Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

SU-25 Specs Changed

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201407211855-0023944

I suppose I'm adding jetfuel to the fire.

I know that we all talked about how government employees or IP addresses should be flagged, I know we did. Allen750 (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has changed drastically since I posted it. My first link (to a Tweet, found out that Twitter's IPs are "eternally banned") was a picture of the SU-25's edit history on Wikipedia and how the specs were changed. Sorry for the mixup. Allen750 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in that article about the SU-25, and yes, we all know that Russian govt employees have edited pages, Jimbo even tweeted about it. Nothing new. Ansh666 03:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing? Look closely at the last paragraph under "Causes". Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the page linked by Allen above (which renders the section header irrelevant). I know the allegations regarding the Ukrainian SU-25 following MH17. Ansh666 07:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Another issue with Su-25 "specs"

Sorry to threadjack, if thats what i am doing here, but I have had to change several mentions throughout the article, of the su-25 being a "fighter." In another section it is referred to (correctly) as a close-air-support aircraft... the term i used in my edits, was "ground-attack aircraft," because that is more general and more approachable to a non-military audience. Either way, it is not a fighter, in the sense of: an aircraft designed for air-to-air combat. The wp page for Su-25 quite clearly backs this up, as does common wisdom. There is a small case to be made, that ALL one/two seat aircraft of a certain configuration are colloquially considered "fighters," as opposed to say, cargo planes or airliners... however in the larger (and more accurate) sense of there being numerous acknowledged types of small military jets (ie: fighters, fighter-bombers, trainers, close air support, attack aircraft, wild weasel, etc)... I think we need to avoid the use of a very general and perhaps misleading term (fighter), for aircraft that don't operate in that role. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree we should be consistent. Personally I would not object to the colloquial use to lump your list of small military planes under the supercategory fighter as that will bring a more immediate idea to the mind of many readers than the technically more correct terms close-air-support or attack aircraft. But no strong preference. Arnoutf (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

i think one of the issues being, it will bring both a more immediate and more wrong idea to the mind of readers. Considering one of the essential facts under debate in this situation, is the method of attack upon mh17... i will redouble my desire for clarity. I think either the most generic term, like "military aircraft" could be used, or the more specific ones... but misidentifying the type doesn't really do any service even to the uninitiated reader 72.35.149.153 (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't notice that it was called a "fighter", which is incorrect - true, it is capable of carrying air-air missiles, but like the A-10 Warthog, they're intended for self-defense. I think "ground-attack aircraft" makes the most sense here too. Ansh666 09:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP Lead

As of Sunday night, the lead section of this article is highly POV toward the Urkainian/American side of the controversy, without mentioning the Russian side at all. Since no objective on-site investigation and review has yet assigned blame I propose to re-write the LEAD as follows in order to satisfy WP:Lead and WP:NPOV. I am not a troll, or a Kremlin agent, in fact I'm an American citizen. I just want the article to be balanced and not take one side, which is completely in line with the Wikipedia editorial policies cited above. Here is my rewrite of the third paragraph which I plan to post unless heavily objected to:

A Ukrainian Interior Ministry official, Anton Gerashchenko, said a Buk missile hit the aircraft at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft).[11] All forces in the theater use similar Russian-made equipment, leading to confusion over which faction actually fired the deadly shot. Both Ukraine and Russia have accused the other of responsibility for firing the missile that is believed to have downed the aircraft. The United States has backed Ukraine's accusations by claiming to have "credible evidence" that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk; while Russia has claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time.

Cadwallader (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the code for the section that I replaced. I think the details of the accusations and counter-accusations are better included further down in the article.Cadwallader (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A Ukrainian Interior Ministry official, Anton Gerashchenko, said a Buk missile hit the aircraft at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft).[1] On 19 July, Vitaly Nayda, the chief of the Counter Intelligence Department of the SBU, told a news conference: "We have compelling evidence that this terrorist act was committed with the help of the Russian Federation. We know clearly that the crew of this system were Russian citizens."[2][3][4][5] He cited intercepted conversations in which separatists allegedly express satisfaction to Russian intelligence agents that they brought down an airplane.[6] The separatists denied the recorded talks were related to the crash of MH17.[7] U.S. President Barack Obama, citing U.S. intelligence officials, said the plane was shot down by a missile and that there was "credible evidence" it was fired from a location held by pro-Russian rebels.[8][9][10]

• No, you can not make huge unilateral changes like that without discussion and WP:Consensus. I reverted this per WP:BRD. Please explain why exactly this is POV, and let's wait what other contributors have to tell about this. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It was not a "huge unilateral" change. Reasons given above as to why it was NPOV. Nothing in my revised paragraph is controversial - both sides have accused the other, and both sides have claimed to have evidence implicating the other side. Please see WP:Lead for guidance on the level of detail appropriate in the lead section of an article. As I stated above, your detailed citations were preserved to be inserted lower down in the article where they are more appropriate. I will give it until morning. Unless you bring in a pile of other editors who think my edit is somehow evil, I'm doing it come daybreak. Cadwallader (talk)

By the way, shouldn't you be following WP:BPD? My revision of the paragraph was done in good faith. If you had followed BPD you would have discussed it here prior to reverting. Instead you just reverted it, and now claim BPD for yourself. Cadwallader (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• By making this edit you: (a) started WP:Edit war and (b) removed a lot of referenced and relevant materials. The references and info you removed does not belong to any "side" (Russian or Ukrainian). It belongs to reliable sources per policy. But whatever. I also made links to relevant policies on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cad, your proposed rewrite was real bad. Unsourced editorializing, POV-pushing. And BRD is but a gentle suggestion to others that becomes meaningless when policy doesn't allow (much less support) your edits. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How exactly was my edit "editorializing or POV-pushing"??? It is above. Please point out exactly which sentence or phrase is editorializing. Futhermore, I said in the original edit that the material was not REMOVED, it was PRESERVED to be inserted lower down in the article. Don't accuse me of an edit war. You started it. Cadwallader (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Working on getting this to where "consensus" can agree it is a good 3rd paragraph summary of the situation. If you don't like it, then improve it, please:

All forces in the theater use similar Russian-made equipment, leading to confusion over which faction actually fired the deadly shot. Both Ukraine and Russia have accused the other of responsibility for firing the missile that is believed to have downed the aircraft. The United States has backed Ukraine's accusations by claiming to have "credible evidence" that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk; while Russia has claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. No independent investigation with access to the crash site has yet released a finding of responsibility.

Sorry, what are you proposing, exactly? That text is inappropriate from top to bottom and I'm not touching it. At best, the various implausible claims by the separatists deserve a few summary words in the lead. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• If you wish to achieve consensus, please self-revert and follow WP:BRD. Since your changes are objected, please wait at least 24 hours to allow responses by others.My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Support, at least in terms of spirit the changes made to the lead by Cad. I do remember a few days ago the accusations by the Russians / separatists were not mentioned in the lead, that violates NPOV and doesn't tell the whole story either. The Russian / separatist response should be mentioned even if the Ukranian version of events turns out to be true. If you read the BBC's report on 'what we know', you'll see that it provides two POVs as well. starship.paint ~ regal 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Using similar equipment is irrelevant if the equipment is not identical and the small differences in the model of missile have implications for who may have fired it. So either "similar equipment" should be removed as irrelevant or a cite given for why the equipment is identical to the point of not being possible to differentiate. Where, exactly, did Russia accuse Ukraine of firing the missile in so many words? They say there was a Ukrainian missile system in the area. So? That's an insinuation, not a claim that Ukraine fired the missile. Where is the assurance that if it were proven the Ukrainians did not fire, the Russians would not say "well we never said they did fire. We just said they were in a position to do so"? It is also not true that the U.S. has backed all of Ukraine's accusations. What the U.S. has backed up is quite specific, and should be enumerated.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Good points, Brian. However, we need a paragraph or two that summarize the situation and the positions. You can't bury the reader in details in the Lead. My point was never to remove the information but to put it further down in the detailed part of the article. Cadwallader (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Taking your feedback, here is the third try (will add refs after we get the wording agreed upon):

Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. However, they recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at 30,000 feet. Ukraine has accused Russia of providing the BUK missile launcher, crew and training to the separatists, and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire. Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible. The United States has claimed to have "credible evidence" that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk; while Russia has claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. All forces in the theater have the same BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. No independent investigation with access to the crash site has yet released a finding of responsibility.

