up! Wait no! The Ukrainian had a BUK!

See what I mean? There's a fundamental difference between disagreeing about what someone's *motive* was but telling a consistent story about *what happened* and just telling all sorts of bullshit stories, each of which contradicts all others in order to just create doubt and confusion. And that's how we get this chorus of "we don't really know for sure what happened so we shouldn't actually say what reliable sources say" nonsense.

Also, with regard to Chernukhino - as far as I know that comes just from the recordings of the rebels. It's what one of the rebels said. Who knows if they knew what they were talking about. Or maybe it was code. Or maybe he meant the units stationed in Chernukhino but operating in Snizhne. Or maybe he just had some gripe with the dudes from Chernukhino. Or maybe he got confused with the geography of a... foreign land. Or maybe something else. Who knows? Ukrainian officials themselves, and other sources have been pretty consistent in saying that it was Snizhne and that's what evidence supports. So again, there's no contradiction or mutually inconsistent theories here.

Now can we quit it with the original research?  Volunteer Marek  03:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It´s difficult to classify sources from russia. Despite the state controlled media, some stuff seems just like an amateurish attempt by "a fan" to help the government out, while the official statements from government sources seem quite cautious. All these new attempts to manipulate the facts, so that they match with the DSB findings, should be taken with caution - no matter if they come from Ukraine or the Federation. Alexpl (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And the American Government has no fans? Looked at Tony Abbott lately? He had no interest in facts when he made his statement that the Russians did it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Did he say the Federation is responsible, which could refer to the greater context of the war - or did he say "the Russians did it"? Sure there are supporters and military hardliners, but "The West" has this confusing free-press-thing and you´ll find contradictory statements and comments almost everywhere. For example, we had a former East German Colonel to offer, in the western press, who said, iirc, that it wasnt a BUK because there were no traces of fire on the wreck. The high energetic fragments tend to set everthing they touch on fire. Alexpl (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812

Why does this article contain 0 mention of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812? This incident was alluded to heavily in Russian language media following the incident. Not having any mention of it, in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of NPOV. How can we best integrate this incident into the article? (I was thinking the Russian media coverage section)

In the interim I have added it to the See Also Section

• Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 - an incident that Russian language media alluded to in order to discredit the Ukrainian government

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment immediately below your edit says "Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink". I believe there was a decision in the past somewhere on this talk not to include any similar incidents. If it was to be included, I agree "Russian media coverage" would be the most appropriate section. Stickee (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this edit before seeing the discussion here. I agree that this thing should go into the "Russian media coverage" section, and there it should be written more NPOV. Indeed there were Siberia-1812 comparisons in the Russian media, e.g. this theory published on 25 July by RIA Novosti and by Kommersant [15].

Generally, putting Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 into the "See also" section creates an undesirable bias, as the Siberia-1812 comparison is just one of many theories on the cause of this crash. --PM3 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

MH17 would be the second downing of a civilian aircraft by a Surface to Air Missile fired from Ukrainian territory. The other one being when Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (a commercial flight) was shot down by the Ukrainian military over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001. Ukraine banned the testing of Buk, S-300 and similar missile systems for a period of 7 years following this incident. Ukraine’s acting Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh described the combat readiness of the country’s armed forces as “unsatisfactory” in his 12 March 2014 report to the acting president. Tenyukh said recent exercises demonstrated a “dismal degree of preparedness among servicemen and lack of military specialists, equipment and weapons” in the Ground Forces, the Air Force and the Navy. The country’s air defense troops had received little training because of the 2001 ban on missile launches imposed after the crash of a Russian Tu-154 passenger jet. The ban was lifted in 2008, but so far only 10 percent of Air Defense Forces servicemen “have mastered the required level of theory and practice,” the report said. The Ukrainian military had several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers, capable of bringing down high-flying jets, in the Donetsk region where the Malaysian passenger plane crashed, Russian Defense Ministry said.[16][17] --82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: I disagree. Having 0 mention of this incident is evidence of clear and present bias. It should remain in the See Also section until it is expanded upon in the article. Relying on the link to other aircraft incidents is insufficient as it ignores the importance of the Siberia Airlines incident with regards to MH17's aftermath. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no significance. Volunteer Marek  18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, to you there is no significance that the last country to accidentally shoot down an airliner was the Ukraine. Also, that the Ukrainian military shot down that airliner with a Buk missile is insignificant, too. This article mentioning the downing of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 would bring the idea into readers minds that the Ukraine is capable of shooting down airliners, a possibility which would require the article to consider the scenario that Kiev deliberately shot down MH17, a scenario which German and French Wikipedia consider, but which English Wikipedia does not, a clear case of systemic bias. – Herzen (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no significance to it because only wacky conspiracy theorists or battleground warriors obsessed with correcting great historical wrongs or fighting irredentist war with their keyboards think that there is any significance to it. Reliable sources don't... Come on, this is getting ridiculous. I could just as easily say "Russia is the one country which has *purposefully* shot down civilian airliners before" and "hell, they even gave the pilot a medal for killing innocent people on one" and "and they suppressed evidence just like they're doing with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17" and insist on a link to Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and then just repeat ad nauseum "this is significant, this is significant, this is significant, this is significant...". But it won't be. No more than this is. That is the essence, the freakin' dictionary definition, the Platonic archetype of POV pushing which is exactly what you're trying to do here. No. Volunteer Marek  20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Technical point: it wasn't a BUK but another SAM, but the principle of incompetence is the same --82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines References has nothing to do with consipiracy theories. it reflects RS. Russian language media drew links between the two incidents to discredit the claims of the Ukrainian government. Your ad nauseam argument holds no water. in THIS case RS drew the link. We don't need to engage in original research because RS and GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS drew the link. Also, aside from RS, other language wikis report on the RS that drew this link. Having 0 mention is clear evidence of POV pushing. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we attempt to document everything that the Russian government (and its numerous media outlets) has said to try to discredit Ukraine? That would be a very long article. How much coverage has this gotten in RS outside of Russia? Geogene (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Zip. In RSs. I've seen Korean Air Lines Flight 007 mentioned more often in this context. Volunteer Marek  15:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't seen any of this either. If it's demonstrated that this is a major (and continuing) object of discussion in Russia, then I wouldn't oppose a sourced mention in the Russian media coverage section. But please don't use a See Also as a place for unsourced commentary on this. Geogene (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Consistent

For unknown reasons I can't edit the article, but I would like to point out that the source for this line was not writen by an expert on the subject, and the line is highly speculative:

The Dutch Safety Board preliminary report is consistent both with a missile and with machine gun fire from a fighter jet having downed MH17.[164]

It must be regarded as the opnion of a journalist. The direction of the blast from above with shrapnel entering through the roof and leaving through the floor of the cockpit, and the instant decompression and breakup of the aircraft (as seen form the black box log of the cabin pressure altitude) are both inconsistent with a fighter jet shooting it down. It is inconsistent with an air-to-air missile as well, since air-to-air missiles are heat seeking and will hit an engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.86.132 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not even in the source. It's not *even* an opinion of a journalist. Just whoever wrote that sentence in Wikipedia. Removed as synthesis and original research. Volunteer Marek  03:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@IP82: Yes, User:Ymblanter expressed similar concerns about that sentence in this comment 2 sections above. Stickee (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is what the [http://time.com/3310287/mh17-report-dutch-malaysia-airlines/source says:

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

"Leave room for" is just a different way of saying "is consistent with". I don't see how anyone can deny that.

Also, since when do we decline to use an impeccably reliable source just because the writer is a journalist, not an expert??? I thought that expertise was a property of primary, not secondary sources. What matters about secondary sources, which this Time article is, is reliability. Finally, when an actual expert's view is cited, you don't like that, either, because since what he says threatens your worldview, he must be a "conspiracy wing nut". It is undeniable that your guiding criterion for not including something in an article related to the Ukraine is DONTLIKE.

