Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 12

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 5

←

Archive 10

Claimed/Said POV

Currently we have a serious bias in the article of "Ukraine/US said" versus "Russia claimed". This is a bad example of an editor changing a statement of an unnamed US official from "claimed" to "said" while doing the opposite change for the official statement of a Russian minister. Either both sides "said" things or both sides "claimed" things. What is the preferred word to use for all statements from both sides? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style, "said" is to be preferred, and "claimed" should be avoided. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

When we are discussing material released by state-sponsored propaganda, either via RT or from the government itself, "claimed" is rather appropriate here. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You are pretty one-sided here. When you claim that all statements from one side are propaganda, you are making propaganda for the other side. And when an unnamed US official said something or the US president said something, that would equally be propaganda from the US government itself. Either we treat all or none statements of all governments involved as propaganda. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Either both sides 'said' things or both sides 'claimed' things" is a false equivalence if there ever was one. There is no comparison between the Kremlin CLAIM that a Su-25 shot this aircraft down and the observation that the Kremlin has been guiding the media when it can. I'll note as Vladimir Bukovsky did that the middle ground between the Big Lie of Soviet propaganda and the truth is a lie, such that one should not be looking for a middle ground between disinformation and information.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick tally - 5 claims by US sources, 9 claims by Ukrainian sources, 10 claims by Russian sources. Note that neither Russia nor the US are officially involved so we should be careful with their statements. Conclusion: If anything the Russian claims are overrepresented and hence if there is any bias at all it is slanted towards Russian POV. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that the "tally" doesn't mean anything if the claims are not comparable in terms of credibility. You do not ensure neutrality simply by giving the Kremlin equal time.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It is simple, though. There is no doubt that people say what they say. There is no reason to add spin and "claim" that they say anything other than what they said, as the MoS says. If what they say is false, it is very easy to follow up what they said with the evidence to the contrary. If there isn't any evidence to the contrary, than one can't say it is false. The fact of the matter remains: everyone can "say" anything. Using "said" is an objective reporting of what happened, and isn't loaded with potential PoV. The only purpose of the word "claim" is to imply that what was "said" was disproven, or is otherwise false. However, the word "claim" itself does not provide proof of this falsity. The only objective way to disprove something that is said is to provide reliable sources that disprove said statement. It isn't about giving "equal time" to the Russian government. It is about reporting what a relevant party (Russia) says on the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not "objective" to treat statements that fly in the face of contrary evidence the same as statements that well supported by the evidence. You're "spinning" up the dubious claims to the level of the statements. Everything is not just a matter of opinion. Do you deny that there's such a thing as False balance?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is such a thing as a "false balance". However, the government of Russia is not a "fringe" source. It is the government of one of the most powerful states in the world. The "level of statements"? A "statement" is merely a matter of someone "stating" something, "stating" merely a matter of someone "saying" something in a somewhat authoritative context. If what is said by the Russian government is false, then provide evidence as such and write it in prose. Don't use the word "claim" in an attempt to devalue statements by a non-fringe source without even providing evidence. Please read the MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That Russia is a powerful state has really nothing to do with the reliability of its state-controlled media. Der Spiegel has noted that "Russia Today also uses a chaotic mixture of conspiracy theories and crude propaganda," while the Economist has noted RT's penchant for "wild conspiracy theories". I did read the MoS and it says don't use "claimed" when there aren't grounds to question the speaker's credibility. In the current edit war going on over what Khodakovsky claimed, it SHOULD be questioned. The "evidence" is right there in the fact that he's contradicting Reuters, a reliable source, and in a context whereby it's obvious why he has a motivation to retract his comments. Look at how the New York Times described this: "Almost as soon as the Reuters interview was published, Mr. Khodakovsky tried to take the comments back... Reuters responded by releasing audio of the interview, in which the commander could be clearly heard..." Could we add all of that to the article? Yes, we could, but a better tactic than filling up the article with all the contradictory evidence after every dubious claim (and getting further bogged down into "he said, she said"s) is to alert the reader in short-hand form that, based on our knowledge of the sources, while Khodakovsky's claim of being misquoted MIGHT be true, it should be taken with a bigger grain of salt than the typical "statement" found in the article. Assessing reliability is one of our jobs instead of just acting as a flow through pipe for propaganda.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The RT article on the English Wikipedia contains a good collection of RSs demonstrating it is just a propaganda tool of the Russian government.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What a government official said is the same no matter who reprinted it verbatim. Either all government statements were "said" or all were "claimed". CorrectKissinTime (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this particular point.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

They are all equivalent, are they? So if a Dutch official presents the findings of his country's investigative agency, you're going to give it the same treatment that the Kremlin claim a Ukrainian Su-25 is to blame deserves? Gloucester didn't have much time for his own "a government is not a 'fringe' source" argument back when he and several others were battling me to keep out of the article Ukraine's claim (fully attributed to Ukraine) that it had a incriminating recording of separatists speaking to each other just minutes before the shoot down. Then as now, I'm told that there's some sort of Wikipedia rule at work, the religious observance of which somehow only coincidentally serves the Kremlin's interests.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A slippery slope here. Juan Riley (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The last thing we want is blind religious observance, isn't it? What do you mean by "a slippery slope", Juan Riley? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In an effort to turn this from snide remarks to an enlightening discussion, how about people weigh in on what they think about EgyptAir Flight 990 as a thought exercise. It's classic government versus government, the U.S. NTSB versus the Egyptian ECAA.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If all "claims" are to be treated with equal weight...WP relevant to articles on current affairs is doomed. Juan Riley (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with that, Juan Riley. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear Lord. I'm not arguing for the reliability of Russia Today, which I agree is essentially a yellow propaganda outlet. I have said so many times at the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm merely enforcing compliance with the MoS about neutral language. If there is one thing Russia Today and associated outlets are reliable for, it is for reporting the position of the Russian government and Russian officials. Russian government officials "say" what they "say", just as any other government official from any other government "says" what he "says". The Manual of Style is clear on this matter. It is not about giving WP:UNDUE weight to the Russian government's position. It is about using neutral language. WP:UNDUE would only apply if one were debating whether to include the Russian government position at all. That is not a debate we are having, as it clearly isn't WP:UNDUE weight to include the Russian government position about a matter that clearly involves them. As we are including it, we must use neutral language. I never said that the Ukrainian government was a fringe source, I said that we should write based on reliable secondary sources, not on primary sources that are not picked up in secondary sources. It appears that you are too caught up in your own passions to edit objectively in this area. Instead of thinking, reading the Manual of Style, you have resorted to going on about "Kremlins" and "interests". This is not a productive way to spend our time. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think your position is entirely reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It might be considered by some as UNDUE if twere only one country's officials/media saying one thing while a large number of other nation states as well as international organizations say the other. Juan Riley (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FRINGE#Evaluating_claims: "claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality"--Brian Dell (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We should not give "equal validity" to every point of view. Nevertheless, we are obliged to report on significant viewpoints regarding this incident. The Russian government's viewpoint is significant, if only because they have been accused of having been directly involved in the shooting down of this aeroplane. The position of the Russian government is not a "fringe theory", even if it is otherwise incorrect or disproven. RGloucester — ☎ 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was not the reportage of Russian statements that was the issue...but the wordage (e.g., claim vs said) of such? Juan Riley (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, JuanRiley. Who is saying that we can never give the view of the Russian government, RG? At issue here is how to present especially dubious claims by Kremlin-affiliated persons. Wikipedia:INTEXT#In-text_attribution says "When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear... the majority view..." What are you doing to ensure against a false parity?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained it. If there is proof in reliable sources that a given significant view is false, it should be presented. That does not mean you should compromise neutrality with words that have nothing but spurious intent. I never said that anyone said that, I was replying to Mr Riley's comment about "UNDUE". Inevitably, it cannot be "undue" in this circumstance, which is what I was clarifying. RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's return to what is specifically being edit warred over. See above the reasons why Khodakovsky's claim is extremely dubious. If an editor uses the word "claim", that can't possibly be chosen out of a good faith desire to avoid a false parity with better evidenced statements but could only be chosen out of "nothing but spurious intent"? As for UNDUE, was it not your view with respect to that Ukrainian-supplied recording that it was UNDUE? Why isn't the Ukrainian view automatically DUE if the Russian view is ("it clearly isn't WP:UNDUE weight to include the Russian government position.... The Russian government's viewpoint is significant, if only because they have been accused...")?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