For starters, like most of the world outside the US, they use metric measurements, and so would not have said "30,000 feet". HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please do not forget always sign your comments. Here is the problem with your versions. You place incredible claims by rebels and Russian state-controlled propaganda ("news") organizations on the same footing as claims by majority of WP:RS. According to majority view (and we are talking about majority of sources/publications), the missile was shot by rebels. Intro must reflect this.My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

When did Ukraine claim that they had a BUK taken from them? All that I am aware of is boasts from the rebel side that they'd captured them, boasts that could very well be a cover story for missiles actually obtained from Russia. If you are going to lay out the Russian claims, then you should also lay out the U.S. claims, namely,
- Last weekend Russia sent a convoy of military equipment with up to 150 vehicles including tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, and multiple rocket launchers to the separatists
- Russia is providing training on air defense systems
- the social media activity
- U.S. satellites detected a launch from a separatist controlled area
- Ukraine never fired a anti-air missile during the conflict
- "Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations between known separatist leaders, based on comparing the Ukraine-released internet audio to recordings of known separatists"
The evidence on both sides here is not equal, and presenting the matter as if it is equal is not consistent with the neutral point of view. "No independent investigation..." should not accordingly not be included because it misleads the reader to believe there is little evidence incriminating anyone to date.-Brian Dell (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not lead the reader to believe there is little evidence. It just cited evidence from Ukraine and the USA. Next revision follows: Cadwallader (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. However, they recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that elevation. Ukraine, however, has accused Russia of providing the BUK missile launcher and crew to the separatists, and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire. The United States has claimed to have "credible evidence" that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk. Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible, and claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. All forces in the theater have the same BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. No independent investigation with access to the crash site has yet released a finding of responsibility.

Brian, your commentary above confuses weighing the evidence with reporting on what the major parties are saying about each other. Ukraine and the USA have made credible accusations against Russian and the separatists and claim to have evidence to back it up. Russia has responded with counterclaims, that are, admittedly weaker. No independent investigative team has made a ruling. This is a classic public controversy case where you have claim, counterclaim, and wait for ruling from the court. To be NPOV you have to report what both sides are saying about it, even if it is obvious that one side is lying. Cadwallader (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is basically a murder trial at the international level. In every murder trial, the reporters say prosecutors allege that Bob killed Alice. Bob's attorney says he didn't. The case will be heard by a court on X date. In our reporting, prior to a public finding of responsibility, we should follow the same template. Ukraine + USA says X. Separatists say Y. Russia says Z. Investigators are on the ground collecting evidence now... Cadwallader (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

And you are rigging it by declining to have the article reflect the fact that X is vastly larger than Z. Your revision does not include the X points I pointed out above with dashes. Instead you've got "credible evidence" in scare quotes like the reader should consider it a joke. How about replacing that with the last dash point? This is not, in fact, a court case. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say as opposed to playing judge and jury. Our job is to assess how reliable the various sources are and on that point there are credibility problems on one side in particular that should be pointed out to the reader. By the way, where is the citation indicating that there cannot be any BUK M2 systems in the area?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is true to a point, but considering that pretty much every reliable source (including some of the independent Russian media) is treating the Russian claims about this as being particularly fanciful, this should be reflected in our weighting; to do otherwise would be a massively deliberate reinterpretation of mainstream sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I also object to these proposed changes. In fact the lede was the one part of the article that was actually pretty good before full protection was placed on the article. Hence it's probably the *last* part that needs to be changed, except for updating with new information. What you are calling "pro-Ukrainian/American" side (first, the "Ukrainian side" and the "American side" are not the same thing, despite the nonsense that Kremlin propaganda spouts out) is really just the reflection of what reliable sources have said about this topic. As they say, sometimes reality has a "pro-Ukrainian" bias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite interesting that none of you are offering a compromise way to summarize the article and fairly represent both sides. It's just no, no, no. I continue to work on a compromise. Brian your five points are good, but too much detail to go into the LEAD summary as per WP:Lead. As I have said all along, that info belongs further down in the article. The line with "credible evidence" was a direct quote from the New York Post article cited, but I've removed the quotes to make you happy. 5th revision:

Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. They later recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude. Ukraine, however, has provided video evidence they say shows Russia provided the BUK missile launcher and crew to the separatists, and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire. The United States has claimed to have credible evidence that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk. Prime Minister Najib Razak said that Malaysia was unable to verify the cause and demanded that the perpetrators be punished. Australian President Tony Abbot said the aircraft was downed in a deliberate criminal act by Russian-backed separatists, while Britain has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. In response, Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible, and claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. All forces in the theater have the same BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. The UN security council is considering a draft resolution to condemn the "shooting down" of a Malaysian passenger plane in Ukraine, demand access to the crash site and call on states in the region to co-operate with an international investigation. Cadwallader (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The above paragraph has been created in response to criticism from other editors, incorporating their concerns in an effort to create an NPOV summary of the situation for the Lead, that tells both sides, but reflects the weight of the majority position, and also follows the WP policy on biographies of living persons. I have asked for feedback from other editors, and suggested edits, and done the best I can with what feedback was provided to satisfy the concerns of all. However, no-one has suggested alternate wording. Given that the situation is rapidly unfolding and changing, and I've been soliciting feedback on this for the past 14 hours, I propose updating the Lead this afternoon in order to keep the article up to date (UTC).Cadwallader (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If we must talk "sides" - how are the real underdogs here; the Malaysian, Dutch and Australian sides represented? These countries lost most people and in the case of Malaysia will probably see their national airliner go into bankruptcy (unless of course one of your sides coughs up enough money to compensate for the lost plane, compensation to victims, costs made in investigation and loss of reputation - that would add up to well over 100 million dollars).

Two things about your suggestion. It is too high up in the list of topics to attract relevant comments and you have been fiercely defending it only marginally incorporating comments of others, so you cannot interpret lack of written comments as a sign of agreement, only as a sign of people not seen, or given up on it. Also the second line of your proposal uses the word "however", there is, however, no contradiction with the first line, making for irrelevant use of the word) Arnoutf (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for input Arnoutf. Have incorporated your suggested changes, except for the Dutch. If you can find a good official comment from the Netherlands regarding the responsibility for the crash, will include it.

