Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Interwiki to uk:

We're currently linking directly to Ukranian Wikipedia's article on uk:Hrabove; should this be a redlink instead? Microchip08 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a valid link, but it should be clear that it is a link to a foreign language article. Will fix it. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

en:Wiki article has been created. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Dutch travel agencies

NOS has mentioned that two different travel agencies have confirmed that Dutch travellers have booked for the flight. It is not mentioned how many have boarded the aircraft, but it does mention that D-reizen has had 25 Dutch bookings and World Ticket Center (a Dutch online travel agency) has had approximately twenty to thirty bookings. Please see the following ref. http://nos.nl/liveblog/676042-vliegtuig-uit-adam-neergestort.html (Dutch) Christian299 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RTL just announced an estimate of 71 Dutch passengers in their evening news. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture

How do you know that the infobox picture is one of 9M-MRD ? I don't see that in the file description on Commons and I can't see the tail number at that resolution. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The letters "RD" are clearly visible on the nosewheel door. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitive proof can be found at the original source: [1]. See the notes section.--v/r - T P 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The image has been changed to one showing the aircraft in an earlier livery. Should it be changed back? Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Images of crash site

The New York Daily News has some images of the crash site up. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

All of which are copyright-protected, we can't submit to Commons. Need a freely-given image.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect to post them, but they are useful for research/confirmation of what the sources are saying. For instance, the plane seems to have missed any buildings. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I put it in ELLihaas (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

References for passengers

I think considering the importance of WP:V, having the table figures referenced is appropriate (especially at this early stage). Tables often have refs. Widefox; talk 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If we have a table, it should be referenced (and the references should probably be closely checked. Most of the numbers in sources so far are just speculation. There's a fair bit of difference between "x were confirmed to have booked the flight", "possibly as many as" and "x confirmed to be on the plane") AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

AP reporter that saw the Buk Missile System last Thursday?

Anyone have an id on the AP reporter or where he said it, or if he has repeated his statement about the sighting after the crash? Oathed (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Link to twitter pic of Buk system in alleged rebel town: Via speigel.de https://twitter.com/michelhenrion/status/489823022090838017/photo/1 (User: B_part)

We can't add a copyrighted photograph to the article; sorry. If you contact the creator and get their WP:CONSENT, we'd be able to use it. Microchip08 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

AP is saying as much here.

Aircraft

That is background generic information it has nothing to do with THIS incident so why add it before reactions? Its commonplace on incident pages to put the aircraft info in background(Lihaas (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).

We can move it down if there is consensus for it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okey, so lets discuss reasons for ti to get that consensus(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).

At some point we will make it agree with the advise of the accident project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents). MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem to suggest the reaction section?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thats because it is not considered to be a requirement by the project. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it is up to us to decide where we want to move this section (and whether we want to keep it as a separate section).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

See discussion above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I have removed the reaction from countries with no official involvement and also comments from some american politician are not that important. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And I restored it. Are you aware of who Senator McCain is, and his power on various Senatorial committees?HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes a foreign politician like thousands of others with no direct connection to the incident and just making a point. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. He has direct influence on further sanctions, if they are deemed necessary. The U.S. is the world's last "superpower" and their reactions to incidents of this nature are very important. Did you tag this section for NPOV? No-one opened a Talk Page discussion per that tag, as is required. I tried to find it in the history and gave up.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion above, you can arbtirarily detemrine what is notable. Seek consensus. Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt see the other discussion, and no I dont know who tagged it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

@HammerFilmFan: it seems Sen. McCain's comments have been removed again. Should it be re-added, I can't do anything right now from mobile. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The reaction section needs to be removed from article completely. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Biden statement

It seems US VP Biden has confirmation from the Pentagon that the plane was indeed short down by a SAM missile. e.g http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5913609/biden-blown-out-of-the-sky/in/5677250 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838653 Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

If were gonna quote one side saying rebels fired, then we should the other side saying ukraine fired it for NPOVLihaas (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. That's NPOV. Not muddying the waters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Then if we follow RS, a twitter posting alleging that rescuers were b locked(Lihaas (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).

You are suggesting a Twitter post is an RS are you? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sky News is a RS, and they are saying that both sides blame the other. Will that do? Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think they have stripped most of the twitter stuff out. There should be plenty of RS (like Sky News) for most any point that is worth making, as every outlet is talking about nothing but this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Splitting passengers from crew

I just undid an edit that placed the passengers and crew in separate columns as all of the crew are from Malaysia, as such having 0s in all of the other countries is redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed that all the crew were from Malaisia?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No but the edit had all of the crew in one column from Malaysia and all the other sections of the columns simply marked with a 0 for the other countries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes codeshare flights have one flight attendant from the other company.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: per this [2] all flight crew were Malaysian. CaptRik (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unsupported wreckage claim

Here I removed the following clause because I could not find any support for it in the two cites given in section "Cause":

, and linking to video of smoking wreckage of the 777.

My edit comment was "removed claim video showed 777 wreckage as not found in the cites; please only reinsert with precise and reliable citing to avoid OR". The whole section is also problematic in that it does not follow a chronological order, and appears (to me at least) to rely on unreliable ephemeral sources. -84user (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The info about the videos is cited in the Guardian article, see their screen capture of the original post. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Image of Buk missile system

Since it hasn't even confirmed the plane was shot down, it feels WP:UNDUE to have a picture of the Buk missile prominently featured under "Cause". Let's wait until sources confirm more than just initial speculation and a reporter seeing something. 9kat (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Leonhard saw it, or maybe he thinks he saw it ? He knows BUK system, is he expert ? --94.140.88.117 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing it doesn't mean it has been used in this specific case, however. It hasn't even been confirmed as fact yet that the plane was shot down--just a lot of speculation and investigation about it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been confirmed, but they're unsure of what model of BUK missile it was. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Codeshares

It was codesharing with KLM as KL4103 should we mention that? Were there other codeshares on this flight? Arnoutf (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added the KLM codes (at the same time as your comment). – Editør (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved this to a footnote earlier, but now we have the full KLM flight numbers too. It really clutters up the lead, so I moved it back to the footnote. No reliable sources are using the KLM flight number, so it's not something that makes sense to bold. A footnote makes the most sense since we can fully describe it as a codeshare there. (I'm following what the MH370 article does on this.) 9kat (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@9kat: I think the KLM code is worth mentioning in the lead as many Dutch news sources are mentioning the KLM no. and the large no. of Dutch pax suggests a majority of the pax booked the KLM flight. Nathan121212 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What happened with MH370 and the China Southern codeshare? Is the KLM code being used much more than it was in that case, in Dutch media vs Chinese media? The few Dutch sources I found that mention KL4103 mention both. If it was being used as the sole primary name in most Dutch sources, there might be some merit, but I'm not sure that's the case. The footnote does a better job of explaining it than just including a bunch of cluttered letters and numbers possibly could. 9kat (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Deadliest

