Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

MH17 - What do we actually KNOW

I was reading about MH17 news and after finding nothing at all in any of the papers for the past 3 weeks (as if nothing had happened) I had a look at various news articles from around the world.

-Why has none of the latest information not been posted on Wikipedia?

- The Russian "theories" are at least as credible as the U.S theories, and there has been no actual evidence presented.

- I would like to cite some credible, researched, non-Russian experts who have pointed to other possible scenarios than the U.S driven content in Wiki at the moment.

As I am new to Wikipedia, I would like to edit the article, but it seems that its closed to editing. Can I start a new page which contains, diagrams, maps, evidence by named people (rather than un-named U.S officials etc). This page can be kept going for people who choose the U.S version, I would like my page to only present facts, unbiased facts. It will not be a Russian government propaganda website, just facts about flight paths, radar images and newspaper articles from around the world.

I am Australian, Aussie born and am neither Ukrainian nor Russian ethnically. I am just concerned that the truth is obviously lacking in this article, its clearly one-sided and schoolkids etc researching this will get the wrong info

Looking forward to hearing from you and setting up my page. If possible I would like to call it "MH17 Only what we KNOW"

Thanks,

Inna Jankovic (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Inna I think this is a great idea. Although we may find out the truth soon from the experts handling the black boxes. I hope they tell us the truth... 121.45.77.4 (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is probably not a good idea to jump into a controversial article as your first effort here. You need to understand the policies and guidelines first, such as how to report conflicting views, which sources to use and how to assemble facts so that they do not lead readers to conclusions. If Western mainstream media has not reported on the case for three weeks, that means there is nothing significant to report, because policy expects that the article will reflect the story as it is covered in Western mainstream media, rather than Ukrainian or Russian media. Alternative theories are only reported to the extent Western mainstream media covers them. Similarly the facts of the case are only significant to the extent of their coverage in Western mainstream media. TFD (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What do we know? A nasty propaganda war was underway, with governments using the media everywhere to score political points. A plane crashed. Seemingly beginning within seconds, opportunistic politicians like Tony Abbott leapt in, long before he could have known anything, and blamed Putin. Since then, the propaganda war has got worse. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Good to see some new interest in Wikipedia, but it's not quite the place for what you're wanting to do. It sounds like you want to do your own synthesis of the material, in which a blog on something like medium.com might be a better place. Stickee (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The official investigation report should be published in the end of August or September, from what I've read. Brandmeister^talk 19:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That's only the preliminary report, which won't discuss liability or blame. Based on past occurrences, the official report will take a few years (the Lockerbie disaster report took 3 years). Stickee (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That proposal would probably be a WP:POVFORK. On neutrality issues at WP, I recommend reading this [3] in addition to the WP:NEUTRALITY policy. It's an email from the co-founder of Wikipedia (from back in 2003) explaining how neutrality works around here. In a nutshell, neutrality here does not mean giving every side equal validity. Geogene (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But nor should we include rampant nonsense, such as the Tony Abbott comments, made long before any investigation or marginally verifiable claim was even made. No matter how many outlets reported his anti-Putin tirade, it adds nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Abbott is the leader of a major world economy, a significant contributor of humanitarian aid, and the country of which a number of the dead were passport-holders. Regardless of whether you like him or not, he is a notable figure, and international reactions have been a major part of this story. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What part of the story is it? That such a leader is willing, in complete ignorance of the real situation, to use it for propaganda purposes? If it's not that, tell me what it adds to the story? HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. What to think of PM Abbott will ultimately be decided by the readership. This is beside the point, but I think that most readers are likely to interpret his remarks according to whatever view of the Prime Minister they had of him before...or if they have no prior opinion, to judge him based on how his views mesh with their own prior biases. This is a tendency of human nature. Australia is a very involved (and aggrieved) party. His views are notable, we should repeat them impartially, the readers will interpret in many individual ways, and in any case we have little control over the last part. Geogene (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