The only thing that I have defended not changing is the formula of "X,Y and Z say Russia caused it. Russia response with counter-theory. UN is putting together a probe to determine what happened." Cadwallader (talk)

Revision 6: Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. They later recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude. Ukraine, however, has provided video evidence they say shows Russia provided the BUK missile launcher and crew to the separatists, and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire. The United States has claimed to have credible evidence that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk. While the Dutch have been primarily concerned with treatment of the bodies and access to the crash site, Malaysia's Prime Minister said they were unable to verify the cause and demanded that the perpetrators be punished. Australian PM Tony Abbot said the aircraft was downed in a deliberate criminal act by Russian-backed separatists, while Britain has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. In response, Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible, and claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. China's state-owned Xinhua news agency described the reaction by Australia and the US as "rash", and warned Western nations against rushing to implicate Russia, while saying the top priority now is to co-operate to find out the culprits. All forces in the theater have access to BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. The UN security council is considering a draft resolution to condemn the "shooting down" of a Malaysian passenger plane in Ukraine, demand access to the crash site and call on states in the region to co-operate with an international investigation. Cadwallader (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Stickee just unilaterally changed the lead deleting most of the information discussed here, while adding new information that was not discussed here at all. If he had reverted it back to how it was before - that would be one thing. But he didn't. He reverted one line, and basically composed a new lead, unilaterally with no feedback or input. I've been making an effort here to create an NPOV lead that takes into account the feedback of other editors, however critical they may have been. Cadwallader (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am officially opening a Request for Comment on this revised LEAD as posted below. I have attempted to create a well-rounded NPOV summary of the situation that covers the positions of all the parties with a major stake in the disaster. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENT ON HOW TO IMPROVE IT, rather than just being vaguely critical. Thank you. Cadwallader (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Cadwallader: "If he had reverted it back to how it was before - that would be one thing. But he didn't." Incorrect. My reversion here reverted to diff 617818274, which was in place before your new lead. Compare the 2 versions here. As you can see there are no changes in the lead; only changes by other editors to the rest of the article in the few hours in between. Stickee (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Shortly after the crash, Donbass separatists took credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. They later recanted and denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been downed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude. Ukraine, however, has provided video evidence they say shows Russia provided the BUK missile launcher and crew to the separatists, and claims to have intercepted phone calls in which a separatist officer authorized the decision for the Russian crew to fire. The United States has claimed to have credible evidence that the missile was fired from a separatist position near Donetsk. While the Dutch have been primarily concerned with treatment of the bodies and access to the crash site, Malaysia's Prime Minister said they were unable to verify the cause and demanded that the perpetrators be punished. Australian PM Tony Abbot said the aircraft was downed in a deliberate criminal act by Russian-backed separatists, while Britain has called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. In response, Russia denied involvement and suggested that Ukraine’s military might have been responsible, and claimed to have evidence that a Ukrainian BUK AA battery was operating near Donetsk at the time. China's state-owned Xinhua news agency described the reaction by Australia and the US as "rash", and warned Western nations against rushing to implicate Russia, while saying the top priority now is to co-operate to find out the culprits. All forces in the theater have access to BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot. The UN security council is considering a draft resolution to condemn the "shooting down" of a Malaysian passenger plane in Ukraine, demand access to the crash site and call on states in the region to co-operate with an international investigation.

• No, this version is terrible. It describes bickering by various "sides". The introduction must briefly summarize content of the page. But the current version of introduction is also highly problematic. It tells: The two sides in Ukraine ongoing civil conflict (the Ukrainian government and the pro-Russian separatists) accused each other of shooting down the plane with a missile. No. The Ukrainian government, USA, some EU countries and multiple published sources accused Russian government of providing the missiles, funding and military personnel to hit the plane. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

References

• You are trying to change too much text at once (and Arnoutf makes some good points as well.) My suggestion would be to make any non-controversial improvements, then propose other changes separately. For example, just adding something like "All forces in the theater have access to BUK M1 missiles, which may make it difficult to prove which faction fired the deadly shot." The source says nothing like the second part: this is original research. Your ref [1] actually says: "As international investigators get to work, the question of blame will hopefully soon be answered." So you're synthesizing the opposite of what the ref says, actually. (And there are other issues I don't have time to comment in bulk on, thus my first suggestion.) 9kat (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the lead gives undue WP:WEIGHT to various WP:FRINGE theories being promoted by Russia to distract attention from the very embarrassing fact that rebels it armed and trained just blew a planeload of EU civilians out of the sky. Conspicuous by its absence from the introduction are the images reported by US and Ukraine of a Buk SA-11 launcher with one missile gone heading east across the Russian border after this terror, as well as the intercepted telephone messages in which rebels claim to have shot down a Ukrainian aircraft. The intro is one-sided to Putin's version of events, which is supported by no one outside Russia itself. Given the publicity that has been drawn to this article by recent newspaper coverage of Russian government edits to Wikipedia, we cannot afford to violate WP:NEUTRAL in this manner because using this article as a WP:SOAPBOX for Moscow's propaganda draws the public credibility of the entire project into question. If we get light bulb joke wrong, nobody cares, but this article needs to be up front about the Russian-armed rebels. K7L (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You should first start with scaling down your pro-Ukrainian propaganda. Using words like "terror" is clear propaganda considering that there are no credible claims that a civilian jet was deliberately targeted. The Western point of view (which I tend to believe at the moment) boils down to that this was an accident, and that the plane was mistaken for an Ukrainian military plane. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Passengers and crew

Please, where is cited that were seven passengers from Netherlands with dual nationality? The list of Malyasia Airlines (19 July) cites only one with American citizenship.
Thanks, PauloMSimoes (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The article in russian wikipeida

• Comment on this section: I hold it that this whole section is only an EXCUSE for heavy censoring on this Wikipedia article, which does not even allow a russian intelligence source to be added, which add important pieces of information to how this whole drama unfolded..... It is not about adding a "different version" (as to my knowledge, russia does not have a "different version" towards this attack, it only blames the Kiev fascists for the war going on in Ukrain and therefore also blames this whole incident "which would not have happened if there was peace in Ukrain" (Putin) on Kiev. Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Guys, just for information: you dont even imagine what is going on in the same article in Russia wikipedia. It is just absolutely closed article (no one can edit it exept administrators), and only 2 of administrators (with very pro-Putin viewpoints) editing it. Its just terrible, all neutral information deleted. If Jimmy Wales would know about that. Typical informational war. I guess it must be written here about it. 46.71.6.46 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this one was fully protected until a short while ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a pro-Putin viewpoint, though. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ough! Here we go again! Those bad russians again! If I look at this Wikipedia article, it has itself also some closed mindedness (in some respect at least).... Only western intelligence information is referred to, leaving out russian inteligence (which leaves out important clues on how this tragedy could have unfolded....) Robheus (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Robheus, you fundamentally misunderstand what's going on here, which is why I deleted that mile-long rant of yours in the first place. "Only western intelligence information is referred to" is nonsense: it is simply not true. "Russian intelligence" is not left out either. What you seem to object to is that Russian sources aren't cited as much as you'd like--we don't cite "intelligence", we cite reliable sources. Well, here are some indications of what Russian "media" have to offer, so sorry if we take them with a grain of salt. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(not as much as I like) make that (no reference to russian intelligence sources AT ALL), only the Kiev fascist regime can put their 'credible' intelligence information in AND the american 'credible' intelligence information (remember Tonkin? Iraq WMD? Al Ghoula chemical attack) -- you know what I mean.Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Gee that is all OR and synthesis and some other WP newspeak. What we need is more Stalin newspeak. Juan Riley (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(JuanRiley) It was Orwelian newspeak isn't it? Big Brother Obama hears what you say... (NSA) Robheus (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Could we see some examples of sourced Russian intelligence being left out? Geogene (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Robheus, I guess you dont even see what is russian informational war. Come to Russia and see it: 24 hours per day only the same thing - pro-Russian separatist did NOt do it, it s all Ukrainian government. And unfortunatell, same in russian Wikipedia. 46.71.6.46 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• I know what information war is - I am old enough to have witnessed the cold war! This is just a different version of it. Robheus (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think its true that 'we don't even imagine what is going on in the same article in Russian Wikipedia ' - we can imagine what corruption and lies Russian fascism is capable of games putin plays - Sayerslle (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey I just saw Russian Wikipedia on CNN, this is a propaganda war. Seeing that this is making news and isn't likely to go away maybe we should make another article covering the media war? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why one can't add a section to Media portrayal of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article. RGloucester — ☎ 02:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh, what does Jimbo Wales have to do with perfectly respective of guidelines editing of an article that any good sir or madam can come and stick their stuff in there? Look at their article and look at ours. THREE times I was removing NATO reporting name of the Buk missile from there (NO, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT FOR GOD'S SAKE!), and THREE times I removed pictures of Obama and such from the Reactions section. Tomorrow morning, betcha anything they'll be there again... Just... What's the point... Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:COOL please, you don't have to place things in caps to get your point across. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass: Are you the one who was removing images when there was still plenty of room? Dustin (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Change:

''[[Snizhne]], a town in Donetsk Oblast that is approximately {{convert|16|km|m}} southeast of the crash site.''

to:

''[[Snizhne]], a town in Donetsk Oblast that is approximately {{convert|16|km|mi}} southeast of the crash site.''