This appears to be the deadliest air disaster since the 1980 Saudia Flight 163 incident. Is this accurate, and if is it significant enough to be mentioned? It feels to me that it should be added in the paragraph about the number of deaths (and how it outstrips MH370). Prokhorovka (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you shouldn't cite Wikipedia... but this indicates otherwise: List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation Dustin (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. I was actually using that table but just looked for the next deadliest one, not the most recent one above it in the table. General question still stands, add this to the article? Deadliest for almost 20 years seems significant to me. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is the deadliest single-aircraft accident since the Japan Airlines Flight 123 accident. That includes all of the 9/11 aircraft (excluding ground fatalities, which of course makes the WTC impacts top of those charts) and MH370. This is a significant accident. Not sure how to word it in an elegant fashion, however. --Pete (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary Protection

Why is this article SP'd? I see no good reason whatsoever. See MH370 for a kind of policy on this type of (fast-moving, current news) article. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Events this recent are vulnerable to especially disgusting vandalism by new users, a lot of which happen to be IPs. I think that is probably one of the reasons. Sorry that you cannot make any changes if you were hoping to help. Dustin (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

By clicking on the view source button, I think you can still submit an edit request. Dustin (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, how good. No. There is no policy for preemptive blocking, and furthermore, these articles attract new editors - well they would if they weren't blocked - which is the reason why MH370 was quickly unprotected after the same misguided protection was applied there. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Register an account and stop moaning. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestion, I'll just go and register now and I'll be back in five minutes to edit it. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope! Still can't edit it. Can I start moaning again? UniversalBowman (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@UniversalBowman: Until you get your account autoconfirmed, you can request edits on this talk page using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —sroc 💬 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Please don't bite the newcomers and remember that unregistered users are allowed to edit, but autoconfirmed users have to wait four days before editing semi-protected pages. —sroc 💬 23:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You can always ask at WP:RFPP for the article to be unprotected. But be aware that if it is unprotected and there are problems, protection is very likely to be reapplied, and getting it removed again will be that much harder. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

MH370 wasn't a magnet for WP:NPOV violations though. LostCause231 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On an article as high profile as this, any vandalism would last about 10 seconds. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. Some editors don't pay attention and make new edits after the article is vandalized. At that point, because of edit conflicts, it is difficult to remove the vandalism. Dustin (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. You just don't like unregistered users. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. Dustin (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL and inconvenience should not be used as reasons to protect a page. That said, I think the Ukraine-Russia conflict tying into this is likely to make protection necessary, so probably not worth arguing over... 9kat (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection is a very very good idea here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No, for the reasons stated, it is a very, very, very stupid idea. UniversalBowman (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

With the amount of drama often associated with Ukraine related topics, and something this contentious/high profile, in addition to being featured on the main page, I think that semi is definitely warranted. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"New" users are inherently untrustworthy; the time spent removing citations to youtube, twitter, and blogs that people unfamilair with how the project functions is better spent elsewhere. Keep semi-protection on at least through the weekend. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep at least 12-24 hours, twitter refs, country links, flags and the world's commentators filling it up as it is. That's disruption, with WP:PRIMARY sources rather than basing on secondary. Widefox; talk 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014 (similar incidents)

This edit request to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Similar incidents

Air Rhodesia Flight 825 - passenger plane shot down by insurgents Air Rhodesia Flight 827 - passenger plane shot down by insurgents

Rolfthelemite (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks, well spotted. I removed MH370 from the "similar incidents" list. Not quite the same thing as being shot down, unless belonging to the same carrier makes it similar? --Pete (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reaction

Statement from King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands.[3] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Shot down

Hey, I'm not a wiki editor so I'll leave it to you guys and gals. But, international standard aviation altitudes are actually measured in feet. This "33000 feet" is the correct usage.

Change this line: This is the second time a Malaysia Airlines aircraft has been involved in a serious incident in 2014, after Flight 370 disappeared en route to Beijing on 8 March 2014. - it shouldn't say involved, it should say 'victim of', being involved means they orchestrated(in part) in this context

Reports from Interfax and Reuters are saying this was shot down. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

reportedly shot down by a buk missile - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system - the plane would be within range even at maximum cruising altitude for a 777. "..can begin tracking at the missile's maximum range (32 km/20 mi) and can track aircraft flying at between 15 m and 22,000 m (50 to 72,000 ft) altitudes. It can guide up to three missiles against a single target." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.38 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the Buk missile system known to be in the possession of the pro-Russian separatists? --Bruzaholm (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, if you can read Russian, official Russian source announced separatists had BUKs in late June [4]. Also, separatists have acknowledged shooting down a plane at exactly this time in exactly this location, thought they have (mis)identified it as a Ukrainian military transport plane: [5], again, from an official Russian source. 128.68.133.170 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  - Thanks. Very interesting link. Is it established who supplied the pro-Russia separatist with the surface-to-air missile in question? At which side of the Ukrainian-Russian border were the missiles originally used? --Bruzaholm (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Per National Public Radio out of Boston, the plane was late/not arriving at the time expected in Russia, and then it was found burning on the ground in Eastern Ukraine. This was at 12:07 EST.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/17/malaysia-airlines-jet-reportedly-crashes-in-ukraine/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fox News just reported that Ukraine shot it down with a BUK. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That article said no such thing. It said that all evidence points to Russian Separatists shooting down that plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorlord (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