How about the part of the story that has actually been reported by reliable sources, as opposed to the story you seem to want this to be? I'm really not sure what the point of engaging with you on this is. You seem to want to leave out anything from this article that you don't like, and include a number of more dubious claims without any real support for them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have been completely consistent here. I don't want ANY of the unverified information in the article. That Abbott's comments were widely reported doesn't make them any more valuable. All he did was win the race to get bullshit published in the media. It was a politician's dream. He got coverage for no substance, and you want to give him more. Why? Try to give a better answer than "It was widely reported". Widely reported bullshit is still bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, Australia is quite involved in this considering the casualty count (third highest by country), plus the writeup is split between him and Bishop, so a "reaction" by Australis's PM isn't seem out of place. Though I would think the Dutch PM's reaction should go first, followed by Malaysia, in terms of how much each was affected. Note that I am basing this on the current version at the moment, I don't know if previous versions were unbalanced. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a sensible comment from Australia could be due. But this wasn't sensible. It was pure propaganda. Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that the comment was made before anything concrete could possibly have been known? The timing here IS significant. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Its propaganda, but its still a reaction by a leader of a country, so should still be reported. Almost any such reaction these days can be counted as such (sad but true), but that doesn't mean we should not have a write up on all of it. However, I do still question prominence and weightage of that particular writeup in the article though.Zhanzhao (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I moved Australia from near the beginning (under Ukraine) to after Malaysia and the Netherlands. Geogene (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi,

I work on de:Malaysia-Airlines-Flug 17, and while reviewing the English article I found some things that may be improved. I do not edit in the en:WP as to my poor English ;), so I just put it here in case someone wants to implement it. Feel free to split this up into sections if necessery.

Introduction

• There is no realiable information so far on where the plane lost contact (which contact? ATC? ADS-B?). Malaysia Airlines says contact was lost at 13:15, which would be far west/northwest of the crash site according to the other sources below, somewhere north of Donetsk. Flightradar24 says contact was lost in the area of Snizhne, a good way east of Tores (I don't buy this, guess they extrapolated the last data record). The Russian radar records (afaik so far noone claimed that they are faked) indicate that the plane was hit slightly west of Tores and then fell down in northeastern direction. Contact loss near Hrabove, as stated in the article, does not match with any of these three sources, and looks utterly wrong in connection with "crashed near Tores" (which would mean the it crashed south of the point of contact loss). The crash site extends from Hrabove to the west/northwest [4], Tores is some 12 km south of Hrabove.

Investigation

• "During the first two days of investigation, the militants prevented the OSCE and other international observers from freely working at the crash site. " → It may be pointed out that this was on July 18 and 19. Besides of that: Afaik the only other international observers who were permitted access to the crash site that early were journalists, and I am not aware of complaints from them of being hindered. Besides of that, it was just OSCE, Ukranian emergency services (who complained that they could not work freely [5]) and local people, RFE/RL probably got that wrong. There were international investigators at Tores to inspect the bodies at July 21, but afaik it was late July when first international teams besides of OSCE were finally permitted access to the crash site. It looks like the only on-site investigation that took place in these first days was done by Ukrainian personell, probably declared as workers of the ermergency services ministry.

• "the Netherlands will lead the investigation" → they do so since around July 23 (DSB claims they took over on July 22 [6], but the agreement on that between Ukraine and Netherlands was signed on July 24 [7]).

• I think the last day when the recovery and (inofficial) investigation teams worked at the crash site was August 6 [8] so that was the day when they literally "left" the site. It may be safest to write that the on-site works were suspended from August 7: [9]

• "The preliminary report will not discuss blame or liability." → It may be noted that blaming is the job of the criminial investigators working on this case [10][11].

Cause

• "On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference and said that just before the crash, a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft approached to within 3 to 5 kilometres (1.9 to 3.1 mi) of the Malaysian airliner." → if he said so, then it contradicts the Radar images shown at the same press conference, which do not show any Su-25 before the supposed missile hit. After that some radar dot appears which is commented as being an Ukrainian fighter jet (it may as well have been a chunk of debris which separated from the rest, e.g. the cockpit section which came down south-west of the main fuselage).

Recovery of bodies

• "By this time, 272 bodies had been recovered." This probably was a wrong information by the separatists (from whom the Ukrainian officals got the numbers), as well as the 282. I think it's no good idea to state the 272 as a fact. Probably many bodies have been burned at the main crash site and will never be recovered.

Thanks for the good work, the English article has also been a source of some information and inspiration for the German article. --PM3 (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts regarding your points:

Introduction

• Yep so it's clear that 13:15 for the time of the crash is pretty definite. In regards to location, what are the sources saying? Most of those flightradar and youtube links you've presented links seem to be original research and can't really be used as references/sources. As such are there any secondary sources (eg newspapers) that are saying a location that contact was lost?

Investigation

• I'm having a little trouble figuring out what exactly you're saying should be fixed here. Are you saying the article should mention it took 2 weeks for international teams (other than OSCE) to gain access to the site?
• The article doesn't say anything about the time of the agreement at the moment, so I don't see any inaccuracies in it.
• Yeah you're right. The "Investigation" section says 8 Aug, while the "Recovery of bodies" section says 6 Aug . I've updated the article now, but there's still a bit of a duplication between those 2 sections. Update: Oops, misread what you said: you say 7 Aug should be the date.
• Has been updated by User:Geogene.