Converting this to metres makes no sense and is clearly a propaganda attempt to make the distance look to be really far (oh, it's SIXTEEN THOUSAND away!!!) when really this is just ten miles. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:74F (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, I think that was just a typo to be fair. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Russia raises 10 more questions

An RT report has come out yesterday which raises 10 more question concerning the downing of MH17. The report can be read here. It also debunks some of the material put out by the Kiev govt. (a video that supposedly shows a BUK carrier on it's way to russia after the incident), while photographic evidence show that the video shot was taken somewhere else. Could a reference to this interesting news report be made in the section: causes in which intelligence reports of both sides are listed? (Something like an addition: Russia asks 10 more questions, and then a link to the footnote that links to the newsreport) Thanks. Robheus (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

maybe time for Russian answers robheus - the wp article isn't meant to be an adjunct to RT misinformation services you know - (have they 'debunked' all the BUK stories, or just selected ones) - apparently the U.S have located where the missile was launched from - [2] - have Russia debunked all the sightings of BUK missiles on the day? I doubt it. Brown Moses has also 'debunked' the red herring BUK carrier and 'it appears there’s a growing consensus of where the aircraft was hit, the front port side,' [3] Sayerslle (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle - I am NOT a supporter of the current American president, but racist remarks on the TP are strictly forbidden and I adjusted your post.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@HammerFilm Fan - I have no idea what racist remarks you are alluding to - lost in translation must be. Brown moses is the nom de plume of Eliot Higgins Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC) @Sayerslle - my apologies - that moniker is often applied to the current American president - I jumped the gun there. I promise to eat a live cockroach in repentence. But I have been known to lie. :-) Sorry.HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Answers to what questions? If some entity asks questions russia should answer, the news article that makes such a statement can be presented as well. And I don't answer your questions. These questions are adressed to the accusing party and might be considerd in an overall objective investigation. One of the questions is the release of satelite data from the US satelite. Is that information released yet? And the communication between Kiev and the airplane? And your whole contribution is just bias contra RT information. The RT newsrelease only reports findings the russian defense ministry has and the questions they raise. That is some neutral news.

One can try at least to be neutral towards that information, like similar press releases from other entitities are also presented here (while some/many have severe doubts about those findings as well, for example fro the Ukrainian side). Why should the information from the Kiev regime or the US (which we know have mislead the world in similar circumstances - Iraq remember?) be given more trust then Russian information? Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth in this matter, that should be the task of an international investigation team. Stop being biased. Robheus (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I want non biased articles robheus. a few lines to the Russian regime version, fine. rushing to add every last 'question' RT has for whomever- that's too much imo. Sayerslle (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Netherlands has been raising only one question to Putin: Why do you promise to do everything in your power to ensure international experts to access the crash (where 193 Dutch national died) but show no observable action in actually ensuring this. No answer has been forthcoming from Russia on that single question. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

here is an article looks at the ten questions [4] Sayerslle (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Countries included in the Reactions - Countries section

As start - apologies i'm not good at linking to things. I'm still a bit new and don't have all the shortcuts figured out.

In the : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Countries section, I reverted the following edit: 02:58, 21 July 2014‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ . . (88,707 bytes) (-2,689)‎ . . (→‎Countries: trim predictable responses from uninvolved countries) don't see it being helpful to curb the countries included in the 'response' section. If people have problems with the substance of what's included in the 'response' write-up for a specific country, then i think that's fine.

But I don't think it's reasonable, in the context of this site, to draw a black line on what countries should be included in that section....and if there is a 'blackline' re the inclusion/exclusion of certain countries - that should be clarified in the heading. Otherwise - it's the content of the information that should be reviewed - not the inclusion of any specific country.

Again - sorry if my inclusion on this page isn't totally clean (feel free to leave me a msg giving me tips on how to write better). I hope I expressed my opinion enough that people get what I mean.

• There has already been discussion on this, earlier on this page ("Reactions"). We don't need to clarify in any heading: we need to make a judicious judgment as editors. What you're suggesting is that basically every response by every single entity should be allowed; in my edit summaries I have indicated why certain responses could be deemed relevant. As for content: all those responses say "it's a tragedy and we should do everything to help solve the situation". So I'm going to revert this edit, since clearly South Africa, India, and Switzerland have nothing to do in any material or political sense with the aftermath of the tragedy. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. Then the heading should be changed. I don't understand your reference to 'every single entity' - the topic line specifies 'countries'. If the subject doesn't include responses to all countries (subject to appropriate edits) then the subject line should be changed. Given the topic heading, it's not appropriate for you to exclude things as you have. If you don't think the content of the 'countries' qualifies, that's one thing - but it's not appropriate for you to unilaterally delete response from countries.

On this basis, I've reverted your edit.

This discussion should be elevated. My position is as follows

1. The topic/subtopic is "Reactions - 'countries'" 2. There is no clarification re what 'countries' qualify as being included in the heading 3. There are concerns about 'reactions' being posted for various 'countries' that editors don't perceive as being germane to the topic 4. The response to this is by deleting the 'country' response as though it was never added 5. ^^ is not appropriate.

You need to sign your posts. You can do that by typing four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ (no spaces) or in the alternative you can simply click on the signature icon in the editing area and it will be automatically generated for you. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of this section is really boring and not saying anything really, I would list only responses that are either saying something different than "how sad we are that this has happened" or from countries deeply involved ie The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't like these "Reactions" sections as a rule, as they're not very encyclopedic. But if we're gonna have such a section then it makes sense to stick just to the countries directly involved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I 100% agree with the problems with these sections and all else being said. But I still don't agree with the i idea that the section is being presented as 'countries' if people think that there are countries who should be curbed out (subject to the content of 'country' comment being inconsistent with what's appropriate on wikipedia).

For those of you who feel that the section should represent the countries directly involved - then why not change the heading from 'countries' to 'countries direction involved'?

Going back to my original problem - it's not that i'm so insistent that every country get must have a flag with a voice - my problem is if there are 'curbs' on the countries involved (such as 'they must be directly involved' then why would anyone shy away from that clarification?)

we should go one way or the other. if people's opinions are that the only countries that should be included are those who are directly involved, i'm willing to get behind that - so long as the subject heading makes clear those are the countries being included. if your own opinion is that only the countries directly involved warrant inclusion - why would you have a problem with that being specified in the subject heading?

if you want to leave the subject heading as 'countries' - then i think people have to be more open minded re country involvement (subject to the content being in line with wiki standards).

...my point remains - either clarify the heading to make clear inclusion or leave as is and accept the widened net.

I have to agree with VM. Public commiserations are going to be pouring in, the majority keeping a careful political distance from stating that those who are responsible are really naughty and ought to be punished. Does this mean it is in any way constructive to end up with 100+ 'official' expressions of sadness at how awful this was? Keep it down to countries directly involved, or where the country is taking a definitive position with real world political ramifications. If readers are interested to know what countries are taking some form of action or absolute position, they shouldn't need to scroll through a couple of megabytes of flag icons and unremarkable responses. Ergo, this should be interpreted as supporting the idea of redacting the content there and providing an apt subsection title accommodating exclusion of non-significant reactions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If 'countries' responding carries with it a minimizing factor, why not clarify that up front?

I, personally, don't have a theoretical problem with 'minimizing'/'editing' whatsoever - and in fact agree it might be necessary - just as long as the subheading doesn't cause any confusion.