This edit request to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have already made many useful edits to this page whilst not logged in ( ip=91.125.15.174). I have now made this new account. Flyer500 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Has there been disruptive editing? While it is almost certain there will be POV-pushers soon, can we pre-emptively do this on Wiki? I am not objecting, just wondering what the majority opinion is on the guidelines . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have also made this new account to protect other useful edits, because some vandal is removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. After you have made 10 edits and your account is 4 days old, your account will become autoconfirmed and will automatically be enabled to edit this semi-protected article. Requests to decrease the page's protection level should be directed to the protecting admin, Reedy (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reedy (talk · contribs) made this page protected. I suppose it is just because of the fact that it was him, he is now the protecting admin. Can the protecting admin be changed? IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No. If you continue to persist, I am going to block you per WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just asking for now, not persisting.IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter - calm down. What is it that makes you think threats are appropriate or that WP:NOTHERE applies at all? You really just went from 0-60 in .2 seconds there. Reedy, who created this article and has edited it extensively, has protected this article and violated WP:INVOLVED to remove Russian sources that he doesn't like because he prefers English sources against policy.--v/r - T P 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not you see that all the contribution of this user (which is all in the last hour) consists of the accusations of Reedy in vandalism and in bad faith assumptions against them? They have zero contribution in the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I myself removed several Russian sources because they were not reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I assume this user is the IP that was adding the sources. Besides, if you have been removing sources then you as well are involved and shouldn't be making threats or issuing blocks. Reedy has been removing Russian sources because "Russian references are useless on an english site" against Wikipedia:Verifiability#Quoting_non-English_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Then Reedy protected the article despite being heavily involved.--v/r - T P 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Then go to ANI and make the case there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reedy also removed useful edits made by other users, for example Ilya. Fortunatelly this informations were brought back over time and currently they are included in the article. It is recorded in the history. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a note from the guideline: "However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available" - this event is all over the news and heavily covered in English sources - unless the non-English source has unique information not found via English-language RS's, then they really should not be usedon enWIKI. Just FYI.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here - lets be straight about this. The article will be kept in as neutral tones as possible, quoting from reliable sources wherever possible. Said sources are not, repeat not, required to be neutral, that is our job. The semi-protection is valid IMVHO, for the reasons given when it was imposed. Where an involved admin makes a move that any other reasonable admin may have come to of their own volition, generally, that move may be seen as permissible. This is a hot topic at the moment, and is directly linked from the Main Page. Once things die down a bit, we can look at unprotecting the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED says "any admin" not "any one admin". I'm an admin, I wouldn't have protected it. The reasons for protection was the use of Russian sources. Russian sources are not disallowed per the two policy links I gave above. The admin's reason for protection directly flies in the face of policy. Besides being involved, would you protect an article with a reason that directly contradicts policy? The admins reason for protection is simply that he prefers English sources. Are you saying that you would protect a page to ensure your preference for sources it met? On the issue of being a current event, we don't protect articles simply for being a current event. There has been no vandalism, and there are plenty of eyes on this to guard against spam.--v/r - T P 18:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: the reason given for protection was "Reference and link spam", which is a valid enough reason for me. Now, with foreign sources, I agree that non-English RSs are allowable. However, it we have an English source and a non-English RS saying the same thing, we go with the English one. With this particular article, I would expect that we would draw on Dutch, Ukrainian, Russian and Malay sources, as well as those in English. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen the ANI report on what the protecting admin considers to be reference and link spam? Take a look at his edit two minutes after the protected. This was obviously a non-policy complaint reason for protection. You should save your efforts to justify this for a case with more merit.--v/r - T P 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, hang on. A new editor tries some edits, has them reverted. They think that's considered vandalism (because many new editors do think that). They get threatened with a block for still calling it vandalism, even though nobody thought to tell them the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Have I got this right? the panda ₯’ 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think not. It was like: A user and an IP add some information linking the carsh with sepatatists, backed by Russian sources. Reedy (talk · contribs) removes them both and comments this with some strange opinion that only English sources are ok. So I brought back one of these deleted paragraphs. Then Reedy (talk · contribs) protects the article and I cannot edit, so I write here and call him a vandal. Maybe this call is not compliant with some policy or precuations, I am concerned. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Crew names released

Sin Chew has released the names of the 15 crew.[6] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Crew

Why aren't they being included in table? nationality can be taken as Malaysian till more information comes out, atleast the number is confirmed, there were two captains, two first officers and eleven cabin attendants according to Malaysian Wings forum, where MH insiders and people with contacts in the airline post. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For instance, one cabin attendant could be Dutch. Let us wait for the official info.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That can be changed when its clarified as stated earlier.175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but why should we add our conclusions which are likely incorrect when the correct info becomes available in a few hours?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I would say that including it now wouldn't be making conclusions, but pure speculations. Mayast (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

But why the etched in stone attitude when the article is still in its developing stages, especially the passenger section, even the number of US nationals is not confirmed yet they are included, so its assumed that majority or all of the crew are Malaysian which they normally are. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Because people come here to find out more about the incident. If we add in speculation, there is the legitimate possibility that one thousand people will walk away and think that something occurred, yet it was something that we made up. We want Wikipedia to contain reliable information, not pure speculation that we don't know the complete truth about. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, its just the nationality of the crew not anything related to how or why this accident happened, nor entertaining any conspiracy theories. So one thousand people will walk away with the information that all crew were Malaysian nationals, even if atleast one might not have been, big deal. The article is still developing they will be back to see what changes were made just as all of us are doing too.175.110.222.144 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose speculation on the crew's nationality; wait until an official release. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Crew turned out to be all Malaysian nationals as was speculated. 175.110.222.144 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

International Reactions Section Removed?

I thought there was a discussion going on. Why was this removed arbitrarily? 99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See section immediately below EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing international response section - BRD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing the section I created so that discussion can continue at the appropriate previous section.

I had removed this section as undue and unencyclopedic (as a bold edit, reverted by Knowledgekid87). I've not seen such a section on any other plane crash wiki page (and I've checked a fair number working on days of the year pages). For example, no such list on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 or even 9/11. It adds no information to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored it per the discussion above, I know editors try and be bold here but twice now I have seen editors have either not looked at the talkpage or have said "look at the talkpage" and were unable to point out the relevant section of discussion. I know the editing is fast paced here but it is frustrating. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A link: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Useless section (aka, International Reactions - NPOV issue). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did skim the talk page before the edit but missed it. I'll add my thoughts up there. Really needs to go. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The earlier discussion is already too deeply buried. I'll continue here. The section is undue. Everything there is predictable, and meaningless. It doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So you can disregard all of the opinions above? Why rehash the same argument, the one above is not even a day old give people time to weigh in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

How did the aircraft was lost?!

Hi, according to BBC and CNN news: the airplane just shot down by a missile and lost contact located in Ukraine areas. However the Boeing 777 is a good airplane/aircraft and never crashes, that involved 3 of them were lost. --Allen ^talk 02:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources state that the plane disappeared from radar somewhere over Ukraine. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM. United States Man (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates

So, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I am noticing that the coordinates, as written in the article, are closer to Petropavlivka than Hrabove. Where did we get the coordinates, as I am tempted to change the closest village if the coordinates are indeed correct. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've found better evidence of the coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 01:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's still a bit off, but I guess it's going to be like this until we get independent confirmation of its location from outside sources. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

aircraft shortage due to jull loss of two long-hual B777s

WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For a small airline, the airline's reduction in its 777 fleet size will greatly impact its's ability to serve its global destinations. Please monitor this because it will surely change. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Casualties from US

I noticed that the People on board by country table in the article mainly reflected information from the Malaysian Airlines official press release, but supplemented it with "23 US deaths" based on this Independent article, which in turn cited "Ukrainian Interior Ministry" for that number. While Independent is a reliable source in general, in cases of fast moving and often conflicting real-time reporting, I think it is best to stick to official stats rather than try and mix and match data from sources of varying reliability and timeliness. So for the moment I have edited the table to match the Malaysian Airlines official data. If the US deaths are indeed confirmed by the airline or say the US state department, we can update the table accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

there needs to be a section for multi-nationals because US is among countries that allows dual citizens. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now this article is extremely one-sided

How about sticking to known facts before jumping to conclusions about blame and responsibility?

At the very least, non-neutral and unverified statements from Western media about Russia should be identified as such. "Western media claims..." or "The U.S. State Department claims..." should be inserted before such statements in the interests of maintaining NPOV.