Cause

• Agree, but once again that is some original research and needs some sources.

Recovery of bodies

• Yeah agree here. 2 paragraphs below that statement the article states that Dutch authorities only found 200 bodies, with 100 unaccounted for. There's also the the first sentence in the paragraph below that says 282 bodies were found.

Thanks for you good efforts at de.wiki. Stickee (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not pointing out the things clearly. I try better:

Introduction:

• The article currently claims: "The Boeing 777-200ER airliner lost contact near Hrabove". I don't see any sources for that - not in the referenced Telgraph article, nor anywhere else. So my suggestion is to remove this, that's what I was trying to say.

Investigation:

• My point is that there were no "other international observers" working at the crash site in these first days, i.e. this is a misinformation of the referenced source. So as long as there is no second source which confirms that, I suggest to change it so somthing like "During the first two days of investigation, the militants prevented the OSCE and the workers of Ukrainian Emergencies Ministry [12] from freely working at the crash site".
• The article says: "the Netherlands will lead the investigation". This is outdated, they are doing so since at least July 24 [13]. So it should be changed to something like "the Netherlands lead the investigation".

Cause:

• The artice says: "On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference and said that just before the crash, a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft approached ...". I think that "before the crash" is misleading, it suggests that it was said that a Su-25 aicraft approached before something happened to the 777 which made it crash. But actually in that press conference it was claimed that an Su-25 aircraft approached after the 777 suddenly changed course and dramatically lost speed, see the English comments in this video, which is the original source: [14] "At 5 hours, 21 minutes, 35 seconds pm [Moscow Time = UTC+4] with the aircraft speed of 200 km/h at the point of Boeing crash, there is new mark of an aicraft to be seen. ... The air control officer inquiring the characteristics of the newly appeard aircraft coldn't possibly get them, becaus it's quite possible that the aircraft had no secondary detection system mounted on it, which is pretty typical for military aircraft. ... (more explanations follow)" This is the "Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft": A radar dot which appeared some 40 seconds after something bad happened to the 777 (which is at 20:35 in the video) on the russian radar screen. There is no other indication of any military plane in the video before that.
  So my suggestion is to change this from "just before the crash" to something like "while the Boeing 777 was crashing" oder "after the Boeing 777 had suddenly changed heading and dramatically lost speed." This is what the original source shows: [15].

Thanks for the changes to the article. --PM3 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

To sum up the last point: There is no source which says that in the russian press conference it was said that there was an Su-25 approaching before the 777 started crashing, but the article currently suggest this by saying "before the crash". "Before the crash" ist correct if you define "crash" as "when the debris hit ground". But it may also be undestood as "the timespan from when the plane suddenly started to lose speed and height until the debris hit ground". Then, "before the crash" is wrong. --PM3 (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The german-language article puts the time of last contact at 13:21 in the article and ca 13:20 in the graphic. Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on changing the german-language article first before trying to affect this one. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your warm welcome.

The graphics in the German-language article says "ca. 13:20" which means "about 13:20". Malaysia airlines said 14:15 GMT, Flightradar24 says 13:21 UTC, and the russian radar shows a transponder loss around 13:23 UTC (may be delayed). So we decided to do an average here, round it to 5 minutes and say that it's an approximation (ca.).

Regarding the other number in the graphics: As you can see here, the plane left the gate at 10:14 UTC and took off at about 10:30 UTC. Therefore whe have "ca. 10:30 UTC" as takeoff time in the German graphics, while the English article graphics gives a wrong takeoff time of 10:14; this contradicts the text left of the graphics, which correctly gives 10:14 UTC as departure time from the gate. --PM3 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

14:15=14.25, 13:21=13.35, 13:23=13.38. Average = 40.98/3 = 13.66 = 14:39:36 UTC. No? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines actually said: "Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border." GMT==UTC. Yet there is this bizarre line in the crash section that reads: Malaysia Airlines stated that Ukrainian ATC had lost contact with the airliner at 13:15 UTC,14:15 GMT. UTC and GMT are THE SAME TIME! "For most purposes, UTC is used interchangeably with GMT" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time - and that doesn't mean you can add/subtract an hour whenever you want. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks PM3, I've gone and updated the last 3 points (the international observers; the DSB leading the investigation; the Su-25). Haven't done the first point since I'm not quite sure what to change it to. Stickee (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: Thanks! I have tried now to fix the first point on my own.