That's my big issue - it's not the editing, it's the subtitle. i just don't like the subtitle with the editing going on. i can deal with the editing as long as it's a better subtitle

• I also agree that some of the memorial quotes need to go. At this point, I think the only ones that should remain are those directly involved and like IH suggested the ones who are "taking a definitive position with real world ramifications". I don't care about the subsection title one way or the other, it looks fine to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In thinking on it, I'd agree that there's no problem with the title as it stands. I'd prefer to credit the readers with having enough intelligence to work out for themselves that absolutely every public 'reaction' is not going to be listed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetised again.... Really?

This whole section turns out to be a nightmare. Everybody wants their country in. Some people want some kind of logical order (e.g. the countries that matter/were stricken hardest somewhere near the top of the list) while others think the alphabet is the best way to organize this (resulting in readers to have to dredge through response of Ireland - 1 dual nationality victim before finding Ukrainian, Malaysian or Dutch response). An alphabetizer has changed the order overnight without any more justification than saying it is now alphabetized (but no explanation why).

In my opinion we have more or less three options now. Either (1) we decide to throw the whole section out, or (2) limit the list to only a few (many fewer than 10) countries - and rigorously stick to that(!); or (3) we go the other way and construct a table with each and every country in the world with their response. We can even make that sortable on alphabet and number of casualties. The current in between compromise has been a POV fork from the start of the whole incident and we need to do something about that.

In case we go for deletion I have been starting to integrate some of the more relevant information into other sections (e.g. half mast in Netherlands and Malaysia to aftermath). This will help to clean up the section later on in any case. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I trimmed out Ireland and slimmed down some of the worst quoting. --John (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ireland was of course an example, the same would go for Romania, South Africa (each 1 dual nationality), Canada (1 casualty) and to a lesser extend Germany (4 casualties). The loss of these individuals is of course as appalling as all other losses; but I doubt whether readability is served with all those responses. Arnoutf (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it so interesting that none of you question the legitimacy of the United States being included - when they themselves only had '1 dual nationality'. Of course, it's not interesting at all - it's very keeping with the American mentality their views are paramount.

• Please sign your name. The US response is important since, for better or for worse, the US is a main player in geopolitics (duh). The same cannot be said for Ireland or South Africa--I had removed South Africa earlier, but someone stuck it back in. The UK, Romania, Germany--those are predictable reactions from countries that aren't directly involved. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• I didn't know how to sign my name before. Someone had to tell me. If someone else stuck South Africa back in, then maybe you should take the hint there are others who find it relevant and just leave well enough alone. Phil Kessel (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Covered by Daily Show

This article (specifically, certain edits to it) was mentioned on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on July 21, 2014. {{press}} doesn't seem well suited to TV coverage so I'll leave that to others. EEng (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(Glad to see you're not wasting your time watching TV programes about MH17, EEng. lol) But what did it say? Which edits did it mention? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

clip EEng (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"THIS VIDEO ONLY PLAYS IN THE UNITED STATES", haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Works for me and I'm on Jupiter. EEng (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In the news (Flight MH17’s Wikipedia page edited by Russian government)

Interesting read An IP address associated with Vladimir Putin’s office has made multiple edits to the Wikipedia page for the MH17 flight page

The edits were made to the Russian Wikipedia so not directly relevant here. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's already a paragraph in #Media coverage about this. Ansh666 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

UKraine's Response

It looks noticeably shorter than all the other responses. Additionally, that's a rather... small response pool. The rest of Asia has nothing to say... at all? I count only seven flags. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Reactions And two awfully short ones. Allen750 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If they are short, then it is likely because that was all they had to say. Several were removed because there was consensus that they were unnecessary. United States Man (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We're limiting responses to directly involved nations (Ukraine, where the plane crashed; Netherlands, where the plane took off, where most of the passengers held citizenship, and who will head the investigation; Malaysia, which the plane belonged to and where it was going; Australia, which has sent staff to help with the investigation; the UK, which called a UNSC meeting; Russia, who allegedly shot down or helped shoot down the plane; and the US, which is following its normal procedure of sticking its nose in things and providing intelligence, I guess). If more nations become involved, we can add them. Ansh666 03:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with MH370?

Do we need the hatnote "Not to be confused with Malaysia Airlines Flight 370"? I don't think someone is going to confuse the number 17 with 370. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you personally - because I know about these things, as do you (and many others). With that said, keep in mind that there are people not so knowledgeable. Bad (but true) example - after this flight when down I was outside and heard my neighbours talking - and one of them asked whether the flight that went down was the same one that disappeared a few months ago - as if MH370 had been flying around the planet the last 5 months and was suddenly shot down. The point being i totally agree with your 'starting point' mentally - but would say just leave well enough alone on the tag - b/c there are people out there who suffer from confusion (and there is no harm for leaving well enough alone imo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Kessel (talk • contribs)

• I agree with Lcmortensen and disagree with Phil Kessel for four reasons: (1) it is immediately clear from the first sentence ("...that crashed on 17 July 2014") that this is a different flight from that in March; (2) the lead already refers to MH 370 ("...after the 8 March disappearance of Flight 370 en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur"); (3) readers would need to be living under a rock not to be aware of the recent crash in order to assume that this article would be about a crash from four months ago; and (4) in general, "Not to be confused" hatnotes should only be used when a term is inherently ambiguous or confusing, not to cater to people who have no sense of current events. The hatnote should be removed. —sroc 💬 10:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the hatnote; I hope there are no objections. Randor1980 (talk | contributions) 11:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was far too short for you to reasonably argue that there was consensus. I disagree, but unless others are willing to respond as well, there is no gain in voicing my reasoning. Dustin (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in hearing your reasoning. I also agree with you that the discussion was too short. Phil Kessel (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Over 24 hours and still no reasoning. Consensus is derived from discussion based on reasoning, not !votes saying "I disagree". —sroc 💬 01:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...? Oh, to be honest, while I do disagree, I didn't care enough about this discussion and forgot about it. Dustin (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• No hatnote, per sroc and WP:NAMB. 9kat (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If I may kindly be allowed to add something to this discussion, there are people out there who adhere to a conspiracy theory regarding these two flights, saying that MH17 and MH370 were the same plane. Meşteşugarul - U 00:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous and irrelevant. The articles are clearly about different flights/planes/events (whether conspiracy theorists believe they are related or not) and even conspiracy theorists would not be "confused" into mistaking the articles based on their clear titles. —sroc 💬 01:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'd completely expect a typical American (idiot) to be confused between MH17 and MH370. They're both Malaysian (I wonder how many 'murrcans could point out that country on a map), they both have a 7, they both involve a plane crash (or presumed crash), etc. (Then again, if they watch CNN, they should know all about that stuff now.) Of course, that's why lead sections exist, so it shouldn't really be too much of an issue. Both mention the other at the end of their lead section. Ansh666 03:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've also removed the hatnote from MH370. Ansh666 03:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Reaction as a table?

Is there a reason the reaction section is tabulated? Seems to me it should be just a bulleted list. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Keiiri (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See the above discussion called "Flags again". United States Man (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Update requested to note d. Citizens by state and territory

The figures should be corrected according to: http://www.smh.com.au/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down-over-ukraine-near-russian-border-20140718-3c4nl.html#post_live_159787 [5]

Note d. should read: Victoria: 10 Queensland: 7 Western Australia: 7 New South Wales: 3 Northern Territory: 1 Rod9975 (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done + updated total to 28. Still no certainty as to dual-nationality citizens for Australia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but 'Australian Capital Territory' should also be changed to 'Northern Territory'. Rod9975 (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed WWGB (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The total should not have been changed to 28, the reported number is 27 + 1 dual-nationality citizens. Currently the total does not add up to 298. Rod9975 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Completed WWGB (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dishumane design of missile due to detonation outside aircraft

0n CNN, it was reported by Berkeley professor M. Steven Fish that the missile was designed to explode well before making physical contact with the jet, in order cause explosive decompression adding extra and unnecessary harm to occupants of the aircraft. This may be a violation of Geneva Convention requirements. (Only the last sentence was my opinion). This fact should be reported in article. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

most modern anti-aircraft missiles are designed to do that and there's a bunch of reasons why besides causing decompression, which isn't even big concern for combat aircraft, drones, or other missiles, which are some of the SA-11's main hypothetical targets. It reduces the risk of a missed shot, for example. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict, but the IP stated basically what I was going to say, and also that interceptor missiles like this are not against the GC. Stating how said missiles operate are not necessary for the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: Wiki article was edited by Russian government IP address to propagate propaganda

Al Jazeera reported this fact: [6]. The amount of false propaganda by Russia is truly far too high. This should be included in the article since it comes from a reputable source. Also, this is news about news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) Thanks. 04:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to get so breathless and excited ("Urgent"). The Russian government allegedly edited the Russian Wikipedia, not this one. WWGB (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not a good criteria, since the problem was reported on AJAM, an American news source. This is news about the news. Thanks. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And already reported in the article prior to your posting.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of Russians on this article. 208.54.86.247 (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's already a paragraph in this article about this, #Media coverage.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do people keep removing well-sourced and relevant material from the article?