I say this as a "neutral": I am neither Western nor Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.229.28 (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See the section called "Lead" above. -Super Goku V (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

time of last radar contact

Was it 13:15UTC or 14:15UTC? Nathan121212 (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

13:15 UTC. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/here-real-time-flight-path-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh-17 Anthonyliu (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The time was 13:20 UTC. I work in Dnipropetrovsk Air Traffic Control Centre, and I know precisely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.98.52.28 (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

last known position

08:11AM 51.2265 24.8316 107° East 562MPH 33,000 http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/1000Z/EHAM/WMKK/tracklog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.38 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary source and is unusable. Abductive (reasoning) 17:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[Can't use primary sources?] 78.148.157.47 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are not inherently usableLihaas (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for uncontested information such as census reports for towns in Canada or something. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

FlightAware's last reported position means nothing more than that being the edge of their detection capability. HkCaGu (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Aviation Herald has an approximate crash site, and is a RS. It states "the ELT of the aircraft was recorded at position N48.1230 E38.5258." Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

showdown between Interstate Aviation Committee and NTSB and Dutch Safety Board

WP:NOTFORUM Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AJAM reported that there would be complicated jurisdictional issues among Interstate Aviation Committee and NTSB and Dutch Safety Board. This is pertinent to the article and should be included. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

apology to country of passenger origin [Netherlands]

WP:NOTFORUM Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Reposting due to WP:NOTAFORUM. Please consider the fact that I rephrased my post.

The Ukrainian was quick to call the Dutch PM to express condolences, but not the Malaysian PM. I am seeking a source and explanation of this differences. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC

Claims of a downed An-26

Both ITAR-TASS (Original, Archive) and RIA Novosti (Translated copy) published articles making the claim that seperatists shot down a Ukrainian An-26 in the same area yesterday. As of right now , no one has seen this downed An-26 so I think it can be assumed that such articles are making reference to MH17. In that case, they should be mentioned. --Simfan34 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It crashed on Russian land. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I recall hearing that a cargo plane was downed Monday and a military plane from Ukraine was shot down Wednesday. I'm not sure if it was this An-26 you are talking about though. United States Man (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am speaking of the "An-26" shot down near Hrabove. Which is meant to be a misreporting of MH17.

The New York Times: "Rebels have claimed responsibility for attacking a Ukrainian military jet as it landed in the city of Luhansk on June 14, and for felling an AN-26 transport plane on Monday and an SU-25 fighter jet on Wednesday."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

An An-26 was shot down near Izvaryne on Monday, 14 July. Perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely. Several sources from yesterday in Russia talk about a An-26 being shot down with the time posted being just around the time . I have archived them as a precaution, though it seems like it a normal citation will be alright. Ria.ru Archive Peeep.us Archive Lifenews.ru Archive --Super Goku V (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

International Reaction : India

This edit request to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under section International Reaction, this information may be added: Indian PM Narendra Modi expressed his condolence for those who are affected Modi, MH17. "Indian PM Narendra Modi's First Tweet about MH17". Twitter. Narendra Modi. Retrieved 18 July 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |ref= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). Notably, his return flight from 6th Summit of BRICS (Fortaleza, Brazil) was bound to take the same route within few hours Modi Flight, MH17 Route (18 July 2014). "Indian PM Narendra Modi was to take same route that of MH17". http://www.thehindu.com. No. Online. The Hindu. The Hindu. Retrieved 18 July 2014. {{cite news}}: External link in |ref= and |work= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). Mahiru Foundation (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes that route would have been used by very many airline routes. But not sure about adding. Should comments be limited to neighbours and those with nationals aboard? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to put this forward (He is a Punjabi ie Indian). Thanks for your response. (Mahiru Foundation).

Punjabi doesn't mean Indian.He is Malaysian

Timeline of the flight is wrong. Plane lost contact with ground control at 13:15 UTC.

This edit request to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Flight timeline is wrong. Flightradar24 states that plane lost contact at 13:15 UTC, not 14:15 UTC as stated in the article. The picture to the right of the timeline was improperly corrected to conform to the timeline and should be reverted back to the original state. Exemplary snapshot of the flightradar at the moment of the mh17's demise: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsxF_J_CcAAycNi.png:large Jd31415 (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight started 10:14 UTC, last contact 13:21 UTC. It was @ 15:21 CEST (Amsterdam time), or 16:21 Ukrainian time. See flightradar here: ALTITUDE 33000 FT, SPEED 490 KTS, TRACK 118°, UTC TIME 13:21
Julo (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Passengers; don't report rumours in the infobox.

There is, as of this writing, no confirmation that there were Americans onboard. Wikipedia is not news, but an encyclopedia; wait for confirmation on deaths. Iselilja (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. The article in its current shape contains only allegations on the basis of speculations and conspiracy theories.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

is Malaysian Airlines livery purposely painted grey on belly to look like Air Force jets?

WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a concern for me, because the underside of MH, UA, and AA jets are painted grey (the same color as Air Force and Navy jets). This should be a notable concern that should be noted in this article. As an aside, insurance premiums should be greater on civilian aircraft painted grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Grey or bare metal bellies and engines were quite common till the 1970s and even 1980s, Air China and Lufthansa are two others that kept the look along with he airlines you mentioned, so nothing fishy there, infact over 90% of the airlines with white or other colour bellies now, sported grey and bare metal look in the past as it was the trend of those times.175.110.222.144 (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Recorded phone call

During a press conference that I watched on TVP Info, Security Service of Ukraine informed that it had recorded a phone call between pro-Russian separatist leader Igor Bezler and Russian colonel Geranin, in which Bezler informs that the plane has been shot down by one of the separatist groups. Here's a Polish report by Gazeta Wyborcza mentioning the conversation, and that people who shot down the plane went to the site of the crash and only then realised that it had been a civilian aircraft. Also, here is a transcript in English which sounds similar to the conversation played on Polish television, however I have no idea who has uploaded it. Would be nice to find some English-language reliable sources on this, or the video from the press conference (a part of it was in English). — Mayast (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Also published here - by Novaya Gazeta. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

This edit request to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

addition to See Also

This is a fast developing article and as such there shouldn't be any edit-blocks by overzealous administrators.121.217.42.243 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

This edit request to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Indian mentioned in the article is not an Indian ,he is Malaysian Tekkanphan (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Allegations on the cause

The whole section on the cause of the crash deals only with allegations against Russia and contains anti-Russian statements made by Ukraine or the United States, whereby all other presumptions casting doubt on the involvement of the Ukrainian armed forces or any other relevant parties are apparently concealed. Thus, the neutrality of the article is heavily breached as it leans towards favouring a side in the whole story. I think it's necessary to tag the section with the appropriate tag until its current content is counterbalanced.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I also find violation of the neutral point of view in the rest of the article. For example, the intro reports on what the American intelligence officials speculate about the crash. Frankly, it's a bit strange to me when Wikipedia has become means to reveal speculations. Seems like the whole article needs improvements as it chiefly informs about how the others speculate on Russian involvement when no results from the official investigation have been disclosed yet. Therefore, I'll place the tag on the top of the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are these "presumptions casting doubt"? and where are they reported? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What is NON neutral is that 298 innocent civilians have died, and likely because of some act of war/terror in that region.