Currently all the information on the crash site geographics is missing in this article. Main part of plane came down near Hrabove, and rest spread along some 20 km to the west/northwest. Here is the official map of the crash site, for the case someone would like to add this: [16] --PM3 (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: : "(I don't buy this, guess they extrapolated the last data record)" - rather than relying on guesswork to decide what you "buy", why not ask them? http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/7777-Malaysian-B777-MH17-crash-poss-shot-down?p=54648&viewfull=1#post54648 82.198.102.128 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I know theses forum postings. The is one (or was it on Twitter) where a FlightRadar24 guy said "we don't extrapolate". There other postings by other people who doubt that this information is correct. Due to this contradicting information and the contradiction of the FR24 data to other sources, I assume that (a) information by FR24 support/pr guys and (b) at least the last record may be wrong, therefore I removed the coordinate of the last record from the German article. In the English article however this coordinate is included. I won't comment on that. ;) --PM3 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-Registered Editors Not Welcome

Why is this article still semi-protected? When is the protection going to end?

I tried to get a conversation going when this issue was last discussed, about a timeline or benchmarks that we might use to move this article towards a point where protection could be removed. Unfortunately, it seems the response from most editors is "not now... maybe never... ask again later". In the meantime, edits to this page have tapered off. It is time to discuss, ending protection on this article. If protections are to remain in place, we must at the very least come to a consensus on how much longer protections can be justified. It is unacceptable for the article to remain on protected indefinitely, without further justification.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think most people are going to change their minds... for now, it would be best if you register an account, make ten edits, then wait four days. Then you will be free to edit the article if I recall correctly. Dustin (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dustin is right. Because of the nature of this event this article will remain a target for new, excited editors for a while yet. Get yourself registered. It gives you more privacy. Right now I can discover in 5 seconds that you probably live in Vancouver, and a little more work could easily narrow that down a lot more. Usernames hide that information. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dustin. I may do that. It is too bad that the protected status is not being discussed in any meaningful way. Most new editors will just give up and leave. I completely understand the arguments of those concerned about potential vandalism. At the same time, the theoretical threat of vandalism cannot justify protection of this article forever. It is unacceptable that the protection on this article is to continue indefinitely. All that decision does, is exclude new users. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Somebody needs to come up with an end date for protection. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, protection forever is too long. At the latest, a short time after the official report on the crash is released should be long enough. After that there can be little argument about what really happened, and we can get rid of all the speculative nonsense. Although we still have the problem that this crash happened not just in a real war zone, but in the middle of a global propaganda war. That is still ongoing, and many of the unacceptable edits have been part of that war. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of airing your opinion for the gazillionth time, HiLo, about how reliably sourced material is "speculative nonsense" in your books (while at the same time exhibiting no skepticism at all with with respect to highly dubious claims originating form Russian apologists like JPLeonard), how about referring to protection POLICY. Policy is quite clear here that protection should be lifted (I have referred to it previously) or at an absolute minimum given a time limit.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

When editors spend so much of their time talking about me rather than about the issues, their posts count for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What counts "for nothing" is opinion at odds with policy. I'll ask you again to stopping talking about your own opinions and instead refer to policy, which is quite clear on this "issue."--Brian Dell (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS could preclude anything said by anyone with a political barrow to push. That includes all politicians, and many employees of governments everywhere. There is no need to include other people's speculation. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE tell us that we don't have to include everything the media says today. We need to choose wisely. And again, please address my comments, not me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Brian Dell is addressing your comments, in that they continue to push an obvious point of view discriminatory against reliable sources stating the consensus belief that the likeliest culprit behind this crash is a separatist unit armed with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system. That being said, if we are all in agreement that this article's protected status should be eased (and reinstated if vandalism and edit-warring behavior comes right back), I think we can probably agree to argue elsewhere, right? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing. I'm stating a position you don't like. None of the media speculation actually adds anything to the article. It adds a lot to the propaganda war though. Many victims of that war will not realise what's happened to them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If we lift page protection, I think the article is likely to be swamped with badly sourced (or non-sourced) conspiracy theories. But policy should be followed even if that's the case. Geogene (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Given the ease of creating an account and the very low threshold of three days and ten edits in order to edit semi protected pages, I don't see any reason or need to lift the protection.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's sort of a general problem here. Either we let fully protect it and only admins edit, or we semi-protect it so that all you have to do is register and make a couple random edits to edit. The second one is obviously a joke. There needs to be an intermediate level of protection where only users with substantial number of edits and tenure (say 1 year, 1k edits) can edit the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a joke. Even with the short time and effort it takes to become registered and auto-confirmed, a new editor will see a lot more of standard practices than a raw beginner has seen. It will make them aware that Wikipedia has a plethora of rules covering absolutely everything, rules they may consider learning something about. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