As Iryna points out below, the idea of an oppositional Ukrainian/US v. Russian POV battle is totally inappropriate. That's why I argued in favour of removing the "Ukrainian case" and "Russian case" sections back when this article was protected. That's not how we write articles. We write based on facts printed in reliable sources, we do not provide both sides of a coin for the purposes of "balancing" them out. I never said that Ukrainian government's position was innately "UNDUE". I said that if it isn't reported in reliable secondary sources, then there is a reason for that, and that it might WP:UNDUE on that basis. This is why we cite secondary sources, not primary. Secondary sources establish notability, and also provide context, fact-checking, &c. This has nothing to do with anything that I've been talking about, however. The only thing that I said was that the MOS is clear on loaded language, and that the words "said, according to" &c. are appropriate in this instance, as opposed to "alleged, claimed" &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You weren't talking about what "might" be UNDUE in the Ukrainian case. You had your blanket rule that meant that you didn't need to consider whether you were using your rule appropriately in that case or not. If Ukrainian claims depend on being "reported in reliable secondary sources", in RS that have done "fact-checking", the same applies to Russian claims right? Hence the relevance of fact-checking in Russia's state media or the absence thereof and its editorial independence (if any) from the primary, a relevance you've tried to dismiss here by saying Russian claims should be reported without any skeptical qualifiers no matter how outrageous they are. The takeaway I get from your various views is that we're supposed to be gatekeepers with respect to Ukrainian claims while getting out of the way of Russian ones since treating Russian claims skeptically would be biased according to your style rules. The MOS is, in fact, not clear that "claim" may never be used. If "claim" may sometimes be used what are those sometimes?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: 1) have you bothered to read the link to the RSN regarding RT I've provided below? 2) 'Claim' would only be appropriate in an article critiquing WP:FRINGE theories such as the Illuminati, Intelligent Design, Holocaust denial, et al. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, was aware of that RSN discussion some time ago, and I stand by my view that using RT and the New York Times similarly creates a false parity. In any case the edit warring hasn't been over any RT claim or statement but Khodakovsky's claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

A reminder to all that the use of RT as a reliable source was discussed at length recently (over the period of a month, to be precise) at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Please read the relevant arguments and outcome. In a nutshell, it is not treated as being fringe but, rather, as with all sources, needs to be evaluated in context, not treated as being WP:FRINGE as it is a source for the RF's position. What was established is completely and utterly WP:COMMONSENSE: that attribution is an imperative, and that it is reliable for statements by officials, just as other Western sources are reliable for statements of official positions. MoS Words to watch is clear on the use of potentially loaded language: 'said', 'according to', 'statement by minister so-and-so', etc. are neutral. WP:BALASPS is irrelevant, as making concerted efforts to represent all points of view as having equal validity is assuming a non-neutral position. Employing a lexicology of US/Ukrainian POV vs. Russian POV for this article is not neutral, and is pure WP:OR. Reportage is available from the BBC, Al Jazeera, EU publications therefore, unless you want to argue that all of these are American client-state publications, toss the US/Ukrainian POV notion in the bin where it belongs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now here is another question: Is referring to all reportage other than Russian as "western" a symptom of UNDUE? Juan Riley (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your "all" includes countries like Serbia and China. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nuff said. Juan Riley (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, there is no quandary. We don't refer to 'according to Western sources', or 'according to Chinese sources' (as noted above): that would be positioning ourselves, not neutrality. It would also make for a ridiculously convoluted, unreadable article. We use secondary sources and make rational (i.e., WP:COMMONSENSE) decisions as to whether there are a variety of sources attesting to the information added to the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. let us look at your words: "toss the US/Ukrainian POV notion in the bin where it belongs" hmmm. Juan Riley (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I say toss them all. Speculation and claims don't actually help the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Juan Riley, what words am I putting in your mouth? I've qualified why the use of US/Ukrainian POV being touted all over this discussion is completely off track. Rather than expressions of doubt as to my interpretation, you are welcome to present sources confirming your allegations that sources being used are explicitly US/Ukrainian spin doctoring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with Brian Dell and mostly disagree with RGloucester. For example, there was such thing as Soviet propaganda (and North Korean state propaganda sources right now). Should their statements be mentioned at all? Yes, sure, but only as an illustration of a particular state-driven propaganda or disinformation campaign, rather than an eligible "opinion" by a "side". Speaking about RT and other Russian state controlled sources, the current propaganda campaign far exceeds Soviet propaganda during Brezhnev's times (I am speaking as someone who lived in the Soviet Union and recently watched TV in Russia), and this is an opinion by many independent sources. Speaking about sources discussed on RS noticeboard, the reliability of certain Russian sources was significantly diminished during last weeks, so this is all outdated. My very best wishes (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is propaganda or isn't propaganda. It matters what language we use to describe it. The word "said" is appropriate. Are you denying that when someone speaks, they "say" something? RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with RG on this, the word "said" should be used, it's neutral and it's accurate. This is a common dispute that pops up all over WP, and by using the word "claim", it's just merely an effort at trying to minimize the credibility of the statement being made. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is saying anyone's credibility should be questioned when there is no reason to question. The issue at hand is more like whether to deviate or not from the AP and NYT style books and have a general prohibition against "claimed." AP and NYT not infrequently use "claimed". Fidelity to these RS means the spirit of their language should flow through absent a reason to insert our own editorial judgment between the sources and the reader. Using the same language for all sources contributes to false balance. Why weren't you helping me when I was edit warring with CorrectKissingTime to take out "claim"? A U.S. official's statement gets changed to "claim" and I'm the only one to protest, meanwhile I call a clearly false statement elsewhere in the article a "claim" and suddenly "claim" becomes a no no.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't regurgitate the language that sources use. We are not a newspaper. They have no burden to be neutral. We do, as we are writing an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Neutrality is a policy here. Our Manual of Style is clear, so if you have an issue with that, take it up with the MoS. It has nothing do with a "false balance". Absolutely nothing. People say what they say. "False balance" would be presenting a disputed opinion as "truth", or giving that opinion more screen-time than is warranted. That is not the case here. The Russian opinion is important. It isn't fringe. We are not presenting it as "truth", either. We are merely saying that they "said" it. Do you dispute that they "say" it? RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell, why are you spreading lies against me? You changed that from claimed to said. I changed that back to claimed (no editwar). Everyone can confirm that you are a liar by clicking on Next edit, where I myself changed that back to said after I started the discussion here and RGloucester linked to the applicable guideline. What protest are you referring to? You were not even involved in the discussion I started here until the point where I changed that back to said. You are pretty loud in claiming what media can be trusted and which cannot - could you start applying similar high standards also to your own statements? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"I changed that back to claimed" is edit warring when, as here, the reversion was not preceded by an attempt to discuss. You then flip flopped (a flip flop obscured by saying "thanks" to RG as if you'd always agreed with him that "claimed" should never be used) and decided "said" was correct after all for the U.S. official's remark but that still didn't stop you from subsequently reverting Tarc's restoration of what the U.S. official actually said. Apparently you're free to choose your own words over the speaker's words and there's no neutrality issue but should another editor dare to use "claimed" (post flip flop) like I did for that contradicted Khodakovsky assertion, why that would be a biased presentation. The bottom line is that "claimed" was in the article to describe a U.S. official's well-substantiated statement for more than a week after John first added it yet that wasn't bothering any of the editors who are now dogmatically insisting "claimed" should not be used until I protested by moving the "claim" language to the extremely dubious Kremlin assertions where it was warranted. It's just part of a pattern of what appears appears to be selective enforcement, with the latest example being RG's insistence that "Russian opinion" be included without hurdles like first being mentioned in "fact-checking" secondary RS, a hurdle he placed in front of a Ukrainian claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester. Good question! No, we can not simply tell "they say" about a well-known propaganda source, such as (for example) book The secret war against Soviet Russia. We must make sure that claim is explicitly mentioned as an unreliable or even false claimat the corresponding WP page. Some of the photos provided by the Russian Ministry of defense are now discounted as forged. Hence there is a legitimate question: should they be mentioned in this page at all? Perhaps they should, but only as forgery.My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I give up. This is clearly pointless, and why I've avoided editing this article. Do whatever you like, Mr Dell. Twist my words as much as you'd like, make as many accusations as you'd like. I shan't be listening anymore. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If I have misrepresented your positions you could detail just how I have misrepresented them instead of "accus"-ing me of "twisting" them. I am not looking to dispute trivialities here. I rather must strongly dissent to the view of Wikipedia implied by such comments as "[re] the language of the sources... newspaper[s]... have no burden to be neutral. We do..." since I think that's a serious misconstrual of what neutrality means. Neutrality ought to mean a certain passivity with respect to what the totality of reliable sources are saying, with the greater the weight the greater the reliability, as opposed to an active "neutral"-lization campaign which here seems to be "neutral"-lizing well-evidenced claims towards the mid-point between those well-evidenced claims and Kremlin propaganda.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian, do you feel you are trying to "build consensus" here? Or are you just trying to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