As it is now there is fairly compelling evidence pointing towards the rebels in eastern Ukraine - i.e. their own facebook page, their earlier shooting down military transports, their tapped telephone calls, their claims to have seized BUK systems - oh no wait now that such a systems has become the weapon perhaps not - etc.

Ukranian armed forces have denied to have SAMs in the region, also since the rebels have no air force there is no obvious motivation for the Ukranian army to fire missiles.

The pattern of Russian politics is fairly consistent with their "attack is the best defense" approach we have seen so many times before. So in this instance I think we should not take the Russian response overly serious. Let's wait and see what we hear in the coming time. Arnoutf (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your concluding sentence clearly says much about your stance on this whole story. We're not here to discuss on the pattern of Russian politics but to work on reaching a neutral point of view. The article focuses only on accusations and speculations from Ukraine and the United States on Russian involvement but unfortunately does not mention even a word about the accusations that the airplane was shot down by the Ukrainian armed forces with all the implications beyond it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Then stop whining and tagging and put some effort into the article! WWGB (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to do my best as much as I can but the article suffers from multiple issues. Yet, discussing the issue is necessary and the tag should remain there for some time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are these "presumptions casting doubt"? and where are they reported? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, come through with your sources and put the balance in. And of course this article suffers from some issues, it happened less than a day ago - many of these will be sorted out in the days to come; but are at the moment based on the best available information. Arnoutf (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are some news including various accusations addressed to Ukraine: Reuters, CNBC, Fox News, Daily Mail, Washington Post, NY Daily News, etc. Please also note that many media present countered stances on the whole story to reach some sort of neutrality, albeit still being slightly inclined on the side favoured from their country of origin. The pattern they use starts with accusations from one side and denying from the other side, ending with accusations from the other side and denying from the first side. This can be easily replicated to this article as well. As for the best available information, statements for different sides involved in the story are welcome but there should be no room for speculations. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(deindenting) Kiril, I added a few statements from Russian media and the article already cites a number of Russian and DNR media sources. Note that the perceived imbalance may originate from the fact that itw as Russian media that openly reported shooting of Ukrainian airplanes by DNR using "Buk" until yesterday evening when they realized it was a passenger plane and changed their coverage completely. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We can't use the Daily Mail as it's a tabloid. Can you propose an actual edit you would propose on the article, Kiril Simeonovski? It seems currently to contain the allegation that you want it to contain. --John (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the sources before blaming me for something and read my proposal bellow. If you think that the article should stand in its current shape, it doesn't guarantee that others will always agree with you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The information you provide is already in the international response - Russia section. Note that Putin does not deny that it may have been rebels shooting down the plane, but that the reason that rebels were targeting planes is the renewed campaign of Ukraine (so an indirect cause - and if we go there - if Russia had not annexed Crimea, the rebels in Eastern Ukraine would likely not have rebelled, and hence the Ukraine would not have needed any campaign - Dutch commentator on radio last night).

Also note that until investigation is concluded there will be speculation. But that does not make it non neutral per se. Arnoutf (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If we're here to accept and interpret what the journalists and commentators have said in reaction to the crash, then the most logical conclusion is that Ukraine should bear responsibility for the crash, irrespective of whether it was shot down or not, since the airplane crashed on their territory. As for my sources, not all of them report about Putin's response. Please read them more thoroughly to get gist of what I mean. Finally, my proposal is to rearrange the article to include two countered stances, one favoured by Ukraine and the United States and other favoured by Russia and the rebels. In addition, speculations from uninvolved parties like the one of the American intelligence officials in the article's intro should be immediately removed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Following this line of reasoning the crash of the planes in WTC and Pentagon was the responsibility of the US, and the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie that of the United Kingdom as these "accidents" happened in their territory. Seems a bit far fetched. Arnoutf (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I was posting exactly the same response to that silly comment but you beat me to it in an edit conflict! An utterly ridiculous comment by Kiril Simeonovski. Fig (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The stance of the rebels - now that is interesting. Before 17-7 late afternoon: We are great, we have BUK in operation, we are shooting down many airplanes; including one today!. After 17-7 late afternoon: Shooting down airplanes, who? We? never head of?. BUK systems.... Not us never had one, never will. Which of these standpoints should we take? Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you both haven't understood the meaning of my comment. The 9/11 attacks are a different story though the United States bear full responsibility regarding the security. Shooting down airplanes or whatsoever this would eventually appear to be cannot be matched with terrorist attacks and the country where it occurred must explain the reason for an incident on a territory they control.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So now you claim the Ukrainian government actually CONTROLS the Donetsk region. Can you source that as Ukrainian government officials have claimed that they have no control over the crash site. Arnoutf (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

All countries in the world recognise the Donetsk region as part of Ukraine. The inability of their government to control one of its administrative units is not our problem.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet one country promised active support for Russians in the region in conflicts with their official government, allowed rebels to open offices in their capital, and neglected to put any border control to prevent smuggling of heavy weapons in place. Arnoutf (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

When did posts on social networks like Facebook and Twitter become relevant sources on the same level of official statements and reports? Having in mind that there are numerous accounts on Facebook and Twitter for same things, how did one conclude that the messages were posted from the official accounts and that the people using them are exactly those that are presumed to be?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Where are the official statements of the rebels, and who is able, allowed, entitled to give any formal statements on behalf of the rebels in this case? As a rebellion is by definition not official that will be tricky. But in any case, humor us by providing these official statements. Note that we should take these with some caution in any case, as at the moment the rebels are the prime suspect (and not even Russia denies this) so anything they say will have a more than average level of self-interest. Arnoutf (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please answer my question before to ask your own. Your attempt to avoid answering simple questions does not help improve the quality of the article. I'll remove this information from the articles as it is shameful for Wikipedia to recall on messages posted on Facebook and Twitter as relevant sources.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It would all be so much more convincing if the rebels protested the existence of these account BEFORE they were accused of shooting down a civilian plane. But in any case, as far as I can see no direct references to Facebook of Twitter are made - but to respectable sources reporting on this.

Secondly, you want a more balanced view by including the view of Russia and the rebels. However you have yet to propose an actual text suggestion backed by reliable sources. This is your original stance, yet you do nothing to make it come through. Arnoutf (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the only sentence mentioning Facebook from the article. There are plenty of more formal ways politicians, diplomats and governmental officials use to state something rather than sign in on the social networks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No objection to that specific removal, I agree with you on that line. Arnoutf (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Change the title to talk about "Crash of..." or something specific.

WP:AVINAME 60.242.1.97 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

MH 17 is a normally scheduled flight and will resume service (possibly under a new flight number) between AMS and KUL in the coming days.

Also, MH 17 flew on 16 July, 15 July, etc., without incident.