Can anyone answer that question? Dustin (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What's relavent depends on perspective. There is too much pathos in this article as it stands. Wikipedia is not a memorial. RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to examples of that sort, what I mean is for example, I believe the reactions section regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization involved more than just "my condolences"-type information. That is just one example; there are numerous others. Dustin (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't remove the NATO response, but NATO isn't involved and doesn't want to be involved and according to Rutte shouldn't be involved, so there's three arguments for its removal. A counterquestion might be, why do people keep inserting irrelevant and/or poorly sourced material? Drmies (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• It might be argued that NATO was "involved" by being asked by the Netherlands to take control [7]? But that position has now changed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, M123: You are two of the smartest editors I know. Why are you wasting your time here? WP could reduce its total administrative, enforcement, and drama load by 15%, while sacrificing only 1/100 of 1% of its content, by simply refusing to open an article on a news event until, say at least 1 month has passed since it was last mentioned in the front-page headlines of the 10 most prominent English-language media outlets worldwide. EEng (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: I made that very suggestion at WP:VP/P. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha. How I wish we had that rule. I remember well various similar shit storms--Sandy Hook, the Boston bombings, Trayvon Martin... I'm glad I missed the previous Malaysia airline accident. But I'll do you one better, EEng (and thank you for the compliment): no more BLPs. Only dead people. Imagine what that would do! (Besides totally gut the project and lose a ton of valuable and helpful material.) Drmies (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of the dumbest. And least sincere, alas. Let's wait until they find EH370, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Acc. to US state dept. flight MH17 shot down by rebels, but no proof of direct link to russia

Several media reports have covered the findings of the US state dept. For instance in dutch state media (NOS) this article appeared. RT covers this with this media report. The Telegraph came out with this report. Huffington post published this article. Many other journals and media reported this. (please add) Robheus (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• In addition: as this report is massively covered by mass media around the world, please ADD it to the article as the official point of view of the US (at this moment). Robheus (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Russia and its versions/theories/media reports

I'd like to propose we leave everything the the Russian medias state alone. There is constant debate about whether or not it's propaganda, what is reliable and what isn't, etc. Look, if nobody trusts RT, then don't put up their references. Right now the Russian side of the story is very well covered, the reader knows that they consider there was an Ukrainian plane nearby seconds before the crash. That's it. Adding things up makes people constantly question that statement, and then the debate about whether or not this is true begins each and every time. Please, don't add more information until a non-Russian source confirms this, and don't create sections about the "Russian version", because that obviously serves to instigate the debate. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree here. This back and forth is helping nothing, especially with the lack of outside sources. United States Man (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What about information from the US government, or even worse the Ukrainian government, that has not been confirmed by outside sources? There is a lot of propaganda and lying happening from both sides. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you get that. There are plenty of outside sources. United States Man (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Example: US measurement and signature intelligence satellites of the Space-Based Infrared Systems Directorate and the Defence Support Progamme detected the infrared signature of the missile strike upon flight MH17. These satellites are also likely to have registered the heat signature of the launch of the missile, and the activation of the missile's radar system while in flight to the target (which emits a unique signal). Analysis of the launch plume and trajectory suggested the missile was fired from an area between Torez and Snizhne. How much of this section has been confirmed by outside sources? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were implying that nothing was covered by outside sources. If it isn't backed up, then dump it, no matter what country. United States Man (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

But, unless it is government or government-controlled, it needs to be kept. United States Man (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The information is government controlled. Independent media merely repeating government information do not make the information more credible. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• What needs to be done is a decent discussion on WP:RSN, for starters (I haven't checked their archives), with possibly a separate WP:RFC. We will find, no doubt, that RT for instance is reliable in some aspects but not in others, so a narrow question like "should they be trusted for information on topic X" would be most helpful. For now, this talk page is maybe not the place to do so--but as I'm typing this, I'm wondering. Maybe it is. But whatever we do, let's do it properly and quickly, so we can stop this constant back and forth yelling of "propaganda". Drmies (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I found a few archived discussions on RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_168#RT_news_and_Crimean_status_referendum.2C_2014 is maybe not so helpful; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140#Can_RT_be_.22banned.22_on_principle_from_a_particular_article this is interesting since it addresses a specific topic, and I think I agree with the last two commenters; and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_173#Russia_Today is a very recent and heated discussion, with a conclusion that's worth reading, if only because it has a conclusion I think is valid: "No consensus that RT is or is not reliable for general purposes. If someone has a specific claim RT is trying to make about a specific article, they are welcome to request a discussion again". Drmies (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is an adequate comparison, but I personally consider RT's role in this whole affair to be similar to CNN's role in MH370. Spout conspiracy theories, get ignored or ridiculed by mainstream (Western) media. Then again, CNN isn't funded by the Russian government. Ansh666 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I disagree. CNN was blatantly trying to tug at heartstrings, and they were doing an experiment on how low they could get Don Lemon to stoop in order to boost ratings. It was a disgusting spectacle, but if it was propaganda it was so only for the almighty dollar. RT's role is quite different here, IMO. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • In Europe publicly funded TV stations are normal, and they usually have higher quality reporting than private media. RT citing Russian government sources or CNN citing US government sources are equally (non)trustworthy. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • But the problem is when fringe theories are cited from government sources. Why would we have to repeat conspiracies? Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      The problem is RT just gets direct and clear instructions from the Kremlin. Whether you call it propaganda or not is not so much important. CNN may be horribly biased at times, but they never go to the White House for instructions.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      And Russian language sources for internal consumption (including all major TV stations) are typically outrageous. For instance, between March and May, when they were talking about Ukrainian Government they would either call it "Kiev Junta", or say "So called government which came to power after an illegal coup". Just all of them, at all programs.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      Look carefully for such language on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      Just like the complete Western media had the exact opposite view and considered the revolutionary side legitimate. Just all of them, at all programs. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution removed a president who had been elected in free and fair elections. Why is a EU-backed revolution against the president considered legitimate in the Western media, but a Russian-backed revolution to get separation from Ukraine is not? Or the other way round in Russian media? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