When did I try to prove thread contributors like Tarc, Arnoutf, Juan Riley, or the editor who said "I would agree with Brian Dell" wrong? I could ask if you feel you are just trying to create the impression that I'm isolated from the consensus view (as if "everyone" disagrees with every last point I raise) but a more on-topic question would be do you have something to say about improving the article as opposed to me?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Brian, I must be missing something. Maybe it's just your tone? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Brian Dell, what exactly do mean by "you're free to choose your own words over the speaker's words"? Where does paraphrasing, close paraphrasing and direct quoting fit into all of this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, because I think it's helpful to discuss that. Paraphrasing vs direct quoting fits into the same place as "claimed" vs "said." When we paraphrase we integrate what would otherwise be an isolated direct quote into the context of the article and its surrounding sentences. Ditto for "claim" when, for example, in the Wikipedia paragraph the "claim" contradicts what an RS says in an immediately preceding or following sentence. I think it's a double standard to prefer a prefer a paraphrase over a quote at the same time one is demanding "said" instead of "claimed." Either editorial judgment is allowed or it isn't.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I wish I knew what you meant. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell, on the issue where you are spreading lies against me (claimed/said on the manipulating the media statement) you made a change, I reverted it, started a discussion here, and after the relevant guideline was pointed out to me (not by you) I changed that back to the word said you introduced there. My edit changed all statements I could find that wrongly used claimed to said - 2 US statements and 2 Russian statements. There is no way for me to assume good faith on your side looking at the way you twisted the truth for using that against me. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I stand by the chronology of your edits as I presented them above. If you want to call that "spreading lies" that's your prerogative although I suggest using my Talk page when the topic is me instead of the article so that space is given here for those who wish to discuss edits instead of editors.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my observation that you were telling blatant lies about my edits in a part of the discussion where I was not even involved. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta

Novaya Gazeta is a Russian liberal opposition newspaper well known in its country for its critical and investigative coverage of Russian political and social affairs.

But it's written in the section "Russian media coverage": "... the left-leaning Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta...". It should be corrected. 81.155.127.126 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur, fixed Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian and U.S.views

It is good that two conflicting views are given but the section title: Ukrainian and U.S.views is a misnomer; naming it this way makes it look like a minority view held by the Ukraine and USA, who are somehow in cahoots. Even within the page itself we have clear commitments by Australia and the United Kingdom. Some countries have been careful not to express a view, but a quick Google showed most of the western world to share this view and the title should reflect that. We have the refs to make it "Australian, British, Ukrainian and US" right now but its going to be a bit unwieldy to put twenty countries in there, maybe we could have "The Prevailing View"? Whatever, the title is on borrowed time as it cannot stay in its current state forever, when the Dutch Safety Board tables its first interim report, that will become the generally accepted view. E x nihil ^(talk) 14:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not just the US & Ukraine's view, the text itself in that section includes the views of other countries, plus claims of direct responsibility by some newspapers. Although splitting it up into 2 sections (as it is now) sounds a bit like a pro and con list, which are usually undesirable. Anyway, back on topic: "prevailing view" sounds okay, other options could be "majority", "mainstream". Stickee (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This section needs to be eliminated. This is exactly the type of thing that WP:GEVAL discourages. We do not provide opposition between different views in this manner. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As it stands right now, the "cause" section is a nightmare of bad prose and crappy organisation. The whole thing needs to be WP:KIBOSHed and rewritten. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A pretty good summary - I'm with RGloucester — ☎ on this. 82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

More POV editorializing

This briefly appeared in the article: "There has been much speculation about cause and responsibility." The use of the word "speculation" looks to me as intended to cast doubt upon some of the theories about who is responsible. In fact that word has been used elsewhere in the article and this talk page in manner that's intended to disparage the views of western government and media. Its removal was justified. I request that it not be restored to the article, and ask that we refrain from editorializing, if that's possible. Geogene (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC) I put this in rather hurriedly as an indication that something further was needed. I think it is better to state claim and counter claim as the BBC do in a quote I used previously. Most western media seems now to be more circumspect about apportioning responsibility whilst the investigation is under way and I think wiki should be too. When the report is out this may change dramatically. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If it does, we'll have to change the article accordingly, of course. Geogene (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian ministry of defense media briefing

I'm not sure what role this will have, but somebody on the Russian Wikipedia pointed to the Russian Ministry of Defense media briefing

"Briefing with the media, dedicated to the newly identified facts which relate to the aviation disaster of Malaysian aircraft "Boeing 777"." (Специальный брифинг Минобороны России по вопросам катастрофы рейса MH17 в небе Украины)

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected Status of Article

Why is this article still protected? The original justification seems to have been that it was a recent event, but some time has now passed. Similar articles like Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 are not protected. How are we continuing to justify the protected status of this article?--24.87.183.179 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make an edit, please leave a protected edit request here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

sigh. 62.228.126.211 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to risk some unruly ip editors starting some kind of relentless edit war, would we? Not when the article is in such a stable state of happy consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree protection should be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone may edit. If a vandalism problem results, protection could be re-applied. Protection should generally be time-limited.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the current protection have no time limit? How long has it been in force now? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been semi-protected for more than two weeks but I am not about to blame @Lowellian for making it indefinite because in doing so he took it off full protection, a gutsy opening of the page for which he endured no small amount of (unwarranted) criticism from those who wanted editing restricted to admins.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it should stay for a little bit longer until things slow down (eg another week or two). If you unprotect now it'd probably be returned soon after. Stickee (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There are still plenty of editors active here who are determined to add comment from their favourite political entity. I wouldn't be comfortable giving them all free reign just yet. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it ever comfortable to give up control and let freedom "reign"?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be comfortable about doing that when we achieve consensus to remove all speculation and claims from the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with HiLo on this. It is bad enough having edit-wars over dubious stuff when perpetrated by named editors who can be blocked or banned if necessary. Nothing conclusive will be discovered on this story until the report is issued and we certainly wouldn't benefit in the meantime from allowing unregistered edits. --John (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should put a banner up at the top "unregistered editors unwelcome". It'd fit in nicely along with all the other rubbish. 213.7.249.124 (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but I wouldn't support that. In the meantime you can request an edit if there is something specific you want to change. Is there? --John (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