This needs to reflect information only related to the crash occurring on 17 July. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:503C:3F40:1573:7BD5:261E:DA46 (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done - See the style guide for naming articles about aviation accidents. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Named fatalities

Joep Lange has been named as one of the passengers.[9] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP the article can no tsay he is dead until it is confirmed. Reportedly dead is not the same as confirmed dead, please change the article back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Two other sources confirm it. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed at Talk:Joep Lange#Is he really dead?, suggest it be kept there. --220 of ^Borg 11:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Midair breakup, not just breakup on impact

The article says "Initial reports and videos suggest that MH17 disintegrated and exploded upon impact due to the remaining jet fuel igniting." This is unclear, as it could be taken to mean the aircraft was intact until ground impact, or that it "disintegrated" at some unspecified time and altitude and to an unspecified extent and subsequently exploded on impact," which seems more in step with reports that bodies landed 15km away from the site. "Disintegrate" also suggests old science fiction disintegrator rayguns. Edison (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite clear. Look at the pictures. There's several sets of landing gear and the two jet engines all very close together in the biggest impact area. That's at least - at least - the central part of the fuselage and the wing roots at least as far as out to the engines. So that's one very large piece that came down intact. That of course does not rule out that relatively smaller pieces came off.

Yes, it seems obvious from photos of the crash site that the plane was largely intact and still had fuel when it struck ground. Abductive (reasoning) 11:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Useless section (aka, International Reactions - NPOV issue)

The international reactions section is really nonsensical, it should be removed. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have always disliked them. Perhaps the list could be trimmed of statements that don't indicate any action being taken? Abductive (reasoning) 17:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, these are standard for this sort of article, and I disagree - they add important information.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

- The list needs to be turned into paragraph/prose format and the reactions need to be more than just quotes. Who is starting investigations? Who is accusing whom? Who is providing aide or expertise to the investigation, ect?--v/r - T P 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Standard by what measure? We go by WP:CONSENSUS here. The Twitter sources are WP:PRIMARY and per WP:TWITTER only to be used about themselves, which they seem to be slightly overextended to build a section. For that reason alone I would remove those ones. The flags detract, and don't fit the loss of life. Widefox; talk 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is in all such pages and endless debates have ngone nowehere. At any rate, lets wait for the issue to settle down (or heat u[p) as its likely to do nowLihaas (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone has gone an uput the falgs up..Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

These were arbitrarily removed twice but someone who thinks he is the arbiter of importance [10][11] Bildt and McCain's warring rhetoric is certainly notable by any imaginationLihaas (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that reactions from Ukraine, the rebels (for lack of a more neutral term), Russia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the USA and France should be considered notable enough. The first three due to the area in which the plane went down and the conflict going on in that region. Malaysia and the Netherlands due to it being a plane from Malaysian Airlines, which came from Schiphol in the Netherlands and had a LOT of Dutch people aboard and the USA and France because both are also confirmed to have had people of that nationality aboard. If people of other nationalities are confirmed to have been aboard, the appropriate countries should probably included as well. However, I do agree that reactions from, say, Sweden--which does not seem to have any particular connection to the plane or flight--and other nations not connected to this disaster should probably not be added unless there is something in them that would make them particularly notable and relevant. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep Im in favor of keeping the section as it is notable and the standard on pages such as these. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not actually standard they are normally a reaction to the press reports when nothing else is known and in most articles will dissapear when the dust has settled. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, here on Wikipedia we even have full articles on reactions to events, seeing that this crash is caught up in another event I consider the reactions from different countries notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Still not convinced that a foreign politician like Senator McCain views are that important outside of the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Important enough to have already been mentioned in two reliable Dutch sources, in any case. BNR Nieuwsradio ("BNR Newsradio"), a national radio-channel. Algemeen Dagblad, one of the large newspapers in the Netherlands. Possibly more, that's just from a quick glance at google. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. McCain is a big-wig on foreign relations committees and defense committees in the USA, and his input/influence can directly influence the U.S. tangible reactions to this event - he isn't some junior representative from Bumsquat, Iowa - he's a very powerful man.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If McCain is being quoted outside of the U.S then I withdrawn by objection to him. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

United States vice-president Joe Biden is set to give a statement soon (Watching CNN here). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lihaas, please ensure you modify or open a section with "NPOV" in it when you toss a tag on. It may be obvious to you, but to others it may be very hard to find on the TP. I have modified this section's title to that effect.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

NP, it was created by soimeone else

Also i agree with full restoration per the 2 links above as there is no consensus on the removalLihaas (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The UK has been added again without any evidence of involvement. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the entire reaction section is stupid, don't know why I added international in there. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be stupid (or it may be not, that depends on one's opinion, I'd say), but the question ought to be whether it's notable, whether it's relevant and whether it's verifiable. I don't think anyone will claim that it's not verifiable, so let's focus on notability and relevance.
Because we're not speaking of whether or not it's notable/noteworthy enough to get its own the article, it does not have to fall under the normal Notability guidelines, per WP:NNC. Instead, the question is whether it's notable enough to include in the article. Because you're speaking of the section as a whole, rather than parts of it, I will not go in-depth as to whether or not I feel the separate parts are noteworthy enough--just whether the -section- should be included. That ties in directly to relevance.
Reasons to include the section in relation to noteworthiness and relevance:

Closely entwined with the sources on this subject. Many of the sources in use to support more than a really specific claim (such as KLM, AirFrance and a fair few others now avoiding the area) make at least passing mention of or link to responses. Several of them pay more attention to it than just a passing mention.
There are a lot of reliable sources ON the subject of those reactions, demonstrating that they are considered noteworthy by several secondary sources.
Through these responses, at least some information on the official or unofficial stance of several nations is given. Furthermore, they give information about what the involved countries (or their spokesperson/s) see as the appropriate next step.
They are highly relevant in that they are directly about the article's subject: these are not responses to something related to the article's subject but to the exact subject of this article. Provided that we appropriately filter which ones should be included or not, they're also responses from people/nations relevant to this tragedy. Nations whose reaction will likely determine what happens next.