Your obstruction by means of lawyering and constant deployment of specious arguments is making it impossible for editors to bring a minimal level of NPOV to this article. – Herzen (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Euhm, if the report is really that vague, and if leaving room should really be considered as being consistent with we could also consider the report as being consistent with an alien attack. Arnoutf (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Do aliens normally use high-energy projectiles? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

They might. It may also be a disintegrated meteor strike. Just to make the point that we really, really, really should not overinterpret the reports. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, Time magazine, German Wikipedia, and French Wikipedia all consider the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17. But some editors of English Wikipedia are doing everything in their power to keep English Wikipedia from doing that, by employing civil POV pushing. – Herzen (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Time quote you gave wasn't a ringing endorsement. As for other Wikipedias, they can use the sources they have and follow their own guidelines. The guidelines here are that we use the POV of the bulk of reliable sources--which in this case is that it was probably the separatists shot it down. Any departure from this is a POV push. Geogene (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As stated earlier by others. The media is asked for conclusions, and they provide them. However, the media in this are not reporting the conclusions from the investigation as these are inconclusive. So the media are depending on a range of non-official experts, rumours, hearsay and self proclaimed witnesses. The reliability of all these sources is less than perfect (among others because none of these experts have had access to the crash site, none of the witnesses are experts, and many of the sources may have vested interest in presenting one side of the story). That is why we should not overinterpret their reports. Arnoutf (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

trophy cup

is this worth a mention. a Russian boasts of his 'trophy' cup malysia Airlines cup- if you boast of a trophy that's for something your side did isn't it? if nothing else it reveals the mentality. - "This is my trophy from Malaysia" - #Russ terr Sergei Danilov posts photo of #MH17 cup Russia trophy Malaysia airlines cupSayerslle (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No. But if there were desire to, an article could be written: "looted items from MH17 documented on social media". Geogene (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not unless reliable sources cover it, which they probably won't. Volunteer Marek  17:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

o.k. Sayerslle (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely indeed reliable media will cover it; and without it neither notable nor reliable (although it is an international crime to loot such items of course; so if the police in the region does its job we might learn more of this). Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014 - Lead paragraph in Cause section.

The Cause section has now grown to be so long and complex that it may benefit the reader (college-kid standard?) to include a summary (in the lead paragraph?). Having looked through the article and checked the quoted sources, my summary would be as follows:

According to reliable sources, a Russian BUK launcher had made its way to Donetsk - undetected by US and Ukrainian intelligence assets or by the local population. It then spent four or five hours driving around on a civilian low-loader past several areas with Kiev military activity (including an enemy BUK system) before settling down south of Torez/Snizhne to do the deed. It fired (accidentally) at MH17 under clear blue skies and by the time MH17 hit the ground the weather has almost completely clouded over. Ten minutes later, a rebel-leader's conversation was intercepted saying that MH17 had been downed from near Chernukhino (over 40km away from Snizhne) and that it had fallen outside Enakievo (over 30km from the MH17 crash-site). Although the perpetrators had been only 30km from the nearest Russian border checkpoint, in Marynivki, they decided not to head that way in their 24-ton tracked and armoured vehicle (top speed 65km/h)BUK specs. Instead, they opted to make their escape on the civilian low-loader. About 12 hours after loading up, and after having travelled during the night, they were spotted in Luhansk (100km from the launch site). At dawn, they had turned off the motorway into the suburbs and were apparently on their way to the Kiev-controlled customs-post and Russian border, still some 60km away (assuming they got straight back on the motorway after the SBU photo-op).

Though, obviously, I would expect that more experienced contributors would be able to improve on this. 82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No the cause section has grown so large that it needs serious trimming. This seems however to be impossible since everyone wants their own speculation about the cause in there. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

But it won't get trimmed - so why make the readers struggle? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we trim some of the journalist-reported Buk sightings? That part seems to take a lot of space. Geogene (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Give it up. WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  20:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it a bad thing to suggest something that might improve the article? 82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

the cause - the 53rd buk brigade, based in Kursk [18] - 7 words, what else is there really ? Sayerslle (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an even better solution - like it! --82.198.102.128 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Cause section should contain nothing more than what's in the current official report. All else is propaganda and speculation. I've never seen an article breach fundamental NPOV guidelines so much as this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing this "request". Looks like WP:POINT. Geogene (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"This page in a nutshell: When you have a point to make, use direct discussion only." What point, specifically? 82.198.102.128 (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Clearly out of scope for an edit request, continue to work on building consensus on this talk page as you have been doing. Cannolis (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The article seems to be one-sided

The article begins with the information (not confirmed by any documents or fixed facts) provided by USA/Ukrainian officials, still many facts indicate that pro-Russian rebels haven't got sufficient weapons/Radars to track & shot the plane on this high. Many facts indicate that the plane could be possibly shot by Ukrainian army to blame rebels and Russia (it is wide known that USA officially supports the regime in Ukraine and has its own motivation to blame Russia). Please make an article and its introduction more independent, covering all facts Ilya3L (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do not you look at this page and its archives first, where all these issues you mention have been discussed at length? Btw what you claim is "wide known" is in fact your private opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ilya3L - this article IS one-sided. Our systemic bias has allowed a core of anti-Putin and anti-Russian editors to dominate consensus, and include a mass of material that really has no place here. All it should contain on the cause front is what the official investigation has provided the world with so far. Unfortunately, right now it also contains an awful lot of speculation and propaganda driven bullshit, almost all of it anti-separatist and anti-Putin/Russia. It's one of our worst examples of non-neutral POV. One day we will have the full official report, and most of the crap will be removed. I wish someone with principles, guts and authority would remove it now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

RS are the 'guts and authority' of Wikipedia articles - you want to eviscerate the article for your own pov and not for some highfalutin notion of 'neutrality ' - ever thought of that? Sayerslle (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are millions of words on this topic in "reliable sources". The self-appointed owners of this article have chosen a particular subset. Having none of the politically motivated nonsense, and only the official report, would surely be the least POV form for the article. It would also obviously prevent further allegations of a lack of balance. Surely you would want that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What?! No it wouldn't! There are already efforts in certain circles to discredit the DSB report. The original post above wants more Russian POV in the article. Blanking everything but the DSB would generate more complaints of non-neutrality. Obviously! Pay attention. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone likes the Dutch report. Examples of what I mean: [19], [20], [21]. You can imagine what the response would be if there's more certainty in the next one...or if the Dutch hand out some indictments. Your suggestion of sourcing the cause entirely to the accident report of a European nation (that is a charter member of NATO) will placate no one. Geogene (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just silly to say it will placate no one. Firstly, It's not our job to placate anybody. Secondly, I, for one, would be much happier with it. (Not sure if I will feel placated.) And I am not "no one", thank you very much. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Blow by blow reporting of the daily allegations of people you want to report is not making this a better article. Have you read WP:10YT? I always find it valuable to think about what will be important in this article in 10 years time. I can guarantee that most of the current content won't be there. Why is it there now? HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not our job to placate anybody. Well, okay, I agree with that. So I'll continue to worry about the neutrality policy and completely disregard the ongoing complaints about bias then. Perhaps you should not use them as a pretense for blanking. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to respond to the rest of my post? HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. We're not adding every day accusations at this point, and the accusations that were added are remarkable (and were followed by sanctions in some cases). The blow-by-blow feel of the article is because much of it has been written as an ongoing current event, in time, it'll need to be revised to be fully encyclopedic. This mostly includes changing the sentence structures so they aren't so chronological, but may also include trimming some of the early statements that are no longer accurate. Already some of the stuff like early claims of undignified treatment of the human remains may need pruning if they've been made irrelevant by later information. I think that Abbott's remarks are likely to persist as notable, even if they're all proven wrong. What else will be important in 10 years time? Hard to say in this case. I wouldn't definitively say that the blame that's laid out now will be irrelevant then. I hope so because that would mean that progress was made, but it takes years and years for the courts to put evidence together to try anyone, until then, some of this that's in the article is actually the best information available, sadly, and will be for the forseeable future. Geogene (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We seem to be working with the same view of what's there now. It's mostly speculation and politics, and most of it will eventually disappear. We just have different views of whether it should be there now. I don't believe it should. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how Wikipedia continues to confidently and vigorously blame the rebels for the downing, while the Western press and Western politicians lost interest in MH17 a few weeks after the tragedy occurred. Now the only country that raises the matter of MH17 at the UNSC is Russia. From these developments, one can infer who the guilty party really is. Yet Wikipedia studiously avoids the question of cui bono. That involves the taboo area of conspiracy theorizing. That the current theory that the Wikipedia article puts forth is clearly a conspiracy theory – the Russian military conspired with the rebels by giving them a Buk launcher – doesn't phase any of the advocates here of the preferred Western narrative. If it's advocated by the US president, it's not a conspiracy theory.

You are one of the few editors who continues to point out the incredible bias of this article. However, I will take this opportunity to note that I disagree with the position you have consistently taken that all the article "should contain on the cause front is what the official investigation has provided". First, the DSB was explicitly directed not to assign blame. So even when the final report comes out, it is doubtful that it will contain much more information than the preliminary report does. There has been talk of criminal investigations to determine who the guilty party was, but Western leaders obviously already know who the guilty party was, so these investigations are unlikely to go anywhere. Second, it is natural for people to want to know who shot down MH17, so Wikipedia must address this issue. There are plenty of reports from reliable sources of who the two main candidates are. Unfortunately, the usual lawyering and civil POV pushing are being used to keep discussions of the guilt of the most likely perpetrator out of the article. – Herzen (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is the "You" at the beginning of your second paragraph? HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You. The indentation is correct. :-) I was basically siding with most editors here against you on this point.