lol, are you trying to "expose" me or something? I've already had two changes made ([1], [2]). I'm not gonna open an edit req for every tiny correction I want to make. 213.7.249.124 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Or else register. (Then you could help design the banner!) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Flippant as ever. 213.7.249.124 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous (as ever?) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't be anonymous when my IP's exposed. Anonymity isn't something Wikipedia espouses. 213.7.249.124 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad that we all know who you are. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Right... 213.7.249.124 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is Belfast Telegraph policy to close comments on court cases, tribunals and active legal investigations - what is the Wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.204.133 (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No special provisions for court cases/investigations/tribunals. The general idea for (semi) protection is to prevent disruption or vandalism to the encyclopedia. Although sometimes the threshhold is a bit lower for articles that are biographies of living people. Stickee (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that you're not going to get consensus to lift protection here so I don't see much point for further discussion, particularly since it's not like consensus or the lack of it, guarantees anything. I suggest anyone who feels lifting the protection would be proper and within policy ask the protecting admin (I guess User:Lowellian) and if you don't get a positive response but still believe it's within policy, ask at [[WP:RFPP}], as is the norm when you want protection changed. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree. There's not even a queue. But then, I am flippant. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no 'queue' 'cause the edit request thing is unworkable. If it were anything like pull requests, there might've been a glimpse of hope, but how do you expect anyone to make a comprehensive edit request? 213.7.249.124 (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no queue at WP:RFPP. If the edit request thing really was unworkable, one migth expect a huge queue. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, 'cause there's no other factors. Like, do you even expect newcomers to know where to find WP:RFPP? And even if they do, might it not be more likely they just give up? Why do you think they'd ask for it to be lifted in the first place? Newcomers have absolutely no idea what the WP bureaucracy is like; there's no crash course. 213.7.249.124 (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, I think the expectation is that if newcomers are sufficiently interested in making more than the occasional edit they will register. If they can read, they can read this link to WP:RFPP. But as Nil Einne says, if you personally feel that strongly, why not discuss it with User:Lowellian? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel strongly about it being recognised as an issue. I've not really an opinion on whether the protection should be kept or lifted. 213.7.249.124 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So is your concern related to improving this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Back to taking the piss then, are we? 213.7.249.124 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Fell free to raise your concerns at Talk:Urinary incontinence. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Clarified my response to mention you should ask the protecting admin first. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection is the right level for this article. This is a high-profile article, under very active editing, about a very controversial and politically-charged event which is receiving continuing heavy coverage in the news media. It is very clear from the past editing history and from this talk page that there are many disputed facts and users with many opposing points of view. Full protection is problematic because it prohibits any editing. No protection, however, not only gives free reign for anyone to edit war, POV push, and vandalize, but for users intent on such practices to do so without blocking being an effective deterrent, since they can easily create new accounts and hop IP addresses. Semiprotection is a good middle ground, allowing editing by non-abusive users while acting to limiting vandalism. Some of the above comments have described me as the "protecting admin"; however, I actually reduced the protection level from full protection, set by another admin, to semiprotection. There is ample precedent for current political topics staying under semiprotection (e.g. David Cameron, Barack Obama), and in particular, other articles related to the background of MH17, such as 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, are under semiprotection (instituted by admins other than myself) for the same reasons. —Lowellian (reply) 17:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not about improving the contents of the article but about implementation of article (semi)protection. Can we please keep it to the question of relevance to this article that is whether is should remain to be semiprotected. In my opinion yes, as the fraction of new/anon editors emphasizing fringe and conspiracy theories appears to be fairly large. We should not allow this a platform even if frustrating bona fide anon/new users. Arnoutf (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with continuing the semiprotected status, per Arnoutf above. Geogene (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

re "fraction of new/anon editors emphasizing fringe and conspiracy theories appears to be fairly large," that's more than a little speculative. You've got a whole TV network emphasizing conspiracy theories in the form of RT, never mind isolated individuals. I could just as easily say that the fraction of experienced editors who, by virtue of their (typically incomplete) awareness of some "rule", have latched onto that rule like a crutch and misapply it to situations that ought to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis is fairly large (see the IP commentators in the "Flags Again" thread versus most of the non-IPs). In any case, Wikipedia:Protection_policy never refers to editors promoting fringe theories. The policy says semi-protection is appropriate for "Articles experiencing high levels of vandalism or edit warring from unregistered and new users" and it also says "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." If one looks at the Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection it refers again and again to "vandalism", something that is not well in evidence here.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned this conversation on User:Lowellian's talk page. His input may be helpful concerning the timeline for removal of protection or alternatively the circumstances we are looking to achieve prior to removing protections. Personally, I think it might be appropriate to remove them now, but if it is necessary to maintain protections it might be good to have a general idea of when they will be removed either by way of a set time period (eg two more weeks) or some criteria about sorting our certain issues etc. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainian POV

The section "Cause" looks like it is unbalanced: it features excessive quotations by the Ukrainian officials (like Vitaly Nayda, who claimed Russia was responsible for the crash) and only brief mentions of the Russians' statements (who, in turn, blame the Ukraine). The data released by Washington is seemingly consistent with both the Russian and the Ukrainian version of the events (given that, according to Russians, the Ukrainians moved a Buk very close to the territory controlled by rebels), and the Russian version is supported by some of the independent experts (like Stephen Cohen, Robert Parry or Peter Haisenko). I would also question the credibility of the Ukrainian media (since Ukraine is involved in the conflict, and most of them seem to be pro-Maidan and anti-Russia, just like the Russian RT is pro-Kremlin). --109.21.150.113 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

lol...did you really expected anything else? Wikipedia = left. EU = left. EU opposed Russia. Thus wikipedia will social-engineer accordingly. Also it is funny that most of the east is turning towards the right(eg. India's modi, China and now Russia) while the west turn towards the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.10.68 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

not all the east going fascist -Japan has thrown its hand in with the west , no? (oh you said 'most' , fair enough) (notforum - I know, I know)Sayerslle (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Claim of responsibility

The difference between the claim of responsibility cited and that in the 9/11 article is that in the latter responsibility was denied then admitted, in this case it has arguably been admitted and then denied. I've no quarrel with that material being placed prominently in the article but not at such length in the lead. Maybe there's a case for mentioning it in the lead but it would be difficult to mention it briefly. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC) With regard to the alleged deleted post by Strelkov would this alleged deleted report by Olga Ivshina of BBC Russia be counted as RS? This raises the whole status of cached versions of internet material which have been removed.Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

1 It makes no difference that responsibility was denied before or after it was admitted. It is relevant only that it was admitted. 2 Please don't simply delete large chunks of referenced text because you think it's in the wrong place. That is destructive behaviour. 3 References from other languages are allowed if there is no English version available. NFH (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

1 There is no current claim of responsibility. 2 I deleted it with an indication that I would not object if it was placed elsewhere. I don't see why that is destructive. Describing my behaviour as destructive is close to personal abuse especially when you are failing to engage in the question I raised of whether it is appropriate to have it in the lead and at that length. 3 The Christian Science Monitor reference is the best ref and the others hardly necessary. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

1. It makes no difference that the separatists have deleted their claim. The whole point is that they made a claim when it suited them politically to do so. 2. Please move rather than delete, otherwise valuable content becomes lost. I have said nothing that is personally abusive or close to it. 3. The more sources, the better, particularly when they agree with each other and are from reputable organisations. The length of the paragraph is proportionate to others in the introduction and the subject matter. NFH (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

1 It's not a cut-and-dried claim of responsibility: they claimed to have shot down a military aircraft and others subsequently said it was MH 17. 2 The content isn't lost it can easily be retrieved. 3 Actually your sources say all sorts of things: "The Russians say the Ukrainian government shot down MH17; some say Russia did; and most believe the Russian-backed separatists did by using the SA-series missile." That's one, the one from the Christian Science Monitor says that the web evidence can be faked but it would be difficult. It's taking up one third of the lead, it's too much. A section "claim of responsibility" with the quote marks appearing high up in the contents table would be good.

A series of social media posts have been cited as proof that the rebel forces are to blame for shooting down the civilian plane. The point is that it has still not been established how it was destroyed. Speculations do not belong to the lead. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I too would prefer to keep them out but have put forward a compromise Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

like sightings of the buk carrier moving from Donetsk the day of the shoot down , to torez and then , missile less in lugansk , are all 'speculation' - I suppose in a putinist world , reality is 'speculation' , putinreality is whatever RT says and the epigones make sure putinreality seeks to control narratives. you 're taking out RS from the lead,[3] that add to the sum of what is known about the incident - you lot are mugging off the article imo, Sayerslle (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a review of the guideline at WP:LEDE might be helpful. Specifically that significant controversies are covered in the lead and that relative weight of the various viewpoints is determined by the relative number of reliable sources. The guideline at WP:CREATELEAD also says that the 5 W's should be covered by the lead, as well as How (where it is applicable). "Rule of Thumb: If a topic deserves a heading or subheading, then it deserves short mention in the lead." Geogene (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please give a precise reference/quote for this. It would seem absurd that if you get 10 RS repeating a single source then something should have 10 times as much weight.Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

*"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." WP:UNDUE. *"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." WP:BALASPS *"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." WP:BALANCE Geogene (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