      The Western media are debating whether it was legitimate (and indeed often come to a conclusion it was - but not always). In Russian mainstream media, there is no debate whatsoever. Like now, the Ukrainian army deliberately shot down the plane. Period. Not up to debate.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Very well said, the case in a nutshell. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that debating serves nothing, as long as any reasonable proof is found, don't you? If the West wants to debate (what we're doing, basically), have it. Russians don't like debating over things for nothing, they don't have time for that. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and "in the Soviet Union they did not have sex". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the joke aside... Russians, as in most Russians, do not know how to debate over nothing, which is an entirely different animal. They certainly do have the time, but if they were to debate, they most probably will end up in a fight (as Russian and Ukrainian politicians do on TV). ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us, how you know anything about Russia and the Russians? I strongly doubt you are from there, because otherwise you wouldn't as blatantly insult the nation. The Western mentality of constant complaining, making public statements, speaking out and expressing oneself is just another way of living, it is NOT canon for the world. There are a lot of people in the West who are fond of opening their mouths once so often only to keep them open. When you take Russian media figures, however, remember that most of them derive from other than pure Russian lineage, nations where it is customary to make oneself loud (Southern people, Semites, etc.). This is how they were raised and this is how they act. Standard Dyadya Styopa doesn't debate, and doesn't care about society or patriotism whatsoever. He just goes to work, hates it, and wishes he would steal something to live better. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Your description above does not fit the specific connotation to the English noun debate. It better fits the broader English word argument, or perhaps even better the English word quarrel. With that in mind, I think Dyadya was never raised to "argue"; in which I totally agree. Lettonica (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See, that's exactly what I meant. People branding "non-mainstream" chain of reported events as "Russian version" and going to criticize it. Also, mainstream = Western? Whoa there! But anyway, just because this medium is backed by the Kremlin doesn't mean we should discuss the medium itself. Rather than that, the only question is whether or not RT is reliable or not. And frankly, I don't want that question being raised any so often. This is why I proposed we keep the "Russian side" short and clear, and based off sources that were confirmed by at least one outside media agency. Considering RT broadcasts in English, maybe there's a way to have another non-Russia affiliated news company reprise what RT says, and reference that in the article? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Secondary sources discussing Russian version of events: Wall Street Journal and CNN-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why it belongs there. Citing just RT would be insufficient, even in English. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Here is the question: should certain "news organizations" be treated as legitimate news, or they should be treated as a PSYOP organizations and operations. In fact, people who intentionally promote an outright disinformation, as described here, are no longer journalists. What they publish has very little to do with news. What they do is promoting confusion and hatred. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

exactly - and heres an article about RT pushing more false claims - this time about the location of a launcher - [8] Sayerslle (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Anonymous sources" -- request to replace last paragraph in section: Causes with official US state dept. point of view.

I argue that it is not good Wikipedia practice to use "anonymous" sources in the article. Look at the last (4th) paragraph in the section: Causes. Why must that (obviously) disinformation in the text? It adds nothing. Further, we now have an official state dept. account, covered by mass media, in which the US says: rebels did it, but not link to russia. I think the official statement of the US should go in there, and the last paragraph citing the anonymous source should go out. Robheus (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your English here, but it seems you want to reject the use of Reliably Sourced news material that reports an anonymous source's quote (the Press uses highly-placed such sources, usually) - that's utterly ridiculous, and there are very sound reasons why the news services do not "out" such people, as they are speaking off-the-record to make sure they are not penalized for such statements. Democracy (a free and open society) and all that jazz, you know.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Intelligence Chief states launcher truck with one less missile fled into Russia from Ukraine

Vitaly Nayda was interviewed by Kyung Lah on CNN. It was obvious that the missile was fired by a Russian vehicle. They have unadulterated photos of the truck before and after. The "after" photo shows the truck lacking one missile than it had before the shot-down. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, he stated that only Russian officers (i.e. Poruchik-лейтена́нт and higher) has received such a training. These facts should be includ3d in the article. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember, it is Ukrainian sources saying so. We don't have independent verification for it. So attribute it to Ukrainian officials. 39.55.51.201 (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Already discussed in the article and sourced by various RS's - please read before commenting?HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• The video evidence at the basis that statement was made (showing a BUK mobile launcher supposedly on it's way to russian border) is false, as witnesses on the ground have recognized the pricize location where the video was taken (one can see a car advertising and some other objects in the video which makes identification of the location easy). See for example this video which debunks this. Geographically those places are quite some distance away! (see video still at 17:06), and that THAT territory was held by Ukrain army!! So actually we caught the Ukrain govt. lying again! Russian intelligence already showed (satelite images) that Ukrain had those BUK missiles installed near to rebel held territory. Where is the US satelite data that can (proof/disproof) that statement? Robheus (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

the car advertising - in Luhansk ?[9]- rebel controlled territory - and why do you write 'So actually we caught the Ukrain govt.' - who are 'we' - you edit like an activist for putin regime Sayerslle (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You on the otherhand sound like a maidan activist, never doubting the disinformation the Kiev regime publishes in their attempt to blame the russians. And by the way, please review the latest official US state dept. statements, they don't find conclusive evidence for russian involvement. That is an OFFICIAL US state dept. statement !! Robheus (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

i'd never heard of maidan until a few months ago and had no preconceived ideas about ukraine - i've read on louis proyect about the Azov Battalion and it sounds like some right lousy european fascists are on either side of this conflict - i'm pretty neutral - i just can't stand mindless pov pushing - its you who never doubts misinformation - like that premature shout that 'we' caught the Ukraine govt lying - you are credulous - just like how putin likes - easy to manipulate - you know he said he thinks Goebbels a clever bloke - Sayerslle (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes, already debunked. It wasn't Krematorsk Krasnoarmiejsk, as Kartapolov claimed, for a whole bunch of reasons, like for instance, you don't just take Buk missile launcher through a heavily populated area without anyone noticing. The billboard with its supposed "address" is standard and all over the place. Etc. It's just more disinformation and trying to confuse people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So actually the Russian govt. got caught lying again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

References with "live updates"

Just a note to all editors... if you are citing an online source which provides live updates to the page, as I did for reference [13], BBC News: "What we know", please also archive the page (you can use Archive.org so that you present the page as you saw it on that day, then add |archiveurl= and |archivedate= to the citations. Sometimes the articles replace the information as days go by. I have caught [9] as a similar page with live updates but there might be more because I haven't read the whole article. [174] seems fine as it self-archives information. starship.paint ~ regal 13:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Accident vs. incident

In numerous places in the article, this fatal event is described as an "incident". There appears to be some confusion about the terminology. As per the FAA, NTSB, ICAO and EASA definitions the terms accident and incidence have very clear and distinct meanings in air safety investigation field:

• An accident is an occurrence where an aircraft sustains serious major damage or there are serious injuries or fatalities
• An incident is an occurrence where, other than an accident, that affects the aircraft's safety of flight (i.e. no fatalities or major damage)

As per the internationally accepted air safety investigation terminology, this event should be described as an "accident", which is the term being used by the investigating authorities for MH17. The two terms have distinct meanings and should not be confused. Please change descriptions of incident to accident. I'd also note that this mix-up of terminology appears to be carried over to several other air accident articles --DigitalRevolution (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In standard speech, however, an "accident" implies it was unintentional, which it was certainly not. KonveyorBelt 00:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes an intentional act is referred to an accident in common usage in certain contexts, because it may have intentional by the perpetrator but not by the victim. "Accident" is the correct aviation term, and is not incorrect in connection with criminal acts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that? These chuckleheads probably thought they were shooting down a military plane, and now they are in a sh$tstorm of trouble. --Malerooster (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no implication of intentionality in "accident", as when describing an auto accident in common speech. Besides which, accident is the term being used by most media outlets and it is the term used by all air safety investigation agencies for this type of occurrence. Describing it as "deadly air incident" is a complete misnomer, since an incident that involves fatalities is, by definition, an accident. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Road authorities in my part of the world explicitly avoid using the word "accident" to describe most car crashes these days, because most crashes, according to normal English usage, are not accidents. This approach has been followed by the media here. We should be using normal English language here rather than an artificial form used within the aviation industry that doesn't match common and common sense usage. This was no accident. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A criminal act is an accident with respect to the victim. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

An intentional act is by definition not an accident, regardless of how ICAO etc chose to misuse common English - Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers, not to conform with misleading jargon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we see verse and chapter on that grumpy? Or is it just your current curmudgeonly opinion? Juan Riley (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You need 'chapter and verse' that the English Wikipedia is written in English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, a criminal act is considered an accident from the standpoint of the victim. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Where? Everywhere? Are you sure? HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't argue with admins McClenon...then you are a troll and end with another barnstar of infamy on your talk page. Juan Riley (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