To respond to the comment starting this thread/section, I agree that this article is one-sided, and wouldn't even qualify that with "seems to be". I have raised this point before in Talk, and pointed to the example of German and French Wikipedias, which consider both the case for the rebels being the perpetrators and the case for the Kiev government being responsible. However, all of my edits attempting to represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (to quote WP:NPOV) have, sadly, been reverted. The expert opinion of a senior Russian military officer on how Buk systems work is not considered to be worthy of consideration; the point made by Time magazine (can you get any more reliable and mainstream than Time?) that the DSB report is consistent with a jet having shot MH17 down is not worthy of consideration, since the Time article was written by a journalist, not an expert. Sigh. –Herzen (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you dont want an english version of the german article. Some of the headlines there seem to support your impression of a more neutral coverage at first glance (Shot down "by ukrainian army" / "by ukrainian warplanes") But it does not include the "BUK-from-above theory" you advocate for. Alexpl (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That comment would make sense if Herzen had asked that we have an English version of the German article, but he didn't, so it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm bored with this argument. There is only one credible side and only one credible explanation, and that is what the preponderance of WP:RS suggests: the attack is widely believed to have been carried out by Russian-backed forces, with no comment on their motives. If you don't like it, I'm sure you can find a Russian TV station or conspiracy blog somewhere that presents a more satisfying explanation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're lucky that the world is so simple for you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed hundreds of sources on this issue from all over the world. There is no complete and reliable explanation out there of what happend; all reasonable "Experts", from the USA, from Russia or from anywhere else are just building theories and talking of probabilities. Overall, looking at what the worldwide media say, my impression is that

• a vast majority of the "expertes" say that MH17 probably was shot down by a missile
  • most of them say it probably was a surface-to-air missile
    • a few of them say that it may have been launched by the resetos (RebelsSeparatistsTerrorists)
    • very few of them say it may have been launched by the Ukrainian forces
• and some say it probably was an Ukrainian air-to-air strike
  • some of whom say it probably was a combined missile and cannon air-to-air attack

That's the knowlege out there, which IMHO should be represented by the article. --PM3 (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have yet to see any reliable sources that suggest a Ukrainian jet shot down the airliner -- a theory that is mentioned in the article, I might add. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that when talking of sources, we generally talk of secondary sources. It's not really up to us to judge on primary sources (although I admit that I tend to do that myself), that's the job of secondary sources, which we consider as reliable and therefore generally use as source for Wikipedia content. One of those (very few) secondary sources which is used as reference in (hundreds of) WP articles and suggested that MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian jets is the New Straits Times. Another source which published multiple Ukrainian-jet-shootdown theories and is referenced as source in hundreds of articles is the Russian news agency RIA Novosti. --PM3 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Russian Engineers Report? If so, I'm curious what you think about it, since you say on your user page that you are interested in aviation disasters. I started looking through this report, to see if it mentions that Buk missiles detonate over their targeted aircraft, but it doesn't seem to. Also, I thought that that this point was raised at the Russian ministry of defense press briefing, but it appears that I was mistaken about that. So I think I am going to drop this point.

A blog post I gave the link to before has a photo from the report. The photo is of a flat surface from the plane with holes from "high-energy objects" all in a straight line. I don't see how a missile warhead could have produced that pattern of damage. What do you think?

On a side note, I don't see how some editors can be so confident that the people in power in Kiev could not possibly be behind the downing of MH17. After all, it is well known that the Estonian ambassador to Ukraine said in an intercepted telephone call that people in Kiev had come to the opinion that the snipers shooting both demonstrators and police in Maidan Square were following orders of the people who seized power in Kiev. If those people are capable of killing people fighting on their own side, they are certainly capable of ordering the downing of an airliner, in order to give them a chance to regroup once they have started losing a civil war. Also, if the Kiev government regularly shells peaceful Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure, actions which have no military purpose, it is certainly capable of murdering foreigners. But of course, Ukrainian mass media tell Ukrainians that the rebels keep on killing their own people, even though the locals believe that it is Kiev that is killing them. In the same way, the pro-federalism demonstrators in Odessa set themselves on fire. Wikipedia demurely calls that massacre "clashes". – Herzen (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What I find interesting to see when discussions flow on this topic is the growing number of mentions of the USA. This event had virtually nothing to do with the USA. (Yes, a couple of the victims, but there were victims from many countries.) The ONLY reason the USA becomes part of the discussion is because of the propaganda war that had already been going for months in respect of the region involved. Seeing the USA as one of the "sides" only makes sense if you see this article as an argument between Russia and the US. It's not. It's about a plane crash that didn't involve the USA. (Unless you believe the weirdest conspiracy theories.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The US has a history of supporting groups which engage in false flag operations. Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is a conspiracy theorist? Also, seeing the US as one of the "sides" is unavoidable, given that it is well known that the US State Department orchestrated the coup which put the current regime into power, as we know from the intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, in which she says that "our man Yats" should be made the new P.M., before the coup took place. It is practically the official position of the Russian government that the purpose of the overthrow of the legitimate, democratically elected government of Ukraine was to destroy Russia. So as far as the mainstream view in Russia is concerned, this is all about the US wanting to maintain its position of hegemon in a monopolar world. Russia and China want to move to a multipolar world. This is why the US has produced color revolutions and a coup in Kiev in an attempt to destabilize Russia. So this is all about the struggle between the US and Russia; the Ukraine only enters into consideration as a tool for the US to use against Russia. This is not an example of "the weirdest conspiracy theories"; this is looking at geopolitics. – Herzen (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bored" is about right. Please keep in mind that the talk page of Wikipedia articles is NOT the place to speculate, opinonate, editorialize, propagate, give vent to, or let off steam. Getting a blog is free. Get one. Do it there. Maybe "the people" will listen. Here, you're just wasting editor time. Most of the recent discussion should actually be deleted/removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm tempted. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was implicitly responding to Kudzu1's highly biased observation that "the attack is widely believed to have been carried out by Russian-backed forces". So my comment was most definitely relevant to this Talk section, as opposed to being nothing more than "opinionating". Note that Kudzu1's comment totally depersonalizes Russians. It is as if the opinion of Russians doesn't matter, and Russians don't have a right to have opinions. How can you get more systematically biased than that? – Herzen (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can dispute the point. Aside from conspiracy-minded folks like Parry and Hersh, who have been carrying water for the Kremlin for some time now, and Russian sources with an implicit bias toward their country's government (note that Russia is frequently given very low marks for press freedom and human rights, so I question the idea that mainstream Russian sources are in any way reliable in a case where the Russian government has a very strong and very overt interest), and aside from that single Malaysian newspaper article that relies almost entirely on non-notable, non-reliable GlobalResearch or whatever it's called, pretty much everybody of any standing reports that the separatists are suspected of carrying out the attack, and there is scads of publicly available evidence to that effect. You might disagree with that conclusion, and that is your right. But when the preponderance of reliable sources present a narrative, I think it can rightly be considered "mainstream", and competing opinions pushed by an extreme minority of (mostly partisan) outlets can be considered fringe. And even still, as I said, the "Ukrainian jet shot down the airliner" conspiracy theory is already in the article. I think that's a very generous concession to the Kremlin and its backers as it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Too many editors here are expressing opinions on who did it. You, Kudzu1, are one of them. It doesn't matter how much you have convinced yourself you are right, it's still opinion. Nobody should be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm speaking of what reliable sources are saying, which is more than I can say for you. As I have said many, many times before, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy basis for excluding or contradicting the preponderance of reliable sources and disregarding WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:DUE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. The point is that an editor's opinion on a controversial matter should not be as obvious as yours. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: When you write, "I don't see how you can dispute the point", I respectfully suggest that you display your bias. To quote yet again from WP:systemic bias:

Wikipedia … is inhibited by systemic bias that perpetuates a bias against underrepresented cultures and topics. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects on Wikipedia.

To explain to you how I "can dispute the point", I will just mention that because, just an hour or two after the crash of MH17 hit the news, both Kiev and Washington accused the rebels of shooting it down, when there had not even been enough time to establish that it had been shot down, and because just a few hours after the downing, alleged conversations between rebels and a GRU officer were posted on YouTube with the rebels saying they had shot down MH17 by mistake (which conversations are now contradicted by the current Kiev story about why the rebels allegedly downed the plane), it was obvious to me from the very start that this was a false flag op run by Kiev to discredit the rebels. I didn't need to read the Russian press or left-wing blogs to realize that. It was totally obvious. So I have to turn your comment around: I don't see how you can honestly believe that the rebels and not Kiev shot down MH17. You are apparently completely unfazed by the Western press totally losing interest in MH17. Do you really think the US and the EU would stop bashing Russia and the rebels with MH17 if the West had any evidence that the rebels shot it down?