One way to win a wiki debate is to quote guidelines until the other party gets bored. It's quite difficult to discern the meaning of these. If 10 newpapers of circulation 100 each publish something should than have ten times as much prominence as if one newspaper of circulation 2,000,000 publishes something else. How does one discover "the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject"?Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can assure you I am naturally boring, and am not repeating myself to "win" this content dispute, although if I were trying it might be devastatingly effective. I wouldn't take the "relative prominence" so literally as to count sources (or circulation), but it seems to me that most of the sources I have seen, by far, lean toward the view that it was probably a Buk missile fired by the separatists, most likely after mistaking it for a Ukrainian military aircraft. Or, even when they don't express in their voice, they seem to give that view the most coverage. They did not give much credence at all to the early Ukrainian view I seem to recall, that it was a Buk missile fired from Russian territory (so no need to mention that at all). Frankly I find it very unlikely that any of the players involved would deliberately shoot down an airliner, while I'd find a simple lack of military professionalism fairly plausible anywhere. Geogene (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the western sources I've seen, which are all British, seemed to assume at first that the rebels shot this plane down by accident but as time has passed have tended to expres that with less certainty and have acknolwedged alternative views. If the lead is to be concise I don't see how we can get into giving due weight to differing views there, just indicate their existence. Are you going to start quoting something wiki lead:due weight Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm content with the lead, as of my latest article edit. Can't speak for anyone else though. Geogene (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For my part I'm not persuaded this'claim' should be in the lead at all as their are questions over its authenticity. Some editors, including me, would like nothing speculative in the lead. One of the sources The Christian Science Monitor, says it is possible, though unlikely that the post could be faked. 'Appeared' acknowledges this and is part of the compromise I am suggesting between different approaches. I think again there are far to many references, most of them repeating the other, they just clutter the lead, but would be excellent if this is explored in more detail elsewhere. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC) I agree 'a,ppeared' may be somewhat imprecise but it's important to keeo this section as brief as possible, as it is it takes up more than a quarter of the lead. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Stickee, it is abundantly clear from the source that there is not 100% certainty as to rebel responsibility. If we are to mention this 'claim' in the lead then in the interests of balance this lack of certainty must be reflected. Before reverting again please address this question rather than focusing on a narrow piece of text.Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC) You have to look at surce as a whole, it accepts the possibility that this post was faked. Given this slight contradiction we must have resource to headline and subheadline, which resolves it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And there is not 100% certainty that man walked on the moon either. But we follow what reliable sources say and these say that them most likely case is that the separatists shot down the plane. Yes, the article shouldn't be a "blame game". It should clearly state that most reliable sources blame the rebels. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC) Most British RSs which I see now do not express 100% certainty, they cite claim and counter-claim. There's an enquiry going onm, there's n enquiry as to whether anyone walked on the Moon or not.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

why have you ( or those generally of your attitude) taken out the sightings on the day of the buk launcher from the lead? - is it because that's harder to dismiss as 'speculation'? Sayerslle (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead should be concise. Some editors would like to exclude anything from the lead which may be speculative. Having an apparent claim, subsequently withdrawn, seemed like a good compromise. We couild get into all sorts of detail, for example there is the withdrawn report from BBC Russian service which mentions witnesses seeing other planes in the vicinity. I'd say eye-witness reports are rather easier to dismiss than evidence from web caches.Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

the lead should be concise , but I only added a sentence - I'd far rather have pertinent RS material there that adds to the picture of what is known about this incident - than what you personally decide you want there anyhow. still, probably best not to tell the reader in the lead that the launcher was seen in Donetsk in the morning of the attack, and then in torez, and then later in lugansk, -you remember the town the Putin regime lied about where it was - don't want to bother the reader with too much reality - , I mean 'speculative' stuff. ffs. lets keep it unclear - putin and assad don't expect you to believe they want you distracted - lets keep everything 'distracted' here too, - Sayerslle (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If everyone added a sentence it would definitely not be concise. There's a whole range of views on what should go in the lead I don't think the claim should be there as it's not totally reliable, but surely claims come befor everything. I'm trying not to get into a discussion about the relative honesty of regimes. If we are going to get into the level of detail you want then we would need to represent other viewpoints. It would be good not to have an ever chaning lead but there would first have to be consensus on the length of the lead before we could dicsuss balance. As there's an enquiry underway some editors including me would like no evidence of responsibility in the lead at all Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the lead can go without journalists' Buk sightings, in the interests of being concise. It's useful in the article body but not essential enough to the readers' understanding that it must be in the Lead. The important thing is that Western governments accuse the separatists for various reasons and the Russians and separatists deny this, and that the matter is still under investigation. I listed above some quotes from essays and policies above about giving weight to claims based on the number of reliable sources that seem to favor those views, which I feel support my contention that the "western" views and "Russian" views should not necessarily have equal coverage in the article. I also feel that lately the Western views are being diluted in the article and particularly in the Lead, I believe this to be to the detriment of the article. Geogene (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

but its not 'journalist sightings' - Ukrainians report sightings of missile launcher on day of MH17 crash

In Torez, some say missile's journey through town has been a hot topic but people are scared of talking to outsiders '[4] - I think you're right its evident the mainstream RS views are being diluted - pretty blatant -Sayerslle (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead as it stands is entirely western views. You would have to dilute them to nothing for the lead to be unbalanced. I think the lead should indicate concisely the differing views without going into detail and point to the body of the article. It would take years and years to compute all the published reliable sources and to see how much space they gave to each view.Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Why have facts been replaced with speculation, interpretation, opinion and what "appears" to be the case? We should only state that hard facts, which are that a post appeared on Igor's VKontakte page claiming responsibility for shooting down a military aircraft. We should not be interpreting or speculating on that. For example, his account might have been hacked (unlikely). We shouldn't state that he appeared to say something, only that something was posted on his page. Let readers draw conclusions. We shouldn't draw conclusions for them. Also we really should directly cite the Wayback Machine's cache of the relevant page. NFH (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

because according to the Russian pov there are no facts - its all just so muddy - no sightings of a launcher, etc - Sayerslle (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Because, apparently, in addition to haggling over what we should and should not include, we've been using words like "claim", "speculation", and "alleged" to cast as much doubt as possible on anything we find questionable. I made an early effort to replace "claim" with "said" anywhere it was used as a verb in the article, regardless of who was speaking. This proved unpopular, and certainly isn't worth an edit warring accusation. The result has been a proliferation of aspersions of doubt. Geogene (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is a blame contest. Keep in mind the investigation is still ongoing. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Crash time correction

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

Article says that crash occurred at 14:15 UTC, while Flightradar24 and image on the right says it happened 1 hour earlier - 13:15 UTC.

We've discussed FlightRadar before here and concluded that its data is not reliable for area the crash was in, and that using would constitute original research from a primary source. Geogene (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of information