At de:Malaysia-Airlines-Flug 17, we semi-protected the page from July 29 to August 1 due to lots of manipulation by non-registerd editors. Since then, it goes well without protection, we currently have one nonsense edit (POV manipulation or absurd theories) every few days. Of course the German acticle has less page views than the English. --PM3 (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps it would be best not to archive this section until either the protection is removed, or we come to a consensus about a timeline. I anticipate this issue will continue being raised until we resolve it one way or the other... --64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian health director document in Malay

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

Some disambiguation needed here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC quote in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look here for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on. You've made 2 recent edits to the lead, specifically the first sentence (here, here). Both have been an attempt to weaken the US stance on the issue. Looking at the first, the edit summary is "Leaves room for doubt and subsequent changes of mind.". Leaving room for change isn't our job, our job is to report what the RS's are saying, and the source for that sentence doesn't leave room: "...intelligence that [US] officials say show Moscow had trained and equipped rebels in Ukraine responsible for the attack." [17].

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

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

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

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

You've misunderstood what I said. It was about misrepresentation of US views. Your edit made it sounds like the US had large doubts about it (edit summary: "Leaves room for doubt and subsequent changes of mind." [18]), when that's not the case ("...intelligence that [US] officials say show Moscow had trained and equipped rebels in Ukraine responsible for the attack." WaPost). Both edits have now been reverted by myself and Geogene. -Stickee (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I therefore request, for accuracy, that

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

be replaced by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph breaks

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

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

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

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

Considering the comment from Administrator MilborneOne, and the ongoing discussion: the contention by Stickee that "the dispute regarding the lead has come to a conclusion" appears to be premature. Should not the NPOV therefore be reinstated? --87.117.204.133 (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: Could you please explain why you removed the NPOV template? --87.117.204.133 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

So a good solution would be to change it to "Malaysia Airlines stated that Ukrainian ATC had lost contact with the airliner at 13:15 UTC", by removing the erroneous "14:15 GMT", but leaving in the footnote? Stickee (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What footnote? HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The one labelled "[i]" in this section (permalink). It's directly after the quoted sentence. Stickee (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

We should just use UTC. Forget the footnote. Forget WEST, whatever that is. Keep it simple and global. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with using UTC only. But the footnote contains a fairly important clarification about the source. Stickee (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What? That they got it wrong? That wouldn't add anything to the article about the crash. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the UTC time is enough, no need for GMT/WEST/local or whatever. However the note (to my mind) is an explanation as to why the Malaysia Airlines statement info was NOT used in the article. I don't think there was anything sinister/devious/malicious about how it originated, the RS publication of it or the placement of it into the WP article. It was probably just a mistake made by a Malaysia Airways Press Officer who got the job of putting out the FIRST statement on MH17 - and under pressure to get something out quickly. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

BST and WEST stand for British and Western European Summer Time, the equivalent of daylight savings time where the clocks go ahead by one hour. I think we should state UTC and the local time. Sometimes BST is referred to as GMT just as someone may refer to New York time as Eastern Standard Time even when they are on daylight savings time. So the airline official probably meant what time it was in London, which was on summer time. I do not see any reason to correct the official. TFD (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Define "local time" in the context of this plane crash. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be the time that clocks used in Donetsk, where the plane crashed, which is Eastern European Summer Time (UTC + 3:00). TFD (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would go along with that. We do seem to have collected a few others along the way though. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also CNBC uses the times from departure to crash as 10:15 to 14:15 GMT,[19] while we have 10:14 to 13.:35 UTC. Do you know which is correct? TFD (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

re "So the airline official probably meant what time it was in London, which was on summer time. I do not see any reason to correct the official." Sorry, but no: the official said 14:15 GMT - he did not mention London or summer time. The official cannot possibly have been correct and so has to be corrected - either that or accept nonsense in the article. Stickee has already made a perfectly good edit on the article about this, --87.117.204.133 (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

London is in the Greenwich Mean Time Zone. Greenwich is part of Greater London. Sometimes people say GMT to refer to the time in the GMT zone (for example London), even when it is summer time. The Malayan official may have meant that. See Greenwich Mean Time#Summer Time which discusses the confusion. Of course we do not know if the official meant that. But neither can we assume that he or she was in error. TFD (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