As to its actual contents, my personal opinion can be found above, at the post at 19:16 UTC. For reasons to exclude, I wouldn't be the best person to ask, as I'm pro-inclusion. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove - Never seen such a section on any other plane crash page or terrorism page (e.g., Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 and 9/11). It's WP:UNDUE and unencyclopedic. It adds nothing to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than the WP:OTHER argument, how can it be WP:UNDUE when the responses are carried by multiple reliable sources? Reaction sections exist in articles on Wikipedia what makes this one any different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It gives undue weight to the individuals quoted and undue weight to the reactions as a whole. This page is about the crash, not politicians' responses. Either say "International leaders condemned the attack" and cite with all the individuals or create a separate page if it's truly that notable (it's not). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Also OTHER is more for AfD discussions. This is more of a style consistency argument. I literally cannot find an article with a list of quotes like this, including on all the "similar incidences" linked. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. As it stands, the section is trivia. It is selective of who gets quoted, in precisely the way WP:SYSTEMICBIAS would predict, stinks of WP:RECENTISM, and nothing that has been said is surprising in any way. It does not belong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say again the crash is just hours old, do you really think there will be no response of any kind to the people who did this whoever they are? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's a response. And it's fine to mention that there was one. But a list of quotes is not how to do it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid - if someone does say something worthwhile, we'll add it to the article then. We don't need a placeholder for it now, especially one filled with junk. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing wrong with having a long list of official reactions. Plenty of room in the article for it. I encourage all of you to be a little lighter on the revert-warring button unless you see a BLP violation. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep since the event would likely have international consequences, international opinions are relevant. If the list would grow out of proportions then some items can be removed or moved to a separate article Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I'm seeing a tonne of news items on comments from various senior public officials, going beyond the usual "Our condolences to the families..." sort of material. We can lose that non-notable material, but some statements go beyond the trivial. Military or terrorist involvement is being claimed by people who have good access to good intelligence. Putin apparently blames the Crimeans, rather like those pesky Communists burning down the Reichstag. Obama and Putin discussed the incident in a phone call. These sort of statements are not the usual "terrible tragedy, our hearts go out..." guff. Keep the notable, ditch the trivial. --Pete (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut down, use prose no list, no flags. WP:IDONTLIKEIT / like it / other articles doesn't count much weight. WP:NOTNEWS is policy (even properly sourced content may not be encyclopaedic if it's not enduring). Initial reactions are WP:PRIMARY (see WP:NEWSPAPER, strictly - WP:PRIMARYNEWS), and that's why policy says we shouldn't have a whole section on them unless they are enduring, and notable in WP:SECONDARY sources, balanced per WP:WEIGHT. Widefox; talk 11:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but...

None of this discusses if and how the section is biased nor how to address it. Unless that is established, the tag should be removed (whether or not you like such sections). The Dissident Aggressor 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing, I don't see much NPOV there except perhaps the propaganda from Russia's Peskov complaining about US sanctions. The neutrality tag can be removed IMHO. –Wine Guy~Talk 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Continued discussion about whether or not the section is useful is encouraged. The Dissident Aggressor 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Separate article

I believe there should be a separate article on the reactions. Also I remember when I first visited this article, there were more international responses than now. I've tracked down the edits responsible for the removal of so many responses: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Also why were YouTube links removed? They are quite interesting. --UA Victory (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still too early for the international community to weigh in or repercussions to yet be had. I do feel that it will get it's own article , as I said above this is intertwined with another major event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Brisbane G20

As Australia is hosting the G20 in Brisbane this year, and as they sustained the third highest loss of life, there is current talk about inflicting sanctions on Russia and even blocking them from attending the G20. Should this not be mentioned?--Empire of War (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait until a decision is made and communicated by the Australian govt. Arnoutf (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks--Empire of War (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with flight 370?

Just noticed the template at the top. Is this really an issue? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed it for now. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as well, per ~~MOS:CAPTION~~ WP:NAMB, before noticing this section. (But I guess we have reasonable consensus to do so for now.) 9kat (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove, keep removed no confusion. If anything, it's a see also item. Widefox; talk 14:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Who directed the plane into the war zone where planes were shot down before?

Who directed the plane into the war zone where planes were shot down before? Was it done by Malaysian airline or was the route directed by Ukrainian air control? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it was Dimtry Yarosh. He then shot it down with his slingshot and of course, as usual left his "Right Sektor" business card amid the wreckage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's "Dmytro", not "Dimtry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.213.251 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And? There is no reason to somewhat rudely correct someone. United States Man (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Or in other words: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth drawing the attention of the OP to the well sourced text already in our article (the "Cause" section) that says "The airspace above Donetsk Oblast was closed by Ukraine on 8 July 2014 except for aircraft in transit flying over 7,900 m (25,900 ft)." This plane was above that altitude. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

They say on CNN that it was routed ~200 miles north because of thunderstorms near the Black Sea. Others would not fly through there and go way out of the way to the south of the sea. United States Man (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph notes unusual route of the plane

[17]

Danny Fyne, a commercial pilot voiced surprise at route taken by the Malaysian flight given that a Ukrainian transport plane had been shot down earlier this week. "Flights have already been diverted away from Crimea," he said. "I find it unusual that the flight went over this area." --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That airspace had no restrictions upon it, in spite of prior issues that have taken place, the commercial aviation system had issued no notices to airman NOTAM at the time of the incident. talk→ WPPilot 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about recent restrictions, but in recent months I've noticed on Flightradar24 that aircraft avoid Crimea but not the rest of Ukraine. Lots of Europe-Asia (mainly SEA, like Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Luala Lumpur) traffic on major airlines (like Malaysia, Thai, Singapore, Air France, Lufthansa, etc) across the part of Ukraine where MH17 was shot down. There are sometimes some Middle East to North America flights that pass through this region when traveling westbound (like Dubai-Los Angeles)...although the westbound flights usually travel a little further east (across Iran, along western Caspian sea coast, & up the part of Russia that extends south towards Caucasus), they sometimes travel a little further west (across western Iran or Iraq, Turkey/Armenia, Georgia, along the eastern Black Sea Coast, then across eastern Ukraine). Before this incident, it certainly didn't appear to me that this part of Eastern Ukraine was an "unusual" flight path. AHeneen (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From The Guardian: "A pilot for a major European airline who has flown over Ukraine since the conflict began said it was normal practice for airlines to fly over conflict zones... the pilot added that Ukrainian airspace was regularly overflown by European airlines – including British Airways, Lufthansa and KLM – and imposing a no-fly zone over the entire country would have commercial and logistical consequences for carriers." AHeneen (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

...and therefore fare price implications for passengers. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Travelling along the Black Sea is interesting, what part were they travelling? The FAA ban for US airlines extends beyond Crimea in to part of the black sea [18] [19] Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I've noticed that this article cites YouTube and Twitter a number of times, such as [20], [21], and [22]. Shouldn't these be removed until better sources can be found? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I already removed the youtube link a couple of times since it is, in addition to not being reliable, does not prove anything--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There are official Youtube and Twitter sources that can sometimes be cited. It depends on who the account belongs to (reliable?) and just what the claim is. If the claim is that a black plume of smoke arose of unconfirmed origin or location then the Youtube video would support that. One has to use one's intelligence here: how likely is it that the source is right or wrong? We have rules of thumb but that doesn't mean testing for unreliability is unthinking. It is not reasonable to believe that the FlightRadar tweet is somehow fake; both it and another tweet at issue here also appears on the NY Times website.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it depends on the claim, but not the idea that some are more reliable than others - see WP:TWITTER - (primary source) claims about self are ok, other than that it is not a WP:RS (not a secondary, there's no editorial control etc) WP:YOUTUBE has copyright issues to navigate too. We build articles on secondary not primary sources. Widefox; talk 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Missed expected arrival

In the MH370 timeline, it shows the time when the flight missed its arrival time. Should we include that here? If we do, it would be at 20 Jul 2014 @ 06:10 MYT, 12h10m into the flight. According to http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en.html Anthonyliu (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No seems irrelevant here as the wreckage was found and confirmed well before expected arrival. The flight was no longer missing at that time. Arnoutf (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight route? How many airlines use that part of Ukranian airspace to get to their destinations?