That was a personal note. I am not going to say anything about the reliability of the Russian media because I am tired of writing about that. I'll just note that I don't see how anyone can take the New York Times to be more reliable than Russian sources like RT when the Times has a consistent track record of publishing stories that implicate a country that the US is currently hostile to in some nefarious activity (Saddam has weapons of mass destruction; Assad ordered a chemical weapons attack; there are photographs of a Russian speznaz soldier now operating in the Ukraine) which it later had to retract. Remember Judith Miller?

I'm sorry; this really does sound like editorializing now, I guess. But I am just responding to your implicit question. And if you honestly wonder how Westerners can relate to a Russian point of view: I just learned about this Web site, which was started by an American expat living in Moscow who is apparently an investment banker: Russia Insider. – Herzen (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you offer something independent, like Novaya Gazeta. Sure go ahead. But I see absolutely no movement in your position - it was a case of something you keep calling "the west" fighting with the Russian Federation from the first post and it still is. No differentiation whatsoever. So, to get some kind of result for the article: do you want a list of different causes which have been discussed for the crash in the article, something like user:PM3 has shown above, yes or no? If you answer yourself, that would be great. Alexpl (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta is hardly "independent". It is controlled by an oligarch, who ironically also owns the English Independent. It's funny how English Wikipedia gives so much attention to Novaya Gazeta, when it is not representative of mainstream Russian opinion in the least. – Herzen (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly, you are utterly convinced that you have struck upon the correct theory, best explained as a variation on the underpants gnomes plan -- step 1: Ukraine shoots down the plane, step 2: ????, step 3: profit! And as I said, you are abundantly welcome to your own beliefs. You can believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, dinosaur bones are a hoax, and Ringo Starr was the most talented Beatle. Believe whatever you want. But your position simply has no basis in reliable sources (the preponderance of which say something completely different), unless the meaning of that term is redefined. And that's not going to happen on this Talk page. I suggest you take your complaints to the appropriate noticeboard and see if they're more receptive to the idea of Russian state media being more reliable than The New York Times. Good luck. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, English Wikipedia editors blocking consideration of the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, when French and German Wikipedias consider that possibility, is a textbook case of IDONTLIKEIT. Why does English Wikipedia fail when French and German Wikipedias succeed? – Herzen (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom. But I don't try to censor that idea out of Wikipedia. I just want Wikipedia readers to be able to read about the other possibility, that Kiev did it. I want both theories to be covered by English Wikipedia, even though I don't like one of them. Thus IDONTLIKEIT applies not to those editors who believe that English Wikipedia should consider the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, but to those editors who believe that only one of the two main possibilities should be covered, thus producing a catastrophic violation of NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom" -- the same can be said of the members of Islamic State. In other words let's not go to these kind of highly non neutral statements. Arnoutf (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To make this crystal clear: it matters not one bit what other language encyclopedias say. Zero. Nada. Who cares. It's not an argument. We have this Wikipedia, it has its own policies, and we follow those. "But other Wikipedias say something else!" is a lame and invalid argument. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a tendency to make dogmatic assertions without providing any sort of argument to back them up. The reason I brought up French and German Wikipedias was that the claim is repeatedly made by editors who take a hard pro-current Kiev government line that nobody but Russians and conspiracy theorists takes the idea that Kiev might have downed MH17 seriously. Do you mean to suggest that the French and German Wikipedias are infested with conspiracy theorists? If not, then the conclusion that English Wikipedia's failure to give due attention to the possibility that Kiev downed the plane is a grave case of systemic bias is inescapable. The NPOV guideline is very clear, yet some editors persist in brazenly disregarding it. – Herzen (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

UH... pointing out that what other Wikipedias do has no bearing on what we do is a "dogmatic assertion"? Huh? Sorry, that's just policy, since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Yes, NPOV guideline is crystal clear: no FRINGE crap. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - calling the opinions of those with whom you disagree "lame and invalid" is a pretty lame and invalid argument. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But calling opinions which are contrary to, or are pretending to be, in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy, is not. It's an accurate description. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. It's actually just bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What's bad manners is wasting loads of other people's time with tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It just keeps going and going and going and going... enough already. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Expect to have lots more of your time wasted for as long as the article contains so much political and propaganda driven bullshit. I won't change my view for that idiotic reason. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

From Obama's remarks at the UN General Assembly today:

Recently, Russia's actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order. Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kyiv, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.

Note that Obama doesn't say that the rebels shot MH17 down. Thus, the English Wikipedia article being written as if the rebels shooting down MH17 is an open and shut case is completely unacceptable. – Herzen (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The misinterpretation of the Obama remarks above is the most patently ridiculous argument that I have seen advanced by an established Wikipedia editor in months. It is typical of the content that this user continues to post in this Talk page. The arguments have been heard and found wanting. That it continues without end in sight constitutes disruption. Geogene (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

'I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom.' But I don't try to censor that idea out of Wikipedia' - your saying about you don't like calumnies against your people is nothing but a confession of purblind nationalist bias - in 1945 you'd have no doubt given grief to wp editors if they relayed RS on this story -red army and rape 1945 - and said it was a calumny against soldiers who were liberating europe - - anyhow the Russian stories are not censored from this article so I don't see what you are complaining about - they said it was an attempt to take down putins plane?, it was Ukrainian jets , it was Ukrainian Buks - all the stories - all the freedom loving stories - to take credit for saying you wont try and censor the article! I should hope not. this isn't Moscow. Sayerslle (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't know anything about me. Any relatives of mine who fought in World War II fought on the side of the Germans, so I certainly wouldn't have objected to atrocities that the Red Army commited against the German people being included in a Wikipedia article. In my family, the Soviets were the enemy. But I guess you haven't heard that Russia isn't communist anymore. Incidentally, your crack about "your people" is indicative of a battleground attitude. I suggest you make more of an effort to maintain civility in the future.

Since you suggest that censorship is not being applied to this article, I have restored the subsection headings delineating accounts of Ukrainian and of rebel responsibility with this edit. – Herzen (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I rather think you brought the battleground mentality with your 'people freedom fighting' rhetoric whom you don't like seeing calumnied -well, if RS are at the root of it that's just too bad, but whatever, - you've made it clear you have a 'side' and that dictates your editing - now you are dead set it seems to me to make out there are two views, each alike in weight of RS reportage of credibility - etc - pure pov crap. undue. but then to create a kind of miasma , to confound RS with fringe , and RS with RT - that's your way. Sayerslle (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed one of the disputed subheadings to "Russian claims", as it cannot be denied that, aside from conspiracy theorists, this viewpoint is peculiar to Russia, Russian sources, and the parallel reality that seems to exist there of late. It should not be mistaken for my endorsement of these subtitles. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: Thank you for coming up with that compromise solution. I hope no one will delete the subheadings as they currently stand. But you are mistaken when you say that "this viewpoint is peculiar to Russia". It has also been reported by the Malaysian press:

Emerging Theory: Probe now into the possibility that plane was shot down using two different weapons.

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

The New Straits Times coverage of the MH17 disaster has come up before in the "NPOV edit" section of this Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

They've gone again since they're very similar in nature to pro and con like sections, with WP:GEVAL issues as well. They have been brought up before in archive 12 in which they were removed. Stickee (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, POV isn't supposed to be split even inside articles. Geogene (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The only reason that POV is involved here is that some editors refuse to abide by the American principle of innocent until proven guilty. Thinking that there are two different parties that might have been responsible for the downing of MH17 is not having two different points of view: it is simply being able to understand reality in a minimally non-biased fashion. – Herzen (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROCON does not apply because none of the points in the "So what's wrong with pro & con lists?" section are applicable to these section headings. The idea that more than one party may be responsible for a given crime is a commonplace in legal practice. This is really a no-braner. WP:GEVAL does not apply because the only reliable evidence we have to go on, that provided by the DSB preliminary report, gives absolutely no basis for preferring one possible scenario over the other. The article already raises the possibility that Kiev might have done this, although somebody has added the "conspiracy theory" smear to that passage. So I really don't understand why anyone would object to subsection headings for the two main possibilities here. It is as if Wikipedia editors believe that Kiev shooting down the plane is a logical, metaphysical impossibility. Is that encyclopedic? – Herzen (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

On NST: Indeed it has come up continually in this talk page and on the talk pages of many other language variants of WP. This is far out of proportion to the relative influence the NST usually has, it's not that widely read outside of Malaysia. This naturally raises the question: why so much discussion of this single source? It's exactly the kind of thing you see when you have a sizeable minority of editors that would like to get a particular viewpoint into the article, but don't have another source to choose from, because out of the thousands of potential candidates, this is the only one that they can find for it that isn't suspected of being under Kremlin influence (or control). But the NPOV policy says that viewpoints in articles should be in proportion to their coverage in RS. That this one article keeps coming up repeatedly shows that this is a tiny viewpoint, and its relative coverage in the article should be scaled appropriately. And in this case I think NST is non-RS because it cites Global Research--which seems to be the primary purveyor of MH17 conspiracy theories in the West. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Der Spiegel not a major reliable source? Here is what it reported on 8 August:

It is becoming apparent that the question of guilt is hardly going to be conclusively clarified. Too confusing are the conditions in the area around the crash; too unprofessional was evidence on the ground was handled - and large are the political interests of the parties.