From the same source: "In the United Kingdom, GMT is the official time during winter; during summer British Summer Time (BST) is used. GMT is the same as Western European Time." Whatever, the official cannot have meant 14:15 UTC - so the current edit (done by Stickee) still seems fine to me. --87.117.204.133 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And someday we will make it illegal to refer to the time in the Greenwich Mean Time Zone as Greenwich Mean Time during summer months. In the meantime, unfortunately and despite our best efforts, some people continue to do so. TFD (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Including comments based on their confusion about time zones will add nothing but confusion to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Stickee: - seen as you have asked:

Volunteer Marek inserted the dodgy YouTube link here: Revision as of 20:26, 7 August 2014 but seems to have included a hidden comment from an earlier (favourable) discussion on the subject: "!-- The audio has been widely published/played in media coverage and is a significant & noteworthy piece of evidence. Discuss on the talk page section: Deletion of External Link to Wiretaps Audio --". It may have been just an oversight on the part of Volunteer Marek, of course. After all, Volunteer Marek took part in the later discussion about the YouTube Ref (that was unfavourable to the inclusion of the dodgy YouTube). Additionally - after Volunteer Marek had put it back in - Volunteer Marek was reminded about it here. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The section still includes a reference to the previous, outdated discussion and perhaps Volunteer Marek can explain why it was put back into the article.

Way too much US Side in the Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geogene: re "You say we have had to "cherry pick" sources" - I didn't actually say "we" or "you" (singular or plural) so your statement has a bit of a straw-man look to it. You then go on to say ". . if you had convinced us to disregard that one, that we could find . . ." Who is exactly is this us/we of which you speak? Is it a group/association/organisation or something? Are you the nominated spokesman for the us/we group? PS: any luck with the list of "thousands of other, equally credible sources" yet? --87.117.204.133 (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: : Your comment gives the impression that the "us/we group" will simply keep looking through the available RS until the "us/we group" find something that justifies the "claim that US intelligence blamed the downing on a Buk missile fired by pro-Russian separatists" . Am I reading this correctly?

No, "you" (that may be singular or plural, I'm not sure) are not reading that correctly. Nor are you encouraging me to take your argument here more seriously by implying bias on my part. The US intelligence community may be right or wrong in blaming the separatists, but that they did in fact blame the separatists is not a point I think is worth arguing. It's not surprising that they did, it's well sourced that they did, and there are numerous other sources that could have been used to say that they did. So I find arguing about it a waste of time. That's just me, speaking for myself, of course...but nobody else appears to be arguing it with you either. Geogene (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What seems to have got lost along the way here (and it was in the NPOV template that I brought this up) is that the original source (and two others that were offered) did not really support the statement about putting the blame on the separatists. I cannot see how the article is improved by having such a discrepancy in it. Why not just substitute a source that unequivocally (and without any cherry-picking) supports the statement? --87.117.204.133 (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we could move on to discuss whether or not the lead has an NPOV or whether or not there is "Way too much US Side in the Lead" and maybe even the "Paragraph breaks" --87.117.204.133 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The source is actually so close to the statement in the article that it's a close paraphrase hazard. The amount of the "US side" in the lead only reflects the bias in reliable sources, changing that would be counter to policy. Geogene (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why Geogene removed the OSCE (independent, Swiss based, European monitoring mission) source, and say not notable. This is probably the only source that is neutral enough here to give some credits. This mission was asked by both Europe, US and Russia, this is more than notable informations.Popolon (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit in question: [20]. There is nothing wrong with the source or the OSCE. The problem is that the content is an anecdote that serves no purpose in the article, other than to say that the militants operated with "professionalism". It's POV and doesn't belong in the article. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's better than our reporting of the bullshit claims from Tony Abbott that were made from a purely POV, propaganda driven position long before anything could possibly have been known about why the plane crashed. We cannot fill the article entirely with politically driven crap without some balance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean to suggest that a routine anecdote from the OSCE about one day in their investigation has as much notability as the official remarks by a head of state? Geogene (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No. I don't mean to suggest that. I am stating with certainty that the OSCE report carries far more weight. They are in a position to actually know what they are talking about. Abbott wasn't. His rabid pronouncement was pure political opportunism based on nothing. It really adds nothing at all to the article. Obviously OSCE reports will always be more valuable. I simply cannot comprehend why you personally place so much weight on obviously propaganda driven nonsense from obviously politically biased people. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think weight and notability shouldn't be mixed up with credibility. Abbott is not the arbiter of Truth here, I don't mean to imply that we should consider him that. Geogene (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What's notable about a politician spouting entirely predictable garbage? HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute -- let me get this straight. Are you saying you don't like Tony Abbott? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like politicians. They almost all spout entirely predictable garbage. So again, what's notable about a politician spouting entirely predictable garbage? HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And now as I check the source [21] again, I see that there is nothing in it about the separatists "defending" the OSCE. There is a comment that the OSCE "re-confirmed" that the emergency services of the separatists "had, in conducting search operations, behaved in a professional manner". So the source doesn't even match the content. We should consider removing remarks in the article about the separatists not performing search/recovery operations in a professional way, as that material may be dated. But we should not add content just to portray the separatists in a friendlier light. Also, note that sources do not have to be "neutral". Geogene (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we also consider removing purely political statements based on nothing? HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Beat me to it. Article text doesn't match the source. Stickee (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to quite clearly understand why Geogene would remove such a source. See the title of this thread. Geogene is very consistent. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think I'm up to no good, then I hope you'll be taking that to the proper venue. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Popolon, you appear to be confusing notability with neutrality. Notabilty is established by multiple secondary sources reporting that information. The OSCE link is a press release only. Additionally, the text you provided doesn't even match the press release. The only thing the release says was conducted "professionally" was the DPR's own search operation, not any defending or co-operation. Stickee (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability needs a lot more than multiple secondary sources reporting that information. It actually has to matter. You are really nitpicking on anything that says anything good about the separatists (you could fix that detail yourself), but will support inclusion of any politically motivated rantings that support your view. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand you're not a fan of Tony Abbott (or other politicians for that matter); you've made that very clear several times. But just because you don't like someone or that you believe they're "spouting garbage" and "ranting" doesn't mean they're not notable. They've received significant coverage in the press and have been covered in the article. Stickee (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The political rants are totally predictable. They might be widely reported by a media desperate for content, but they are actually not notable. Did any politician say anything that surprised you? HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014 - second downing of a civilian aircraft by a BUK fired from Ukrainian territory