I was reading that 16 airlines use that route as it save on fuel costs when traversing Ukrainian airspace.

Can we get a list of airlines that flew that route?

That is to prevent people from blaming Malaysian airlines as the only airline that flies over a warzone.121.217.42.243 (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is blaming MA for flying this corridor which was cleared and assumed to be safe by air traffic control. Arnoutf (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well there clear is a question over this because several journalists were asking about it at the press conference including at least one one who asked if they made a mistake. The Malaysians likewise were very quick to mention that it was an approved airspace etc. (And journalists likewise were talking about why they were flying there, whether they were allowed to, and the fact many others were still flying over there even before it was certain it had been shot down.) I don't think this is that surprising although I do agree from the details we know there wasn't anything unusual or wrong with MA for being there. Considering this is coming on the heels of MH370 were some mistakes may have been made, it's even less surprising that people are asking the questions.

So it's probably worth having some coverage without violating WP:UNDUE of the fact it remained a well travelled route right up until the shooting. We can also mention the fact a small number of airlines have said they were avoiding the airspace, as well as the FAA ban which didn't cover this particular airpspace. Again without violating [[WP:UNDUE}] it would be interesting if there is some sourced information on whether those airlines who have said they were already avoiding it (like Qantas) were really doing anything significant. Or because of different destinations both starting and ending as well as the number, they weren't actually increasing travel time or cost much at all compared to the many others who choose to continue to use the route.

Also while we will have to wait to see how this develops, there are suggestions it may lead to airlines flying over conflict zones a lot less, even ones like Afghanistan where the militants can only dream of having anything sophisticated enough to take down a commercial jet.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Makes some sense - perhaps in the fragment where we now state that the air space was closed immediately after (under header response). We could add something to that implicitly giving this information like: "In response to the accident and even before official closure of the airspace other carriers changed flight plans to avoid crossing the area for both their scheduled and in route planes ." and give this reference http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28356745. Or is that too implicit? Arnoutf (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I came across [23] which is interesting. Although the part of the route the plane was on was fine, it seems that the route in Russia it was supposed to travel along had been closed hours earlier. (This has also lead to people questioning why Russia closed those routes.) I would wait for more sources reporting this and from the earlier details, it sounds like at least some other airlines were probably head to the same closed Russian routes. The NYT source does offer something interesting, as it shows some airlines were definitely travelling out of their way rather than just choosing alternatives which weren't much worse (although it's still not clear what percentage of their flights were affected). It shows that the area over Crimea and the Black Sea was banned not just by the FAA, but also Eurocontrol (although different parts of the Black Sea), so unsurprisingly anyone who did fly avoid Ukraine also had to take a wide berth around Crimea lf flying that way. Also I should clarify my comment above about militants in other Afghanistan, I meant shooting down a commercial jet flying at cruising altitudes. Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the main flight route to Asia, except for direct flights to China. 15 of 16 Asia-Pacific airlines are using this route according to the press conference.[24] Mightyname (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Passenger Count

Where is the source? The current source, http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/mh17.html, shows different numbers than the chart. Anthonyliu (talk)

At present it is 189 Netherlands, 44 Malaysia, 27 Australia, 12 Indonensia, 9 UK, 4 Belgium, 4 Germany, 3 Philippines, 1 Canada, 1 New Zealand, Four passengers’ nationalities remain to be verified. That adds upto 298, which is the death toll, including the crew. The current table adds up to 297 (but says 298) CS Miller (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight Number retirement

Does anybody know when the airline will retire the MH17 designation for its AMS-KUL route? I know that the airline retired the MH370 designation on its red-eye KUL-PEK-KUL route after Flight 370 disappeared. The airline's website flight status for AMS-KUL (MH17) is still showing as "On Time" departure for 18 July 2014. I think we should give Malaysia Airlines a couple of days to retire the flight number. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

yes, perhaps on oneWorld timetables tooUFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They're still using it today, with MH17 in the air right now [25]. (But looks like they avoided Ukraine.) 9kat (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the flight number will be retired on 25 July 2014 and will be changed to MH19. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Some facts are still to be verified

Possibly I am not completely up-to-date, and possibly some people have more information than I have. Nevertheless: is it not too early to make a wikipedia page about something whose circumstances are yet unclear? 188.87.231.11 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is clear the plane came down and that many people died. It is also clear this has led to an emergency meeting of the UN security council. That alone makes it notable and hence relevant for a Wikipedia article. Arnoutf (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Passengers en route to AIDS conference

"About 100 of the 298 people killed at the Malaysia Airlines crash were heading to Melbourne for a major AIDS conference"[26] - this is a noteworthy addition to the article. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See also Joep Lange, one of the researchers among those mentioned above. And Talk:Joep Lange#Is he really dead? --220 of ^Borg 11:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From [27]: "conference organizers said they had only been able to confirm seven names. ... 'we think the actual number is much smaller'" I removed the count from the article due to this. A minor bit of good news, perhaps. 9kat (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki to uk:

Dutch travel agencies

Picture

Images of crash site

References for passengers

AP reporter that saw the Buk Missile System last Thursday?

Aircraft

Reactions

Biden statement

Lead

Splitting passengers from crew

Removal of unsupported wreckage claim

Image of Buk missile system

Codeshares

Deadliest

Unnecessary Protection

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014 (similar incidents)

Reaction

Shot down

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

Crew names released

Crew

International Reactions Section Removed?

Removing international response section - BRD

How did the aircraft was lost?!

Coordinates

aircraft shortage due to jull loss of two long-hual B777s

Casualties from US

Right now this article is extremely one-sided

time of last radar contact

last known position

showdown between Interstate Aviation Committee and NTSB and Dutch Safety Board

apology to country of passenger origin [Netherlands]

Claims of a downed An-26

See also

International Reaction : India

Timeline of the flight is wrong. Plane lost contact with ground control at 13:15 UTC.

Passengers; don't report rumours in the infobox.

See also

is Malaysian Airlines livery purposely painted grey on belly to look like Air Force jets?

Recorded phone call

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Allegations on the cause

Change the title to talk about "Crash of..." or something specific.

Named fatalities

Midair breakup, not just breakup on impact

Useless section (aka, International Reactions - NPOV issue)

Interesting, but...

Separate article

Brisbane G20

See also section

Not to be confused with flight 370?

Who directed the plane into the war zone where planes were shot down before?

Unreliable sources

Missed expected arrival

Flight route? How many airlines use that part of Ukranian airspace to get to their destinations?

Passenger Count

Flight Number retirement

Some facts are still to be verified

Passengers en route to AIDS conference