Enlightenment is not expected in this question also from the Dutch Security. You conduct the investigation according to international rules, says van der Weegen. "This is not about who is to blame or the responsibility. The aim of the investigation is to clarify the cause of the crash.

This is completely consistent with the DSB preliminary report. That report tells us nothing about who the guilty party might be, and Der Spiegel observes that who the guilty party is will never be officially revealed. Thus, the Wikipedia article, by creating the impression that everybody knows that the rebels did it, is doing a grave disservice to its readers. – Herzen (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If anything beyond the official report is to be included when this article finally settles down, that reads like some of the best and most objective content I've seen yet. And the expression "large are the political interests of the parties" is an accurate description of a lot of what's gone on here so far. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, the article is to reflect what the bulk of the sources are saying on the matter. As Geogene and many others in this thread said, the preponderance of the sources are presenting the narrative of a likely rebel shootdown, and the article should reflect that. Splitting the cause section into 2 subsections would mean the article won't reflect what they're saying. Furthermore you've again mischaracterized a source. That spiegel article you mention even says "many indications suggest that separatists flight accidentally shot down in the embattled eastern Ukraine MH17" (sorry for the bad google translate). Stickee (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all of us agree that your interpretation of "the article is to reflect what the bulk of the sources are saying on the matter" is a valid one. The sources you insist on using simply reflect the pre-existing systemic bias of Wikipedia, of which you are clearly a part. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article naturally prefers the mainstream POV of the public opinion of English speakers. Other language regions have other mainstream POVs, therefore different articles have different perspectives on the same topic. That's how Wikipedia works, it's always that way (even with scientific articels, e.g. there are significant differences in the stance of English and German articles on modern physics). There is no "truth" in Wikipedia. It is made by human beings who have beliefs, and these beliefs influence their selection of sources and contents, knowingly or unknowingly. You should accept this reality, because you can't change it. --PM3 (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is biased, but editors can work harder to override their beliefs when editing here. During the last US Presidential election, and my own country's most recent national election, I patrolled high profile articles and their Talk pages for vandalism and POV pushing. I was accused by supporters of both sides in both countries of supporting the other side. They were all wrong. Several here could try so much harder to keep their own beliefs out of their editing, and to make those beliefs far less obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And @Herzen [22]: I think that Der Spiegel is an inferior source, the content quality has gone near tabloid journalism level during the past years, especially in the online section and since they hired their new chief editor from Bild. This really is no source I am proud of as an WP author, I try to avoid it whenever possible or use it for the trivial things only. --PM3 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. What a surprise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Your point that English Wikipedia "prefers the mainstream POV of the public opinion of English speakers. Other language regions have other mainstream POVs" is interesting and suggestive. But although there may be no "truth" in Wikipedia, Wikipedia officially aims for WP:NPOV, which is something different from truth. And many editors, many of whom seem to be primarily Anglophone, continually complain that the articles in English Wikipedia on Ukrainian subjects are biased towards the current Kiev regime, which seized power illegally and hence is not legitimate by any reasonable legal standard. Therefore, I am not as defeatist about the possibility of Wikipedia avoiding systemic bias as you are. I would say that the reason that the Ukraine related articles are so absurdly biased is not that different Wikipedias are doomed to represent different "mainstream POVs", but that the majority of editors do not appear to understand what avoiding systemic bias entails. Yes, I am a throwback. I still believe in Enlightenment values.

I agree with you about Der Spiegel. But there seems to have been a general decline in European journalism since about 2000. European journalists used to delight in mocking their governments, but now they pretty much serve as stenographers for government officials, the same as American journalists do. And since somehow the view has become entrenched among Wikipedia editors that no blogs are reliable sources (whereas blogs now play the role that the free press played earlier in Western societies), Wikipedia articles on political matters tend to end up being (poorly written) government propaganda. – Herzen (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is not more biased than your statements here. "Absurdly biased" is just a measure of the distance beween your own bias and the article's opposite bias, which you will not be able to change. --PM3 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If an article is biased, I see it as my job to point it out, even more so if the owners won't countenance change. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that a paid job?--Galassi (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

With subsidies for dental treatment. Since user:Herzen now seems to have gone lost because of all the wrongddoings of "the West", maybe HiLo487 could propose some actual changes to the article to make it less biased. Alexpl (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove all comment on the cause apart from what the official report says. (Now I sit back and watch the Putin/Russia haters all foam at the mouth and say "You can't do that. Look how many people just like me agree with me!") HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nadezhda_Tolokonnikova is as russian as the KGB bloke putin - just because one doesn't foam at the mouth with admiration for putin doesn't mean one is anti-Russian - banal to say so - Sayerslle (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. That's why I didn't say it. Unfortunately, hate is an irrational emotion. The irrationality impacts more than the haters think. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only time people use the word "haters" is when they're losing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please lose the battleground attitude. – Herzen (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am aiming for a consensus. With a consensus we all win. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe consider not reducing those who disagree with you to "haters". I can't speak for anyone else here, but I know I have raised specific policy objections to your proposals that you have never made even a perfunctory effort to address. Dismissing "haters" is weak, and it's not constructive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The simple policy objection to your position is that it requires a massive dependence on or lack of awareness of our systemic bias. You may not be a hater, but it's obvious from some of the anti-Russian and anti-Putin comments that have been made here that some are. It's a valid description of the emotion being shown. This discussion should avoid emotional influences. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to get into any trouble, like the editors of the RU Crimea article are about to be in. [23]. Geogene (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Funny how that story gets published in the "government controlled" Russian press. By the way, when I looked at a few Ukraine-related articles in Russian Wikipedia, I was surprised to find that the line that they take is pretty much identical to the line that English Wikipedia takes, and has virtually nothing to do with how the Ukraine crisis is presented in the Russian media. For example, in the article on MH17, Russian Wikipedia does have a subsection on the scenario that Kiev shot down the plane, but it devotes more space to denials that Kiev could have done that than it does to consideration of various theories which have been put forth about how Kiev might have done that. German Wikipedia considers those; Russian Wikipedia doesn't even mention the possibility that a fighter jet might have used machine gun/cannon fire against MH17, even though that is the scenario most Russians believe. – Herzen (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I find nothing funny about it. Geogene (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova is as russian as the KGB bloke putin. How do you know that? It appears that you know very little about Russia. Pussy Riot hate Russia. Since at least Peter the Great, there have been some Russians who hate Russia, taking the West as their admired model. Here is a recent essay that explains the Russian model, something that people like Tolokonnikova have no understanding of. And this piece explains why a leader of contemporary Russia who acts in the interests of the Russian people could only have come from the KGB. Your comment is exactly what HiLo48 was expecting. – Herzen (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@ herzen/hilo - oh I see , thanks for educating me on who the true Russians are - you two do seem a bit biased to me to be crusaders for npov but there we are - 'I don't mind most Russians - but I don't like Putin - 'oh gawd, don't say that hilo and herzen will hear you' - funny Sayerslle (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to allege that I was displaying bias. Precisely what is my bias? HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And the conspired anyway [24]--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Assuming that's an accusation that I am involved in some sort of conspiracy, what bullshit. You linked to a post from Herzen on my Talk page, to which I didn't even respond. Conspired? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, you have expressed your own bias here and it is pro-Western. Your viewpoint seems to be that the DSB report is the final word, and that's a "Western" POV, as Russia has been completely excluded from that investigation and Ambassador Churkin has made it clear that they're not happy about it. This is not intended to insult you, as I don't believe in unbiased editors, but it is worth pointing out in this case because of the self-righteous attitudes you've been expressing about the biases you perceive in everyone else. Your remarks imply you see your role in the dynamic here as that of a Socratic gadfly, but the truths are that (1) you've really just complained a lot by making assertions about these failings you find in the rest of us, (2) this is both annoying and insulting, (3) this sort of behavior takes the fun out of editing this article for people that disagree with you, and (4) it is possible that you are doing this on purpose. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, your bias is clearly on display in that you even see this as a "Western" vs something else issue. I am always working to draw peoples' attention to our systemic bias, then trying to to do something about it. The official report is the closest thing we have to an independent look at this matter. To be accused of being biased for supporting that is ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that, in the moment that your proposal to limit this to the official DSB findings is accepted, you would have to work against Herzen and his wish to interpret or even comment those findings? In the current situation he will immediately start to hammer us with sources that the DSB finding could never match to a BUK missile and only a ukrainian fighter jet could have done it. Will you be here to prevent that, or is your mission accomplished and you just pullout? Alexpl (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:personal attacks and projecting on to me. I would find restricting this article to the findings of the DSB to be an excellent compromise solution, and would not work against that in any way. As for "interpreting" those findings, I think the German satire I copy pasted here which Volunteer Marek hatted, even though it is absolutely relevant to this talk section, because he doesn't like it (behavior which precisely exemplifies what that TV segment satirized), shows very well who is doing the "interpreting" here. It is not the people who want to bring some semblance of NPOV to Ukraine-related articles. – Herzen (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I hatted your comment below because it was simply inappropriate and disruptive. I probably should've just removed it outright. Are we gonna use that youtube video as a source? No. Does it add anything to the discussion? No. You're just posting it as a means of indirectly insulting others. Also, while we're on the subject, I see no personal attacks by Alexpl, or anyone else, against you. All I see is obstinate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