The last para of the lead has some points of interest such as: "The crash of MH17 marks the fifth Boeing 777 hull loss, the third in just over a year. With 298 deaths, MH17 is the deadliest air incident in Ukraine and the deadliest airliner shootdown in history. The crash was Malaysia Airlines' worst incident and its second of the year, after the disappearance of Flight 370 (9M-MRO) on 8 March, en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur".

Something not mentioned is that it is the second downing of a civilian aircraft by a BUK fired from Ukrainian territory. The other one being when Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (a commercial flight) was shot down by the Ukrainian military over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001. Should not this information be included? 82.198.102.128 (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 might be mentioned in that context. Or added in "See also". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this was already discussed in the past, and the editors decided not to include links to any other shootdowns (eg KAL007, Iran 655) since there would be a huge long list, and they're already covered in the "See also" list wikilink. At least that's what John said in this diff ("These are already covered in the list wikilink"). There's also a link to List of airliner shootdown incidents in the lead. (I've marked this as answered. It doesn't mean discussion is closed. It's just so it's no longer transcluded in CAT:ESP.) Stickee (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 tragedy was not Buk, but S-200. The plane was in 250-300 km from coast, and Buk has maximal range of 18 km. `a5b (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that makes it alright then. Nevertheless Ukraine banned the testing of Buk, S-300 and similar missile systems for a period of 7 years following this incident. Ukraine’s acting Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh described the combat readiness of the country’s armed forces as “unsatisfactory” in his 12 March 2014 report to the acting president. Tenyukh said recent exercises demonstrated a “dismal degree of preparedness among servicemen and lack of military specialists, equipment and weapons” in the Ground Forces, the Air Force and the Navy. The country’s air defense troops had received little training because of the 2001 ban on missile launches imposed after the crash of a Russian Tu-154 passenger jet. The ban was lifted in 2008, but so far only 10 percent of Air Defense Forces servicemen “have mastered the required level of theory and practice,” the report said. Hindustan Times RIA www.globalsecurity.org. The Ukrainian military had several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers, capable of bringing down high-flying jets, in the Donetsk region where the Malaysian passenger plane crashed, Russian Defense Ministry said rt.com. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we find reliable sources about the ban, published before MH17 disaster? Hindustan Times made the picture in day or two after the crash, and I think it can be not reliable. Earlier sources don't say anything about Buk. PS: march 2013 report in mass media: RIA `a5b (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DSB preliminary report: English-language version is the version of record

Here are archives of the preliminary report files:

• ENGLISH: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6SSLxTGmD
• DUTCH: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/700/b0183934171fprem-rapport-mh-17-nl-interactief.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6SSM4O6O2

In English page 6 of 34: "This report is published in the Dutch and English languages. If there is a difference in interpretation between the Dutch and English versions, the English text will prevail."