The sourced text which reported that Associated Press journalists had witnessed a Buk mobile missile system a day before the shoot-down in a town near the shoot-down site manned by a crew with Russian accents has repeatedly been removed from this article. Why? Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it serves no purpose, unless you're speculating about the cause? We don't include speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think all information should be removed because clearly this a vehicle of USA and European propaganda and and also doesn´t show any light about what happened, who did it and what interests are behind this grey curtain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.60.40 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We can and should include "speculation" about the cause, as long as it is being reported in reliable sources. Ignoring it is non-neutral, because it benefits a particular "side". Geogene (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Are "speculation" and "sides" the same as speculation and sides? If so, I disagree. Zero guesses blaming each side is just as neutral, without the confusing section of mixed fingerpointing where facts should go. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that most of the world agrees on what probably happened, and that Russia wants to wait (forever) for more facts. This is convenient for Russia, having very likely supplied the rebels with the means to shoot down the aircraft. Pretending to be neutral while ignoring RS coverage is neither neutral nor honest, it's censorship. Geogene (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with geogene - the arguments for killing off all the information and calling that 'neutrality' is a bit like the mother who wanted the baby killed altogether for 'fairness' imo - wp should reflect the reportage in RS not wipe out everything - if RS report what the citizens of Torez say for example, that is not a 'guess', that is reportage surelySayerslle (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost nobody is neutral on this matter. The incident occurred well into a propaganda war, one which has clearly influenced the opinion of many. No harm would be done by having no speculation and no uncertain claims published in Wikipedia. It would not support ANY side. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that would cause harm: to Wikipedia, Wikipedia's readership, and the credibility of the project. Geogene (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How could it possibly harm Wikipedia if we included no speculation and no uncertain claims? HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't you removed that bogus Kremlin contention that a Ukrainian Su-25 should be suspected, HiLo? After you've dealt with extremely dubious material like that we can discuss Associated Press reports.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Because I was holding back, trying to get others to see reason on the whole article. I know you ARE certain about what happened. many of us aren't quite so certain, including the official investigators. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep throwing out the red herring of "certainty." This is not about certainty and never has been. It's about what's probable enough that it should presented to readers for them to draw their own conclusions. The fact you deem an agency of the Dutch government more reliable indicates that you CAN step away from your "it's all propaganda" meme when you choose to.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You are making things up. I have not mentioned a Dutch agency anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What nationality are your "official investigators"? Are they stateless persons? Are they Russian? You must have something in mind here. The bottom line here is that what's needed is the application of "reason", not to the "whole article" but to its hundreds of constituent parts. How about the next time there is a controversy over a specific edit, resist the temptation to make some generalized claim about "propaganda war" or "POV pushing" or "speculation" and address what about the particular claim makes it more or less reliable than some other specific claim? Absent this sort of concrete comparison, your assessments are too vague and general to resolve anything. Obviously some things are NOT propaganda or speculation or we wouldn't have an article.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes we would. It would be smaller, and neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It would most certainly not be neutral if the mountain of circumstantial evidence indicating that this missile was fired from separatist-controlled territory were removed simply because it's circumstantial. A significant amount of that incriminating evidence has already been blocked from entering or remaining in the article, in favour of implausible official Kremlin statements.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Because if we decide to self-censor instead of including what has been reported on by numerous reliable sources, then we aren't telling the story here. And if we decide ourselves what is speculation and which claims are uncertain, then we'll never reach agreement anyway. As you said, none of us are actually neutral. Geogene (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The definition of neutrality proposed by some leads to a blank white page. As suggested many days ago why not just have the article read: Something happened...plane crashed. Juan Riley (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And the problem with that would be? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm not seeing any reason for the removal of that information other than "I didn't like it." I will re-add it along with the source. Remember, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. We are all supposed to be completely neutral with regards to the topic. Please stop the revert warring. If there are any reliable reports of Ukrainian missile crews being in the vicinity of the shootdown, we can also include that information. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm not seeing any reason for inclusion of much of our content apart from "I like it". HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, if a reliable source has information that is relevant to the topic, we include it. The only two exceptions are WP:UNDUE and for BLPs. In my eight years of editing Wikipedia, almost every occasion besides BLP that I've seen reliably sourced information removed is because the removing editor was engaged in promoting a particular POV. Such editing is expressly forbidden by WP's policies. In your opinion, is that the reason for the removal of the Associated Press information? Cla68 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If something is notable, well-sourced and doesn't create undue weight, then it's included in Wikipedia. Stickee (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not seeing any reason for exclusion of such other than objections from HiLo48. Juan Riley (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And the Hulkster. Encyclopedias are for teaching, not letting readers draw their own conclusions from a hodgepodge of maybe. That's what TV's for. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I prefer concrete facts to speculation and claims from people with political points to score. Now, it's possible that some of these people have avoided the temptation to allow their biases to influence their claims, but we cannot know that for sure, can we? HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that we, as anonymous Wikipedia drones, should be attempting to discern the political motives of Associated Press reporters and I don't think WP's policies support our attempting to do so. They're the experts, not us, as far as WP's policies go. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to discern motives. Just whether they're saying something happened or they think something happened. Why they guess doesn't matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that they guess is what matters. We don't have to include everything the media says, and we certainly shouldn't include guesses. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost everything that someone reports is a guess, to varying degrees, as to what they actually saw or perceived. As you know, we are limited by our senses. What one person sees may be different than what another person sees. Even peer-reviewed scientific studies often end up being disproved or discredited at a later date. That's why WP's rules simply state to present what the secondary sources are saying without any editorializing on our part. The scope of our editorial judgment is limited, and purposefully so. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but we always have the editorial right to exclude content. We do it all the time. We should exclude more here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between "should" and "shall". I've surrendered in the face of overwhelming uncertainty at the Noticeboard, I may as well give up quickly here, too. Good luck, Australia, should you continue this war of attrition. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And that's a big reason why WP editors are leaving in droves, because the content is often decided by the editors who simply have more time to sit in front of their computers and out edit-war everyone else. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your latter point is true, at least to some extent. But having more time to sit in front of a computer doesn't automatically make someone wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I surrendered not because of the one with the time to make editorial decisions, but because of the thousands who insist on regurgitating the most recent talking point or top Google result, with the mindset that Wikipedia is supposed to be the place people turn to for news. That's just another symptom of the Google result cancer (one that even affects reporters), not the way encyclopedias work (in theory). In reality, HiLo's right and HiLo's doomed. And yes, I'm still watching this play out, but in a Swiss way. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"we always have the editorial right to exclude content". And we should not when the material is found in multiple reliable sources, and not just isolated sources at the margin but major RS, and is not infrequently mentioned in those RS that are doing comprehensive overviews of the subject. The primary reason is this article is a battleground is NOT, in fact, the POV pushers, although there is some of that, it's rather editors like you, HiLo, who are battling to enforce a deletionist agenda (an agenda that actually suits a particular content POV hence the tag-teaming we see between that content POV and the deletionists). You've got an axe to grind, and having an axe to grind is what drives disruptive editing, regardless of whether that's from a dogmatic content POV or some other form of dogmatism. You've had little to say about particular edits at issue and a lot to say about your POV concerning editing policy. I suggest allowing other editors to edit. If that results in a "biased" article, well then Wiki processes generate bias. You're not going to turn back the tide of the Wiki process without causing a lot of disruption to it.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's always good to get such a profound psychological analysis from someone completely without a POV position and who sees all this in a completely objective way. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Where you've pegged me wrong is on how much I think I need to control other editors. I am highly opinionated, yes, but that's an entirely different thing from demanding control. If you don't feel as strongly as I suggest you do, then why do you refuse to stand down? Why do you continue to so dogmatically insist on stopping other editors from doing what they want to do? You're not defending the project here. You're defending your idea of what you think the project should be. Were that not so, you would say you support the Wiki principle and would allow that process to handle the problems. If Wikipedia would be compromised without you, then the concept doesn't really work, does it? You want a different standard than the RS. I get that. You want certainty even though that's not the standard something like the NYT uses before reporting something. You took the same attitude at the article concerning the other Malaysia Airlines flight, and, guess what, I don't recall an instance of something you wanted out and I wanted in where months later you were shown "right" to have wanted it out. If you had your way that article would still be a stub because you'd still be waiting for wreckage to be found, or something like that. If you want to keep readers ignorant, there are projects other than Wikipedia that are suited for that. The Associated Press is RS. You've got nothing in policy supporting the removal of something cited to AP when it's been frequently mentioned in other RS.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. You're highly opinionated. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And you're completely unable to generate an argument for your position, or to quote from policy, apparently.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell, I have no intention of having a fight with you, nor of resorting to personal attacks as you have done. You are not changing my opinion with your latest strategy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell - Hollywood romances and the consequent babies are very widely reported, in even the most reliable sources. We rarely mention them in Wikipedia. We exercise editorial judgement. We can do it here too, by excluding all speculation and uncertain claims. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I need not be reminded of the fact that you are resolved to never change your opinion. It still needs to be called out as the intent to block encyclopedic content that it is. What the Associated Press has reported about this deadly incident does not concern either Hollywood or its romances. I hope that eventually your "editorial judgement" will be able to discern the difference.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my point, but I won't turn this into a battle of insults. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

lead - 'is believed by most others'

To justify 'is believed' we have a source dated 20th July. These most others appear to be senior people in the Ukrainian and US government. There is an RS of later date which says that only about 3% of Russian population believe this. Can we have an RS for what people in nthe West believe?

I consider we should procede from facts to claims and beliefs. I think Ukrainian claims should appear before Russian as the incident took place over Ukrainian territory, and likewise Ukrainian beliefs before Russian. That is fair and balanced. I propose to amend the lead accordngly unless their are objections. 178.140.106.52 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The previous comment by me, I was not logged in. If we are gping to have 'is believed' then we surely have to have who is doing the beloieving and alternative beliefs have to be put in. Unfortunately it looks as though the previous wordning was attempting to make the beliefs of a feww into universal beliefs. It is better to have claims than beliefs, you canb be confident that someone has made a claim you can't be confident that they believe it. Do the people responsible for the previous wording consider that President Putin believes everything he claims? Yes we have one journalist in a blog in an RS saying 'most others believe'. That's some time ago and other RSs say different things.Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh FFS, those posts are a classic example of what's wrong with all the speculation and claims in the article. Us sitting here at our keyboards trying to guess whether people really believe what they claim they believe happened.... It's ridiculous. Stick to absolute statements of facts, and drop the rest. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 Perhaps you misunderstood me, I completely agree with you. 1st Facts of what happened, 2nd claims of what happened, that someone made a claim is a fact 3rd beliefs as to what happened, that someone believes something, or says they do, is also a fact. Stickee seemed to claim a consensus in one thread but I couldn't find it. I don't want to get into edit-warring so I've taken the line that if there really is consensus to have beliefs here then we should have Russian beliefs as well. If you agreed with my earlier edit this morning please revert to it, I prefer it to the second. I hope stickee will answer ehre, where is this consensus for his version that he pointed to? Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The format in diff 620041936 had been in place before, during and after the discussion. No consensus to your new version. In regards to "If we are gping to have 'is believed' then we surely have to have who is doing the beloieving": The manual of style doesn't necessarily need attribution if the majority of sources say so, which they do. The Russian news agencies are the only ones saying otherwise, and as such are in the minority. To further back this up, there are several RS's in the article stating that there is "general belief" that rebels are responsible, including The Guardian, WaPost, The Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald. I can add more if you wish. In regards to the issue of having the source dated 20 July, it can be swapped with one of the ones above. Stickee (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I was absent during the discussion. The Sunday Telegraph carried a letter last Sunday from someone who doesn't share the general belief. Lets discuss and vote