And no, we are not going to limit the article to the DSB report. That would be ridiculous. And against policy. There is simply no reason to do that. What we ARE going to limit the article to is reliable sources. Which means conspiracy junk and fringe stuff stays out. Volunteer Marek  07:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And our systemic bias lives on. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

To repeat ad nauseum. No original research. No synethesis. No fringe. No WP:OTHERSTUFF, including what some other Wikis might do. If you must get something off your chest there's better places for that. If you want to spin and speculate, there's better places for that. And none of this is going into this article as that would be a flagrant violation of the encyclopedia's policies. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You are always talking of the official report and want to discard all other sources. However, the official report is not of that good quality. For example:

• Flight SU2074 is missing on the map on page 12.
• AI113 on the same map is probably errounously labeled as A330, all other reputable sources I could find say 787, including Flightradar24, the Russian radar records and the newspapers.
• Data of last A check on page 16 contradicts Malaysia Airlines press release of July 18, 1:30 PM, which is more plausible when considering the check interval given in the DSB report.
• The ATC protocol on page 15 consistently calls the airline MALASIAN. Do you really want to write MALASIAN in the "Crash" section where this information is included?? MALASIAN (mal-Asian? someone bad from Asia?) is the official word per DSB report here.
• Ruler is missing on the weather map on page 18.
• There are lots of mismatches in detail wording, which is unprofessional for such a report.

So I don't think relying on this report as the only source would be a good idea (besides from that it would mean withholding lots of relevant information from the readers). Also, the DSB report is not ony a technical but also a diplomatic paper - the wishes of all countries involved in creating it had to be respected, including e.g. Russia and Australia. What can we expect from a report on the reason of MH17 crash which approved by both Russia and Australia? Not much. I don't think that relying solely on such diplomatic paper would yield an informative flight accident article. --PM3 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention Russia but not the Ukraine. Russia had absolutely no influence over the report, but Ukraine did:

On 7 August 2014, following the coordination meeting held at Eurojust on 28 July, authorities from the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine signed an agreement to set up a joint investigation team (JIT) to investigate the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, with the participation of Malaysia and Eurojust. …

A week ago Mark Sleboda reported about the existence of an agreement between exactly these four countries, adding that a non-disclosure agreement was part of the deal.

So don't try to blame Russia for the low quality of the report. Russia is, as far as I know, the only country which has complained about the deficiencies of the report. Herzen (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Who cares, Herzen? The point PM3 was making is just as valid. Geogene (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: You confuse criminal and accident investigation. The JIT does criminal investigation. The DSB does flight accident investigation, which is a separate job, and Russia is one of countries who are part of the investigation team (the others are the Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, France, Germany, the USA and Great Britain). See [25], and also [26] on page 4 ("Russia did not want to take part in the first instance, but has now joined"). Russia is complaining about an investigation in which they are engaged themselves (or more precise: investigators of the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency are involved, see page 8 of the DSB report). --PM3 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The negative obsession of some here here with Russia is far too obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:POT Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The last transponder transmission recorded by Flightradar24 was at 13:21 UTC

What is that, there is no official source? The aircraft is still 85 seconds remained on track after the failure of the flight recorder ??? 84.118.81.7 (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to be able to make heads or tales out of what you are trying to say. If you can't make a comprehensible argument in

English, you should not distract Wikipedia editors by starting new sections in Talk pages. – Herzen (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

IP84 is referring to the third paragraph of the "Crash" section in which Flightradar24 reports the last transponder transmission at 13:21:28 UTC, while the FDR/CVR has a last recording at 13:20:03 UTC: a disparity of 85 seconds.

To address IP84's question: I personally can't answer why the disparity exists but it's likely just a timing issue on FR24's part (FR24 only takes a reading once every minute). The most we can do is just report what they're saying. Stickee (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

All flight data recordings stopped at 13:20 UTC

See Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 14#Suggestions regarding the last Flightradar24 record. It may have been extrapolated. I removed this 13:21 FR24 data from de:Malaysia-Airlines-Flug 17 months ago because it is implausible and contradicts all other sources. This has been underpinned by the DSB report, which says that all data recordings and ATC communication stopped at 13:20. I suggest to remove this 13:21 information here, too, both the time and the coordinate contradict all other sources. Compare the coordinate to the last FDR position in the DSB report on page 21: It's west of Hrabove and Roszypne, not east of Snizhne where FR24 put the last ADS-B position. --PM3 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the last FR24 record shows a 10 second delay to the 60s recording interval, while all the previous records only show a 2-4 second delay [27]. I read in some internet forum that FR24 will wait up to 10 seconds before the next data is recorded. This very much looks like after the 10 second timeout they recorded extrapolated data, to fill an assumed data gap. From the last FR24 coordinate given here in the article, the plane would have needed to do a U-turn and fly some 20 kilometers back to the West and then crash there. This terribly contradicts all what the DSB report sais about the crash sequence:

• plane flies in eastern direction
• at 13:20 all systems stop working a few km west of Roszypne
• cockpit section falls straightly down near Roszypne
• rest of the plane following a downwards trajectory to the east and comes down near Hrabove.

--PM3 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I support the proposal. Flightradar's data seems to be less accurate than the DSB report and appears to contradict it. (The precision of FR24's data may be causing readers to overestimate its accuracy). Geogene (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no disparity or course deviation. According to the data of Flightradar24 MH17 simply continues to fly on course Kuala Lumpur after the failure of the flight recorder and cockpit voice recorder at 13:20:03 UTC as before and did not crash until 13:21:28 UTC. But Russian sources speak of a course deviation at 13:20 UTC. 84.118.81.7 (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As was said above, the Flightradar24 data is probably wrong. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Primary Russian source, on which all other Russian sources on this issue are based, shows that at 13:21:28 UTC the plane is already crashing, dramatically losing speed and moving to the northeast instead to Kuala Lumpur. Hear to the comment of the Russian video at ~20:50: The commentator is explicitly talking of 13:21:30 UTC, and MH17 on the radar screen has a speed of ~350 km/h at this moment, compared to 890 km/h which FlightRadar24 gives for the same time. One of both must be wrong. --PM3 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So it seems the FR24 data is different from all the other data. As you and Geogene have suggested already, it's probably best to remove the FR24 info. Stickee (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Geogene (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Banner

It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that this article lacks neutrality. It is highly biased towards the Ukraine/US version and gives little credit to other versions of the event. The other Wiki pages on this topic (see French, German and Russian versions) describe all possible versions, like a proper Wiki page should. Editors like Volunteer Marek, are very reluctant to acknowledge this and prevent changes to the article. These editors call all the other theories as Fringe, Original Research or Russian propaganda for no real reason, other than they don't like them. Clearly this argument can go on forever without any party being satisfied with the results. So here is what I suggest. Let's add a NPOV at the top of the article to tell the reader that the neutrality of the article is hotly debated. What do people think? 118.210.139.81 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the intention of the NPOV banner is to flag the article for the sake of other editors, not necessarily the readership. It's also to be used only when there is an active discussion that is making progress, and not for an unlimited time. When the discussion stops for any reason, the banner is supposed to come down. So to use it indefinitely during a protracted debate in order to "punish" the article is not a valid use. And I should add that this article is approximately neutral per the actual WP:NPOV policy, which says that article POV should reflect that of the bulk of the reliable sources. The arguments that it is not neutral not only disregard policy but are, frankly, ridiculous, and becoming sillier all the time, with them most recently being based on the moral superiority of certain editors here. This "debate" does not merit a banner. The thing is, these things you complain about, that we call other viewpoints "Fringe", "Original Research", and "propaganda" (I don't recall that one being used, but many of these sources are not RS) are excellent reasons to exclude these things from the article. There is no reason for anyone to complain editors using these legitimate arguments, and that they do shows they're not able to respond in kind. Those that support alternative POVs have not made an effort to justify their proposals or refute these characterizations with policy. I will not support use of the banner to try to give undeserved legitimacy to the arguments of editors that apparently have no concern for the actual NPOV policy. Note that I think I was the editor that most recently added the NPOV banner to the article. I've since become convinced that there is no material benefit to the current discussion. Geogene (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of template messages is "to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made." WP guidelines say nothing about "there [being] an active discussion that is making progress". You are right that this discussion is not making progress, but that is only because some editors continue to deny that there is grave systemic bias in this article, and relentlessly undo edits which attempt to establish a minimally NPOV in the article. You and some other editors continue to denounce the idea that somebody other than the rebels might have been responsible for shooting down MH17 as fringe. But we live in a globalized world. The Anglosphere, France, Germany, and Russia are all part of the same global Internet community. As the IP who started this Talk section pointed out, the French, German, and Russian Wikipedias all consider this possibility. And yesterday I added some of the dialog from a German TV program which satirized how Western news media confidently blame the rebels for downing MH17, when no one has been able to provide any credible evidence to that effect. To quote from the blog post I just linked to, the TV network that that satirical program was broadcast on was "ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen), the second German public broadcast organisation, absolute MSM, like NBC in the US or BBC2 in the UK." If the German equivalent of NBC and BBC2 emphatically presents a given POV, then the only reason why English Wikipedia editors would consider that POV to be Fringe is Systemic Bias.