In Dutch page 5 of 35: "Dit rapport is zowel in het Nederlands als in het Engels verschenen. Indien er verschil bestaat in de interpretatie van het Nederlandse en Engelse rapport, is het Engelse rapport leidend."

Whenever there is a difference between the English and Dutch versions, use the English version as the source WhisperToMe (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary Report

The preliminary report will be published on 9 September at 8:00 UTC [22]. --PM3 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sam.gov: I saw you added info about it here, but note that it's already covered at the end of the "Investigation" section. Should the information be merged there? Stickee (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: Sure, it can be merged there. I initially added it under the "cause" section because the source said it will discuss the possible cause of the accident. Sam.gov (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay great I've put your comment about the final report taking another year there. Stickee (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sam.gov (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the the Ukrainian authorities have the right to veto/censor all reports. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get that information? Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was common knowledge. Here's an example - http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/564116/20140827/mh17-investigation-update-conspiracy.htm --82.198.102.128 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So it's not just Ukraine that has a veto - "Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium" must arrive at a consensus. My first thought - why Belgium? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Is "Global Research" reliable? Here is their website: [www.globalresearch.ca/]. The link given above cites their website as the source of the English translation. I don't trust anybody source that will publicly acknowledge using them as a source. Geogene (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Searching the WP:RS noticeboard archives reveals fruit:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#globalresearch.ca
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_155#globalresearch.ca
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_123#Half-way point

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

GlobalResearch is a fringe publication, and the latest post on the RS/N (archive 155) appears to echo that too. Some choice headlines: 9/11 Truth in 2014: Is a Breakthrough Possible?, The Failure of Mainstream Media, Global Warming Media Propaganda. Stickee (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia PM said the intelligence report is conclusive: WSJ--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Um yes, these comments "come ahead of Tuesday's release of a preliminary report by the Dutch Safety Board". But that news conference/ report says nothing about any four-way joint consensus, or any mention of Ukraine agreement. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Australian PM visited the Malaysian PM, an on this occasion they just hat to say something, but actually they said close to nothing. --PM3 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

BBC Panorama claim

On 8 September 2014, in BBC's Panorama programme "Putin's Gamble", it was claimed, for the first time, that two eyewitnesses had identified operators of the Buk surface-to-air missile launcher, as having Russian (and in one case a Moscow) accent: [23]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If this is true that would make Russia a party in all this, and in fact a party that has a lot to gain by denial and misinformation. In fact, if this is true it would make all Russian government sources and government controlled media since the crash that did not admit to this (which must have been known by Russian government from the start) unreliable instantly. Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(The theory was also expounded, by the Ukrainian security services, that Putin had intended to shoot down a Russian Aeroflot airliner as a pretext for the invasion of Ukraine, but had fired at the wrong plane. (Not that convincing, as it tuned out)). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

John Sweeney going there and taking to residents - scared of speaking openly , tellingly, - adds to the evidence that has piled up [24] - even one of his own former advisors says on the programme Putin is spinning out of control - .john Sweeney article bbc Sayerslle (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Sweeney is a very well-respected journalist. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Panorama may have it right, but accents don't tell all. The recent beheading videos from ISIS showed a guy with an English accent. I don't think Britain is a party to that activity. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a very valid point. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I hardly think the case was being made that accents were 'telling all' - anyhow , if its what RS are talking about and reporting on, the sightings on the day of the buk etc , so should wp. Sayerslle (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

and RT ,putin regime/iran regime propaganda, as you must be aware, hilo , certainly does portray Britain/US/Jews as a party to that ISIS activity - [25] - iran press tv isil cia/mossad proxy - perhaps you were hinting at that belief, I don't know. Sayerslle (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Please stick to commenting on the words I actually use, rather than speculating that I might have meant something else. That approach is never helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Plus there's a new open source analysis of "Buk" video and photos leading to a conclusion that "the Buk that was seen leaving the suspected area of the missile launch on the 17th of July most likely belonged to and was manned by Russian troops from the 53rd Kursk Brigade." [26]. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous witnesses don't prove very much. Worth a mention in the article but it must be highlighted that they are anonymous.

Nor do anonymous editors, eh Sceptic1954? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

remark read, not deemed worthy of reply. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

fine then! I'll refuse to sign too. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC) d'oh