So Abraham Lincoln was accidently shot in Ford's Theater? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to disregard the widely accepted international definition of accident for an air safety investigation accident, that's your prerogative. But the term incident shouldn't be used in that case, as incident has a clear (and legally defined) meaning, which this event does not fit. You can call it a "fatal event", "occurrence" or "air crash", but it is not an incident. Using the term incident downplays the severity of this event. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring..else I would have posted something snarky like "The last response/rebuttal to grumpy was incidentally/accidentally archived." Juan Riley (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the term 'accident' is misleading, regardless of industry jargon (which has little to do with law anyway). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A point of note - it has everything to do with law. The difference between the two terms is both technical and legal, and exists internationally. In the US in particular, the distinction is set out by the NTSB in the Code of Federal Regulations. Given that the NTSB also investigates marine, rail and highway accidents, the distinction also exists in those fields. The legal distinction is important because the classification of an occurrence as an incident or an accident sets out different legal requirements and responsibilities for those involved. That said however, the Dutch Safety Board, which is the lead investigator, is using "air disaster" as their preferred term.--DigitalRevolution (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

DigitalRevolution - I use the word "incident" quite frequently in normal English. For example, as a teacher, I write Incident Reports on misbehaving students. When I, and most of the rest of the world's English speakers use the word, it has no legal implications. This is Wikipedia, written in mainstream English. It's not an aviation industry manual written in that industry's jargon. Using the word "accident" in mainstream English is simply wrong for this event. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It should say "disaster", as is in both Russian and Ukrainian WPs. That would cover both terms pretty much. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That I would agree with. And it would remain consistent with the Iran Air 655 shootdown page, in which the word "disaster" is preferred. "Incident" is the incorrect terminology for this event, as it implies an occurrence of minor severity.--DigitalRevolution (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Disaster" can be ambiguous in some cases. "Incident" is the best term here. United States Man (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Incident. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump — clarity to laypeople supersedes technical jargon accuracy. So much the better if an alternative word can be found, though "disaster" seems POV. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Day of national mourning in Netherlands

Today dutch government proclaims a day of national mourning for the victims of the downing of flight MH17. Today at 16.00 local time the first bodies will arrive in the Netherlands. Source: NOS (dutch state media) Robheus (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your point with this is, but this is already in the article under Dutch reactions. Arnoutf (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• I trust it was of sufficient gravity, Arnout. All the best to all those Dutchies. Sorry, this is a forum post--feel free to remove. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The map with all the dots

I like this map, it is helpful to see the various territories compared with the flight path and crash location. However, I can't seem to find the key for what all the dots mean. I'm assuming they are cities with the dots size-linked to population, BUT there is no way to know this for sure without someone adding them to the key. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI: At the very top of the article page, right hand corner, look for "Coordinates" and click on the little globe for an interactive map of the region. I don't know if it exactly corresponds to the little red dots you like, but it is the area of the crash site. If you click on the various titles there on that map, it will take you to a WP article about that subject matter. You could also copy and paste those coordinates into google or bing maps and get an overview of the area.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not the only one - see File talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site.png. Pinging User:Alex1961, the author, for clarification. Ansh666 07:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

well apparently they just got a 3rr block from editing this page... so not sure how soon (if ever) we'll get an update... anyone know the backstory there? 72.35.149.153 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No, and I don't want to. Anyways, that was two or three days ago (not sure about time zones), pretty sure they weren't blocked when I pinged. Ansh666 09:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm curious whether the block had to do with the map or not, considering we are considering changes to it (but otherwise happy with it) 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the article may soon need a more localized map, as people are starting to geo-locate some of the evidential photos that have been in circulation. e.g. one of the photos showing a Buk launcher at a garage in Torez has been placed here 48.024460°N 38.615144°E / 48.024460; 38.615144, while another has been placed here 48.0169453°N 38.7556253°E / 48.0169453; 38.7556253 1.44.71.47 (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The map needs labels, especially for the more important dots. I can add them if someone can identify the places (if so, please leave a message on my Talk page). cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi all! The dots are population centres - the larger the circle the larger the population. --Alex1961 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I've added it to the caption. Ansh666 16:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014

Please edit the table containing the nationalities of victims to show that the Canadian victim had dual Romanian nationality. Therefore in the dual nationality column, there should be 1 not 0 for Canada (this is also sustained by note f).

Thanks! KoPhiPhi (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been reverted... Ansh666 16:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Victims

There are Vietnamese victims in the list indicating that they are dual citizens. This is wrong as Vietnam does not allow dual citizenship at the moment. And if you read the article, what it means is that the Dutch citizens were formerly Vietnamese who immigrated to Netherlands. The reporter or writer of the news could have misunderstood it as them holding both citizenships when its clear they have given up their Vietnamese citizenship. Timothyngim (Talk) 16:02, 23 July 2014

Sign your posts please, Timothyngim !!! HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikitable

The reason was because there were complaints regarding ordering the countries by direct involvement versus ordering them alphabetically. The formatting does not have any problems, so I don't see why the complaint. Dustin (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Extremely ugly and unencyclopedic IMO. Why do we need a sortable table when there are only about six lines? Please restore prose and/or bullet format. WWGB (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, people on this talk page are extremely rude. While you can say you dislike whatever for whatever reasons, you can keep your rude words to yourself. Dustin (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ugly" is now a rude word? Wow, that's precious. My words would be "rude" if I said it was a F&%#&*@ S#%&$@ I&$@. Have a beautiful day, free from any ugliness. WWGB (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about the fact that you are insulting my work. Dustin (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you aren't prepared to have your work criticised, you are in the wrong place - Wikipedia articles are collaborative works, and collaboration frequently requires negative commentary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

80 children

"Eighty of the passengers were children.[10]

- was removed with the edit summary "Removed, source seems unreliable. Says 23 US citizens where there was 1. Eighty is also unreliable as such." But I'm not so sure. I think it's a lot easier to confuse dual-nationals than it is to confuse ages. The "80 children" figure has been widely reported, e.g: [11], [12] and was actually quoted by Australian Foreign Minister Julia Bishop at the UN: [13]. So I think it should be returned. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think removing that was sort of silly. Go ahead and restore it. United States Man (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It has a little more impact if you realise that over a quarter of the people on board were children - 27%. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• It has no impact whatsoever, and should be removed. Children are no different than anyone else. They are just people. Marking out that "children" were killed is just an attempt at sensationalism and an appeal to pathos. Let the number of dead speak for itself. Do not try and appeal to people's emotions about "children". We must remain neutral and encyclopaedic here. Wikipedia is not a memorial for dead children. RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not "trying to appeal to people's emotions about "children". I'm adding facts. But I'd disagree with you, that "Children are no different than anyone else. They are just people." I think that's a fundamentally wrong view, for all sorts of reasons. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is it a fundamentally wrong view? Is there any difference in terms of dignity, value of life between a child and an adult? What else, apart from pathos, does it evoke to say that "children, women are hurt"? As if killing an adult is somewhat less culpable than killing a child? As if a child's life is even more valuable than that of a renowned (male) surgeon who saved hundred of lives? As if the value of life is decreasing when one grows older? Psychologically you can accept whatever the media is feeding you about the "children" and "women", and be my guest if you want to cry over the fallen leaves of Autumn, but wikipedia is a place to write In Search of Lost Time. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Psychologically I can accept whatever the media is feeding me about "Americans" and "British". Even what wikipedia is feeding me. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. I've heard that in some countries the law treats children differently to adults. But maybe not in Mr Girkin's Donetsk People's Republic, eh?

• Im in favor of adding it because the number of children deaths does stand out and that aspect has been discussed in sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of adding it if there is a definition of child and this is dramatically different ratio than other crashes. Otherwise not really adding much value, IMO. --MarsRover (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)