Rather than admitting that this TV program demonstrates that considering the possibility that the rebels might not have been the ones who shot the plane down is an idea that is mainstream and not fringe, you and Volunteer Marek deleted my comment which quoted from the program, thus doing exactly what the program satirized: "delete, delete!" Volunteer Marek deleted my comment on the grounds that it was "disruptive"; you deleted it under the pretext that it was a copyright violation, even though quoting two minutes of dialog from a one hour TV program clearly falls under fair use. The only way the editors who are determined to preserve the Systemic Bias in this article can do so is by using lawyering and civil POV pushing to prevent other editors from fixing the article. – Herzen (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment was nothing more than soapboxing about how "unfair" the media has been on this issue. We're not a forum, and its place is not here. Stickee (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

IDONTHEAR becomes less effective once editors gain experience with how some editors use various stratagems to game Wikipedia policy. The idea that if a major Western TV network takes a possibility seriously, then that possibility cannot be fringe, so that NPOV requires that Wikipedia discusses that possibility, is not hard to understand. It is highly regrettable that many editors working on Ukraine-related articles appear to behave as if they are NOTHERE. – Herzen (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spurious tagging of articles based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is disruptive (whether done by sock puppeting IPs or not). And let's remind everyone about WP:NOTAFORUM. And I'm sorry Herzen, but if there's a single editor on this talk page who personifies both WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE, that's you. All the way. Volunteer Marek  05:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The suggested tag is NPOV and has nothing to do with IDONLIKEIT. This is an official WP tag. Let me remind you this is not a forum. We are just following WP rules, sorry if you don't like them.14.2.17.35 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, this is just so tedious. As Geogene said, this article reflects the preponderance of reliable sources, including reliably sourced and duly weighted mentions of the alternative, ahem, theories that the Russian government and its various mouthpieces prefer to propagate. Doing anything else with the article would be an abrogation of about half a dozen Wikipedia policies that I have brought up here before, including but not limited to WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, WP:DUE, and WP:VER. So no. No shame tags. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes and you are one of those making it tedious. Please explain why this article has been written with all theories in at least 3 other languages (French, German and Russian)? There could be more, I haven't checked. They are using the same Wikipedia with the same rules. Why are the same theories considered Fringe and OR here, but not over there? Is it double standards? Going by majority, it looks like THIS article is inconsistent rather than those. I am really looking forward to your answer to these questions.118.210.139.81 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because other crap exists on other languages isn't an argument. This article already gives the fringe theories a generous amount of air time. More than is due by policy. Stickee (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you labelling it crap? It exists in other languages for a good reason. This article is crap because it is pushing just one point of view. Why are you calling all Russian media unreliable? How is it less reliable than US backed media? US has interest in this conflict so US media will report the view that US government holds. This does not make it reliable. The only truly reliable media in this event is Malaysian.118.210.139.81 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the WP policy article you link to suggests that if the Wikipedias of the four major European languages other than English treat a subject significantly differently than English Wikipedia does, English Wikipedia editors can just blithely assume that all those other Wikipedias are just crap, so there can't possibly be any problem with English Wikipedia. So you are just grasping at straws. – Herzen (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia also considers the scenario that Ukraine shot down the plane, and has subsection headings for the scenario that the rebels shot down the plane and for the scenario that the Ukrainian military shot down the plane.

You raise a good point when you note that Wikipedias of different languages have the same rules. I haven't checked the rules of non-English Wikipedias, but I don't see why they should have different basic rules than English Wikipedia. In fact, it has been in discussions of this article that I first ran across the claim that English Wikipedia has its own rules, different from those of other Wikipedias. Of course since this is English Wikipedia we are talking about, editors blithely assume that English Wikipedia applies the rules correctly when it comes to MH17, whereas French, Spanish, German, and Russian Wikipedias do it wrong. – Herzen (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A "good point" from this IP editor that you yourself have brought up elsewhere on this Talk page, I might note. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The "good point" I was referring to was that Wikipedias of different languages have basically the same rules. I had not made that point, although it is true that the IP editor mentioned the same non-English Wikipedias that I did. Also, the IP editor wrote in his initial post in this Talk section that Russian Wikipedia "describe[s] all possible versions", whereas I had written earlier that Russian Wikipedia does not consider the fighter jet using cannon fire scenario. – Herzen (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does have the same rules, but it also has vastly more traffic than any other version. This means that on English Wikipedia it is less likely a biased point of view remains unchallenged. (first half of edit by me: Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC) broken up by anon editor)

Now you are just clasping at straws. What does traffic have to do with anything? China has the biggest population, so are you suggesting that their version should be favoured more than others? Of course not, this would just be ridiculous. The bias in this article has been challenged on many occasions, unfortunately nothing has been done about it, because certain individuals are controlling the article. By the way, this is illegal according to WP rules.14.2.17.35 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Traffic means active people means more points of view, so less likely that few editors can control the debate (as I clearly explain). Traffic has little to do with inhabitants but with visits and edits. Indeed I agree that cutting up edits of editors on talk pages like you did with mine is at best considered extremely bad form, and probably illegal indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mean to cut up your edit like that. Here we have many different points of view, so please explain why the article presents just one of them? Or do you suggest I invite more people with my point of view to edit the article to get some balance. This would lead to edit wars, which again is illegal. I am trying to reach a diplomatic solution here. Adding a NPOV banner is such a little thing and even that has been strongly rejected by you guys... 14.2.56.81 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit continud) What strikes me in the discussions here is that the editors defending the Russian POV, casually collapse Asian (Malaysian), Eastern (Polish, Baltic, Ukranian) and those of many "western" countries into a single "western" POV; disregarding the number of different countries, and not even considering that there is truly free press exists in many of these countries, meaning that the press in many individual western countries maybe voicing opposing views even within a single country. These arguments would in my view lend more weight to reports in these presses (more countries, more diverse press for alsmost each individual country). But of course I will be accused of Russia bashing by stating this; as it is always easier to ridicule those you disagree with than reconsider your own assumptions. Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're just a hater. YOLO! -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that of all the different language Wikipedias I have looked at, the line of the Dutch Wikipedia is most like that of English Wikipedia, in almost completely ignoring the possibility that the rebels did not shoot down the plane. Could that be because after England, the Netherlands are the most enthusiastic ally of the US, of any Western European country? – Herzen (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, as the article notes, "the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch that read "Vergeef ons, Nederland" ("Forgive Us, Netherlands")." This indicates that there is a "more diverse press" (to use your phrase) in Russia than there is in the Netherlands. If you are able to provide an example from the mainstream Dutch press considering the possibility that the Ukrainian government shot MH17 down, please do so. – Herzen (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting that those arguing that other language Wikipedias give more credit to the Ukraine shot down MH17 theories ignore the Dutch language version that does not. This strongly suggests that the selection of Wiki's used as argument above may not be representative of all Wiki's indeed, but a handpicked collection with as only purpose to make a point. Arnoutf (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? What other Wikipedias write has absolutely zero influence on what we do here. Volunteer Marek  18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it has nor should have influence, mentioned cherry-picking is just one of the reasons why this is the case and why it should indeed be so. Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why what other Wikipedias do matters has been explained to you any number of times. Your IDONTHEAR has become very tiresome. But of course, IDONTHEAR is one of the essential tactics employed in order to OWN an article. – Herzen (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC) At the very least, please have the decency to stop making blanket assertions without making the least effort to back them up with some kind of argument. – Herzen (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we HEARD you alright. And we've explained to you why it doesn't matter and why you're wrong; simply put it would violate the policies of THIS Wikipedia. "I keep saying the same wrong thing over and over again and nobody's convinced" /= "they didn't hear me". Volunteer Marek  00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The above edit does not explain anything, and is a clear case of WP:POT. PS As arguments go. We should not use Wikipedia articles as sources per WP:RS. That logically also extends to other language wikipedias. Even if we look at other languages for inspiration, we should give a fair and balanced overview of what is happening there (ie at all other Wikipedias) and not just the few that do things you happen to like. The listed wikipedias are just one selection. Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for itself. Stickee (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not suggesting to use other Wikipedia articles as a source for this article. We are questioning why other theories have been mentioned in 4 other languages, but they cannot be mentioned here. Same event, same sources, same Wikipedia with the same editing rules. I am yet to see an explanation to this. Oh and please stop yelling and throwing out derogatory remarks - it is unprofessional and unnecessary. If you continue in this fashion we will ask senior management to ban your account. 14.2.34.249 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who this "we" is. Anyway, like pointed out above numerous times this is completely irrelevant and unimportant. And pleeeeeeaaaaassssseeeee go ask "senior management" to "ban your accounts". A bit of scrutiny on this talk page to put an end to these endless and tedious arguments (as well as probable socking and other forms of disruption) would be most welcome. Volunteer Marek  00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We is me, Herzen, HiLo and many others. I don't know where you got the idea of socking. If you think that I am Herzen then you are mistaken. Our writing styles are completely different. Once again you can't answer my questions or have a mature discussion so you start dropping false accusations and derogatory comments. I will not hesitate to contact senior management to ban YOUR account on violation of WP rules.14.2.34.249 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit of friendly advice: if you want to report someone, I suggest that you get a named Wikipedia account, instead of making contributions using an IP address. As I've observed before, I think that getting an account actually increases your privacy.