1 Shouldn't facts come before claims and beliefs? 2 Shouldn't claims come before beliefs? 3 Shouldn't 'pro-Russian' claims and beliefs have space in the lead as well as anti? I am afraid that I regard trying to put 'it is generally belived...' so high in the lead without qualification and without allowing alternative beliefs similar prominence is a very clear sign of bias.Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing my changes to a long-standing opening sentence and Stickee is the one who is failing to answer the points. I don't want to get banned for edit-warring so if anyone supports me would they please edit. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a vote. 1 Regarding "without allowing alternative beliefs similar prominence": That would create undue weight. If the majority of sources are saying X then the article says so too. Simple as that. The majority are saying a missile was fired from (and sometimes by) separatist area. 2 Regarding the ordering: whatever is most important is what comes first. Other than saying that a crash occurred and how many died (which is in the opening paragraph), who is responsible is much more important than the fact that there is an investigation. As such the opening sentence summarises the majority views of what happened. Stickee (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've numbered your points

1 The facts that some people believe one thing and others believe another are not contradictory. If 100 sources report the first belief and only 10 the other it doesn't make the second less widepsread.

2 You have cited only the belief as to who is responsible and converted this into the fact of them being responsible a very clear sign of bias. You've reverted me three times, as stated on your talk page unless you unrevrt by agreement I will report you both for edit warring and lack of neutrality. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding point 1. The second belief is less widespread (the widespread belief is of separatist responsibility), and the sources say that too. Eg

Al Jazeera: "Who funded and armed Ukraine's pro-Russian separatists that shot down passenger jet MH17?" [5]
The Guardian: "is believed to have been shot down on July 17 by a surface-to-air missile fired by pro-Russian separatists" [6]
Reuters: "Pro-Russian separatists are widely believed to have used a surface-to-air missile". [7]
SMH: "believed to be a rebel-fired missile forced the crash of the Malaysia Airways Boeing 777." [8]

Point 2: Nothing has been converted. The sources say that it's believed, and so does the article. If the article said, "separatists are definitely responsible 100%" then there may be an issue. Stickee (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"whatever is most important is what comes first. Other than saying that a crash occurred and how many died (which is in the opening paragraph), who is responsible is much more important than the fact that there is an investigation. As such the opening sentence summarises the majority views of what happened. " The investigation is seeking to determine who is responsible. As it is ongoing them then it is clearly not established who is responsible. Facts should surely come before beliefs in any resposible article. If we are not starting from facts then there is no hope of a balanced article. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

1. The second belief is less widespread (the widespread belief is of separatist responsibility), and the sources say that too. The second belief seems to be believed by well in excess of one hundred million Russians. The whole discussion is ridiculous and arsies because you wish to put beliefs ahead of facts Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"Belief" does not equal "public opinion". Belief refers to the viewpoint of a body/entity. And when the DSB releases it's belief of what happened, it can be included too. Also nice to see some canvassing going on. Stickee (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a truly nonsensical distinction and there seems little point in discussing with you further. I have reported you on the neutrality notice board. I in fact put in some neutral and balanced wording from the BBC about claim and counter claim. If your version is allowed to stand it would be a very poor reflection of the neutrality of wikipedia.Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two options here. Either state just the facts without any beliefs or state all the beliefs. If we choose the first option then we only state that a plane crashed, people died and now there is an ongoing investigation to determine the cause of the crash. If we choose the second option then we must discuss all 4 possible theories for the event: 1) plane shot down by pro-russian rebels from ground to air missile. 2) plane shot down by pro-west ukrainian military from ground to air missile. 3) plane shot down by pro-west ukrainian military from air to air missile from SU-25 that was behind. 4) A bomb planted by a third party (such as USA) was detonated on the plane. Currently the article is stating just the 1st belief without giving much attention to the other 3 beliefs. This goes against neutrality policy of WP. 118.210.130.94 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not correct. Take a look at WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. For example, we don't report on the 9/11 page that aliens did it, even though that's a "theory". Stickee (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. These theories, especially the third one are not conspiracies and don't belong to WP:FRINGE. The third theory is the mainstream theory in Russia and is believed by more than 140 million people in Russia alone. 118.210.130.94 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? You've asked them all? Stop being so silly. I can assure you that as an Australian I have a somewhat different perspective on this story from the one aggressively and urgently proclaimed by my county's Prime Minister. Hopefully most Russians think for themselves as well. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It is the mainstream opinion in Russia. Hence the majority of people in Russia believe in it. The majority is more than 50%, so we can safely say that more than 70 million people believe in it in Russia alone. I am sure there are Russians outside of Russia who believe in it. Furthermore there will be people from other countries who believe in it (eg., China). Surely this number of believers warrants the theory a much wider coverage on an international encyclopedia like WP. By the way, I am also from Australia, but I've seen both sides of the story. 118.210.35.227 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Note that because of large-scale edit-warring (essentially about 30% of the edits are currently reverts) I requested temporary full protection of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Good call. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think so. This looks to me as a blatant 3RR violation by one user (at least nine reverts during 6 hours). I reported this to WP:3RR noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to our nine time reverter (whose original account remains blocked indefinitely for edit warring with a "battleground mentality") how about dealing with Montenegroman's tendentious editing as well (whose insult du jour is apparently "half-wit, low-level troll") before shutting down everyone else's editing as well?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that instead of locking an article down, it's better to give the boot to the top edit warriors. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the users above. I supported full protection before, but in this case it's just one or two troublemakers who just need to be blocked. If I got a few minutes I'll file an AE report on Montenegorman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the main warrior has been blocked, I self-closed the RFPP request as declined. I hope the edit-warring is not going to resume.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014

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

refer to http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/25/mh17-verdict-real-evidence-points-to-us-kiev-cover-up-of-failed-false-flag-attack/

this page is no longer telling the true. Soywu (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No. It tells: " the only wild conspiracy theories being pushed right now, are those coming out of the US State Department, and the government in Kiev, Ukraine, which are being repeated by CNN, BBC, FOX-NewsCorp, ABC, CBS and NBC…" Hence this is a typical WP:FRINGE source attacking all other reliable (per policy) sources. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The social media reports are not evidences mister. The investigation is still ongoing.... Fakirbakir (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this does not seem like an RS to me. Sample of headlines from today:

"Israelis Gather, Watch, Cheer, Celebrate Over 1,200 Dead in Gaza"
"Murdoch’s Media Monopoly: Are the Globalists Streamlining Their PR for WWIII?"
"Malaysian Airlines False Flag Scripting Straight Out of BBC’s ‘Sherlock’"
"Ex-Border Agent Says US Government ‘Facilitating’ Illegal Surge Scheme"

I think it is fair to say this is just a FRINGE blog.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Flags Again

The flags should be in the table. I don't know why a few editors are hellbent on removing them. If there is any reason to show the nationality of the passengers (as we appear to decided there is, by putting in the table), there should be flags. They assist the reader, and by simple commonsense should be there. The discussions that took place previously were primarily about flags in the "Reactions" section and some editors have taken it upon themselves to also remove the flags from the victims table. Frankly, it is dumb to have the name of the country listed there without a flag. Most of the articles about international plane crashes like this one include these tables WITH flags (see Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). I believe more discussion on this issue is required. If not, perhaps someone should go and remove the flags from the MH 370 article and all other international crashes. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that this is a continuation of [9]. As for other articles, things like this can have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Do you disagree with the policy-based reasons not to use flags? Should the arguments from the two previous discussions [10] [Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 8#Flags again] not both be considered, even if they're not all exactly on these specific flags? (The first one addresses passenger-box flags, though.) You could always do a wider RFC if you want a clearer resolution, or start off with a new straw poll (but many editors have tapered off as news has died down, thus the archived discussions with many people providing input being pretty useful.) 9kat (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that either MOS:FLAG or WP:ICONDECORATION apply here. The only information this table communicates is the number of passengers by nation of citizenship. It can hardly be said that the flags are distracting from other information in the table, or gives undue prominence to the issue of nationality, as that is the only thing this table is there for. Removing the flags makes the table harder to read, and as I pointed out breaks with other precedents set in similar articles like Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). While I do not dispute that it is possible for the editors of this page to come to a different decision that those of other articles , we should be striving for uniformity here. If the editors want to go a different direction than has been followed in similar articles, I believe better explanation for this break with precedence is required. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It violates WP:FLAGBIO, as the flags are being used to show nationality of people who have died. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

64... says "it is dumb to have the name of the country listed there without a flag". I see it as dumb to have the name of the country listed there WITH a flag. What's the point of duplicating information? HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledge - The flags do not violate WP:FLAGBIO. You have misread the policy. WP:FLAGBIO does not prohibit use of flags where a death has occurred; it prohibits flags being used to indicate places of birth, residence, or death (because doing so is confusing - a person may be born, live or die somewhere without being a citizen of that nation). WP:FLAGBIO indicates that flags should only be used to indicate nationality (as is the case here). - @HiLo the flags do not "duplicate" information they express the information in a way that is easier to read, and more accessible. There may be differing views on the flags as a matter of style, but none of the policies cited so far as justification for removing the flags is actually applicable here. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the flags are easier to read than the words? That doesn't make sense. Words are easier. Encyclopedias use words. --John (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The standard procedure on these types of articles include the flags in the table. And if you actually read it, WP:FLAGBIO does not apply here. And by "easier to read", I think the IP meant that it's easier to find the table. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The flags are fine, basically for the same reason that having a table at all instead of prose is fine. If they weren't, you wouldn't see them at KAL007, this year's MH370, most recently Air_Algérie_Flight_5017, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:ICONDECORATION, WP:PROSE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --John (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect to interpreting WP:ICONDECORATION, an example given for when not to use is when "used for layout purposes only". That isn't this sort of case. I've noted issues with that one essay at Wikipedia_talk:Other_stuff_exists#Delete. When I see that it's the same deal with, say, Thai Airways International Flight 311 as well, my conclusion is that we have something of a community consensus on a Wikipedia-wide level. That can be over-interpreted, but it's not entirely irrelevant.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

64... says "the flags do not duplicate information". Um, yes they do. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, there's nothing in PROSE, MOSFLAG or ICONDECORATION that supports anything John has been doing to this article. All the previous debates reflect that, being 50/50 split between people actually referring to the policies, and the people merely expressing their personal distaste for icons full stop. In those situations, CONSENSUS says go with the policy. For reference:

PROSE: "Articles are intended to consist primarily of prose, though they may contain lists....Prose flows, like one person speaking to another." The reason the reactions section still doesn't flow is because it's still basically a list, even after the removal of bullets. Since articles may contain lists, the obvious solution here is to present it as one, with bullets. And since nobody appears to be proposing the nationality table be removed completely, I don't see how this policy is relevant to that issue at all.

MOSFLAG: "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." Since the representation of data by country is the primary purpose of both the reactions list and the nationality table, then use of flags to represent them is clearly acceptable.

ICONDECORATION: "Icons should ... serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". Since the reactions list is not in alphabetical order, use of flags obviously aids navigation - you don't "read" flags as John seems to think - that's the whole point. The human brain recognises a specific country flag many times faster than the name of the country. The same applies to the table, which can be sorted, thereby changing it into and out of alphabetical order.

RoryMig (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case (a list box), it seems to me that those opposed to Flags as informative bullets are pushing some agenda that I don't quite understand. Juan Riley (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Support flags in the "People on board by nationality" it is fairly standard in these accident articles to use flags in these types of (normally vicitms) box despite what the alphabet soup says, as can be seen by the comments and editing activity readers think it is a mistake that they are missing which is why it keeps getting raised. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In case my comment was ambiguous: Support flags also. Juan Riley (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I support usage of the flags, for the relevant policies don't actually have anything against them, it is more consistent to use them, and they serve as visual aids for the reader. Dustin (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that for readers who can't actually read? HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Or for people whom find it easier or faster to read (or skim) universally recognized symbols for those countries. It seems we now have a pretty good consensus for the inclusion of the flags.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I think it is safe to say that this has been argued to death, and feel the issue should be taken to the village pump regarding the flag usage policy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the nationality table needs flags like in all other such articles, its looking quite bare without them. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Brian Dell explained it best. There is no good reason to not include flags in the table. And none of the guidelines John mentioned applies here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There should be flags. --24.87.183.179 (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking such a hardline stance on adding just a few flags to a table and no where else is really strange, get over it, every table for such articles has them and they look vey relevant in there. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. See, we specifically don't add images like flags because they "look very relevant" or to prevent articles from "looking quite bare". --John (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if John would actually read the policy he keeps on citing. This table is about the nationality and citizenship of the passengers. The flags are relevant visual cues to express that meaning.

"[Flags] should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation."

"Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself."--64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's ok to use flags in the table. I think a preponderance of editors here also feel that way. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't count votes. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course we don't count votes but that is exactly what happened when the flags were removed here. As been pointed out, all the other articles with this table has the flags. There's no good reason not to use them here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the flags. I feel that I keep having to say this for no known reason. Juan Riley (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And yes, we do count votes. That's how consensus is determined, by numbers. The numbers here support having the flags in the article, and their argument is backed up by the use of flags in other, similar articles. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's NOT how consensus is achieved. Different quality arguments simply must have different value. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

64.253.142.26, it'd be nice if you could accept that I have of course read the guidance. This question revolves around whether having the flags in the "victims" table provides navigational help. On such a small table, that seems dubious to me. All arguments that do not refer to policy can be disregarded. This cannot be a vote count as some people have made arguments and some have not. --John (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The policy supports it - the flags do indeed add considerable navigation assistance, which is why most web designers add flags for country-based lists, even short ones. I have been looking at lists for the Olympics and the recent Commonwealth Games and, personally, I go to those flags before reading the country names and those web designers know something about how people access their websites. E x nihil ^(talk) 13:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

John, I am glad to hear that you have read the policy. It may have been unfair of me to suggest that you had not. Still, I disagree with your narrow interpretation of the policy. It is necessary to read the policy as a whole. Flags should be included where any of the following criteria are met: where they provide additional useful information, where they act as visual cues which assist the reader, OR where they assist in navigation. Personally, I think they do all three of these things (but any one is sufficient to justify them). Also it is necessary to look at the relevance of the flags. In this case, the table is used to convey nationality of the passengers. In that regard, the flags are helpful and relevant in communicating nationality and citizenship. We have argued this issue to death, but I hope this explains how many of the commenters here have interpreted the policy.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The flags do not provide additional information. Reading the name of a country will always work to tell you what its name is. That's what reading does. Seeing a flag will only work if you recognise the flag, and I'd suggest that most people do not know the flags of every country in the world, so reading the name is going to be at least as effective or more effective. Flags add nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you were talking about, but why and how long ago were the dual nationalities removed? That is misleading now. Dustin (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion of this and the consensus was that the table became too cluttered, and that other incidents went by the flight manifest (the passport people boarded the plane with). The compromise was that there was still notes concerning the dual nationalities. Personally, I think all off the dual nationalities could be combined into one footnote. I am not sure how to link to the achieved talk page so we will see if this works. - Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 8 - The section was titled "Consensus on Dual nationality column", currently in Archive 8. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

On just the flags: they are fine leave them alone. The fact that they keep being restored should say something about a significant consensus that they are okay. There are more important matters. Juan Riley (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should leave the flags alone. Sorry, we got into a bit of an off-topic conversation about the "dual nationalities". I think the table is fine as is. If somebody wants to combine the dual nationalities into one note (instead of 5, c-g), I would not be opposed, but I do not feel strongly about it either way. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

A "significant consensus", eh? How does one measure that? We either have consensus, or we don't. And consensus isn't demonstrated by votes without reasons. And the reasons have to be better than "they are fine leave them alone". Quality of argument is what is supposed to count here. Perhaps you could try responding to my post at 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC) HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)