As for who "we" are: at least two editors who tried to get some NPOV into these articles dropped out after they were reported for administrative action, even though no permanent action was taken against them. One of those requests for administrative action was made by Volunteer Marek. – Herzen (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of final report

According to the secondary sources which I put into the introduction, the DSB said that the final report will be published "hopefully by the summer of 2015", and according to the government of Netherlands it "could be published in the summer of 2015". This has been globalized to "mid 2015", but this is misleading - mid 2015 would be June/July, but northern summer is from late July to late September, and the DSB and government statments look more like "not before summer 2015".

What about "in the third quarter of 2015" to fix this? --PM3 (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. To me, the word "by" in their statement kind of indicates that it will be before summer of 2015. Another possibility is to say "The Dutch Safety Board is now leading an investigation into the incident and a final report is expected within one year of the crash." (taken from the quote starting with "The Board aims to publish..." from [28]). But the "third quarter" also sounds okay. Stickee (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a small collection of quotes I found on the matter:

• "A final report by the board is not expected until mid 2015." Reuters, 9 Sept
• "The final ICAO report will likely be released in the second quarter of 2015." Aus Govt, 9 Sept
• "The final report will be published later, hopefully by the summer of 2015" DSB Spokesperson, 3 Sept
• "The Board aims to publish this report within one year of the date of the crash." DSB Spokesperson, 9 Sept

Overall they say the same thing, but the specifics are a little different. Stickee (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Australian, so I don't have a problem with the regionalism in the use of the word "summer" (can't we just assume that when European officials use the word "summer", they are talking about the northern hemisphere?), but I think that "mid 2015" is a vague term that can be stretched as far as April-September (the middle half of the year). By the way, when Stickee says "by" means "before", he is just wrong: OED defines "by" as "indicating the end of a time period". In this case, the time period is summer. – Herzen (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to put in my experience -- in the Netherlands we usually consider 1 July- 31 August summer. Schools end around July 1st and start around September 1st (universities always start in the week of September 1st). We do sometimes include June (but usually call that late spring) and September (but usually call that early fall) into summer. So your interpretation of late July - late September as summer may not be relevant everywhere. Arnoutf (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm that evil person who removed "summer of 2015". I'm Australian. Here, summer is December, January and February. So "summer of 2015", said in the voice of a global encyclopaedia, in an article of major interest to Australians, makes no sense. If the expression is to be included, it must be as a precise quotation from whoever said it, with full attribution and sourcing. It may even require a global translation to what it really means. If we can't do that because we can't agree on what "summer of 2015" means, then there is not much gained by including it at all as an indication of when the report is expected, is there? HiLo48 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course this is an indication of when the report is expected, and it's a valuable information for the readers. There is no doubt that they talked of northern hemisphere summer, because another statement said "within a year" - leaving open if this refered to 17 July 2014, 9 September 2014 or the date of the statement). Also there is no doubt that northern hemisphere summer starts in the middle of the year and lasts for a few month. If we can't agree on a handy description of this, I suggest to quote the sources

... is expected in "summer 2015"^[6][7]

and add a comment to the footnotes that this refers to nothern hemisphere summer, which begins in the middle of the year. --PM3 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If it needs clarification (and it will for many of the people likely to be interested in this article), that clarification needs to be with the text, not buried in footnotes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I might also draw attention to the second bullet point of MOS:SEASON. Stickee (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we believe the statement made by the Dutch Safety Board that it "expects to publish the final report within a year of the crash" [29]? Was that the last official statement or has it been superseded? If it hasn't we just have to wait until 17 July 2015? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, Wikipdia has no deadline. HiLo48 (talk)

That's no official statement. The WSJ does not say how it came to the assesment of "within a year of the crash on July 17", this may be based on an older DSB statement or on some third source. I think that this Dutch government statment of 20 September, which is already referenced in the article, is much more official an up to date. --PM3 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources beside WSJ, of course. One would expect an official estimate to get progressively more accurate and nearer. So what is the latest "official statement"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, am skeptical. The Dutch P.M. just said that the investigation is unlikely to resume before winter (in Dutch). This is for purely political reasons: "Rutte said that he had sought no contact with the separatists. 'The Netherlands do not recognize the separatists. Contact with the Netherlands would have brought us into an impossible relationship with Ukraine and Russia. We are a NATO country, it is inconceivable that we had sought contact.'" So because the Netherlands are a NATO country, they hamper the investigation into who murdered almost 200 of their citizens. (This is odd, by the way, since the Ukraine itself is in contact with the separatists, since it reached an accord with them in Minsk.)

Would anyone mind if I added something like "The Dutch P.M. said that the investigation is unlikely to resume before winter [another season!], because the Netherlands, being a NATO country, will not enter into contact with the separatists"? – Herzen (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• They tried to resume the on-site investigation during this month, and as to the Malaysian PM gave up twice because "shooting warnings were issued by unidentified parties". Malaysia has a pretty neutral position in the Ukaine conflict, therefore I think this statement ist trustworthy. You won't tell now that the NATO has troops at the crash site that threaten to shoot the investigators, will you?
• The final report may be completed without futher on-site investigation. The have also much off-site investigation work to do, see the DSB report on page 32.
• The last official statement I know of is the one of the Dutch foregin minister of 20 September that I already mentioned three times, here is the fourth: [30]
• I don't expect the date to become more accurate before mid 2015.

--PM3 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Malaysians are still saying that they intend to do further on-site investigation: “The focus is on entering the crash site to recover remains that are possibly still there and personal belongings of the victims. We would also be gathering evidence which shows any possible criminal act on the aircraft.”

I am not claiming that NATO has troops at the crash site, but Kiev is claiming that the rebels laid landmines to impede the investigation, thus impeding the investigation with that claim. The article you linked to states:

On Thursday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak met Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk at the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, but even Yatsenyuk remained non-committal on when investigators could re-enter eastern Ukraine before winter.

I am unaware of the Kiev regime ever honoring a promise that it has made. – Herzen (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The article that I linked starts with "Malaysia has expressed disappointment in Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels in the eastern city of Donetsk for not fulfilling their promise ...". Now please stop spamming each section in this talk page with offtopic and skewed information. This won't help at all in finding the right words for "summer 2015". --PM3 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Going back on topic. Mid 2015 seems ok to me. In my view mid can be vague enough to cover April-September as mentioned above, and creates no summer or winter differences in the hemispheres. Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's misleading, as the sources indicate that the report will not be published before July. Why not "third quarter of 2015"? That would fit the sources and be more precise. --PM3 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm there is some thing to that. However, 3rd quarter is more precise than summer which can be stretched from end of may till end of September, while 3rd quarter is July-August-Sept. So I am not sure that does not overinterpret. But a phrase like "by summer" can be construed as by (or even before -- cf. the assignment is to be finished by 2 june at the latest) the first day of summer (which may again be as early as 1 June) or before the end of summer (which may be as late as 30 Sept).

Perhaps phrase more like: It will take to well into 2015 before the final report is to be published or something like that. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, because the quotes Stickee got from the sources say the same thing, but specifies different variations on the date of the anticipated report. So I would recommend what you said because it's more time neutral. Sam.gov (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My favourite is still "third quarter", but "well into 2015" looks ok, too (after consulting the dictionary – as non-native speaker, I was not sure what exactly it means). --PM3 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What Malaysia didn't say

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

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

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

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