Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 15

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 10

←

Archive 13

→

NPOV template

The lead is way unbalanced. We have one editor who appears to admit it should be giving the US government point of view strongly. Sources which state that Western government merely 'suspect' separatists shot down the plane are not given space in the lead. The Russian government point of view is given little pscae and placed well down the page even though there is evidence that most of the Russian population subscribe to it. The lead is effectively controlled by a group of editors who seem to wish to promote only the US government point of view. That is not the function of wikipedia. Given the discussions which have been ongoing here this template should have been in place for weeks past. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone, please don't edit war over the NPOV template such as happens in articles in Wikipedia that are controlled by activists. Please let it be. Even if you don't agree that the article is not neutral, the template helps draw more people to the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Cla68, if you want more editors involved, then call for protection to be lifted so more editors can edit. What's "controlled by activists" here is the contention that the article does not given enough credence to Kremlin claims and therefore should be templated. WIkipedia does not owe either the White House or the Kremlin anything. What we owe to our readers is the presentation of reliably sourced material. That, right there, explains why the Kremlin view is not dominant and as far as I'm concerned bogus, demonstrably false Kremlin contentions are given too much space as it is such that the NPOV problem is going to far the other way. But rather than template I provide SPECIFIC reasons why a source is or is not reliable.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

~~Nobody has attempted to remove the NPOV template, Cla68.~~ Geogene (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An article that is templated simply because an editor believes the "Russian government point of view" is not featured prominently enough is not sufficient reason to maintain a template. If there is an objection, then spell it out. See Wikipedia:NPOV dispute.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead reflects reliable references so just because you dont agree with it is not a reason to add a npov tag. The lead is not controlled by anybody and is a combined effort from all the editors that work here and is driven by consensus. The lead reports what is being said on all sides (and as far as I know the conflict in the area of the incidents has nothing to do with the United States so cant really be a "side" if you want to be neutral). The fact that "Russian population subscribe" to the view of the Russian media is not really relevant and both the Russian and Ukrainian view is mentioned, although perhaps if different the Dutch and Malaysian view should be stated. Dont really know what you mean by "that Western government" as far is know a "western government" doesnt exist. So you really need to reconsider adding the non-neutral template as "I dont like it" and "they wont let me change it" is not a matter of neutrality. MilborneOne (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant 'Western governments.' As this wasn't clear to you please state if this affects your conclusion.Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of truth in what Sceptic1954 is saying: a lot of other Wikipedias, the ones in languages I can read, at least, have balanced articles on this subject. They have articles saying that the truth is not known, yet, and that there are different theories on what happened. This article, on the other hand, is clearly a copy of the official US government's version which is also the version that Western news sources, which are all blatantly controlled by the US government and US interest groups, have been spreading since day one: Russia is GUILTY!!! GUILTY!!!! GUILTY!!!!!!! Off with their heads! They are the judge, the jury, the DA, the public defender, etc. They have "undeniable proof", "a smoking gun", etc., yet, they have not released any of that to this day... They have not even released what they found out in the black boxes... Once could wonder whether they are hard at work on fabricating "smoking guns" and "undeniable proofs"... One could also wonder whether the US government is paying some of the many, many, many jobless people in the US to spread propaganda on, and control, not only news forums, but also Wikipedia... I really hope that is not the case, but who knows.... Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your point would be much more convincing if you actually presented a coherent set of concise arguments in a neutral manner, backed up by actual facts, instead of going off on a rant containing unproven clichés, such as the accusation that all Western media are directly controlled by the US government. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What is a rant is debatable, and I do not appreciate your accusing me of "going off on a rant". It is a rude accusation that I would hope you would take back. Is it a cliché or is it an observation that western news sources are blatantly controlled by US interest groups? They sure seem to always all give the same version of international facts, don't they? Nonetheless, it is my government and I say what I want about it. Are you an American by any chance? Nichts fuer ungut, --Mondschein English (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: it's a rant (judging by the number of exclamation marks alone) and does not warrant an NPOV tag. The US intelligence has offered an explanation for the accident; the Russian government totally disagrees; both views are mentioned in the lead. Sorted. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The exclamation marks were obviously not a rant of mine but my poking fun at the rants of the western media. Also, the lead does not simply say "The US intelligence has offered an explanation for the accident; the Russian government totally disagrees", but it goes into the details of the US version and at the very end it simply says "the Russian government disagrees" without mentioning any theory confuting the official US government's version. There is a big difference. :-) --Mondschein English (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that Sceptic started a thread at the NPOV message board recently as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Malaysian_Airways_Flight_MH_17 Geogene (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If anyone further tries to remove the template I will raise it on administrators notice board. Clearly there are other editors who share my concern on this. The dispute is ongoing and the template contains a request not to remove it until consensus is reached. This means all round agreement, not majority voting. First a recent BBC report said 'western governments suspect...' The lack of certainty needs to be reflected high up in the lead. What we have is claim + details of claim + brief mention of counterclaim. It should be brief statement of claim followed by brief statement of conterclaim then anything else sutable afterwards. Whether the Kremlin claim is valid or not is neither here nor there the fact is it is a significant view held by many people and desrves due weight. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The first 2 statements of the 2nd para in the lead are sourced to the Washington Post, here are some comparisons:

the officials said the intelligence assembled in the five days since the attack points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists in territory they control in eastern Ukraine.

which WP editors turned into: According to US intelligence sources, the plane was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists.

The U.S. intelligence officials, who included experts on Russia’s military and its relationship with separatists in Ukraine, said they do not know the identities or even the nationalities — whether Russian or possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military — of those who launched the missile from an SA-11 surface-to-air battery.

which WP editors turned into: They said their conclusion 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.

Apart from the cherry-picking required to generate these statements from the Washington Post article, even those chosen don't accurately quote the source. Sceptic was correct to insert the NPOV template and it should remain there until the article becomes neutral. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair I gave this as the source for the wording as it refelcted better the wording than the previous. Quite possibly the original wording did derive from this source. Also the source opens with "The Obama administration, detailing what it called evidence of Russian complicity in the downing of a Malaysian airliner, on Tuesday released satellite images and other sensitive intelligence that officials say show Moscow had trained and equipped rebels in Ukraine responsible for the attack." The RS appears contradictory "The U.S. intelligence officials, who included experts on Russia’s military and its relationship with separatists in Ukraine, said they do not know the identities or even the nationalities — whether Russian or possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military — of those who launched the missile from an SA-11 surface-to-air battery." for one thing if they were defectors from the Ukrainian military how can it be certain that Moscow trained them? However identifying contradictions in or between RS is usually condemned as OR.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also state in the lead that the US government is holding back on releasing the evidence they gathered. Relevance should be given to the on-going investigation and the lack of hard evidence, at this time. --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@IP82, the WaPost article [1] does state that the US says the evidence points to the separatists ("...points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists"). They don't know the exact identities or nationalities of them, but they say the evidence indicates overwhelmingly those responsible were separitists. Stickee (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The source does NOT say it is a conclusion. What gives you the right to interpret it as such? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Very true. --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And even if it is a conclusion what gives anyone the right to present it as fact. The fact that the Washington Post present the US government's conclusion does not make this a fact, any more than if they reported the Russian government's conclusion. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Also very true. --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@IP82: A "conclusion" is a judgement made by reasoning, which is what the WaPost article explains. It's seemingly fairly straightforward paraphrasing. But if you're still not sure, here's some more sources: "U.S. officials have concluded the missile was fired from rebel-held territory." ([2]), "[US officials] had concluded that separatists fired the missile" ([3]). Stickee (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first source does not support the statement in the lead that "Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile" - only that "U.S. officials have concluded the missile was fired from rebel-held territory."

As for your second source: "Obama stopped short of publicly accusing the separatists, or their Russian patrons, of pulling the trigger. "... .“Whether it was a Russian military unit that did it or it was a separatist unit . . . we don’t know,” ...Privately, U.S. officials said intelligence assessments, based on weapons believed to be in separatist hands and the tracked location of the launch site, had concluded that separatists fired the missile, although it was unclear whether they knew their target was a commercial airliner." So, yet more cherry-picking and distortion of what the sources actually said. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: : are you going to respond to this? --87.117.204.133 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: : Why are you not responding to this ??? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimous (WP:NOTUNANIMOUS). Take a look through the AfD log and look how many articles are deleted/kept without unanimity, or a look through RfA applications. Firstly, the US government's view on this has not changed. The BBC quote does not indicate their view has weakened (and it doesn't even refer to them). Also, in regards to escalating to sysops, an administrator has already commented in this very section. Stickee (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The wording at NOTUNANIMOUS suggests that one dissenter may be overridden. Here we have 2 or 3dissenters at least. Please give specific reference to administrators comment. Thank you Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The sysop is MilborneOne, whose comment is currently the 6th from the top in this section. Stickee (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have offered a different lead. There is no issue over sources. I'm not even debating the amount of space given to different aspects of the question. The main thing is that the mention of claim and counter-claim should be prominent. The fact that the Russian government have made a claim which many editors here reject (and I personally feel is rather unlikely) is a significant fact in this story.Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)To add to this, I consider the fact that there are other views than the US view should appear before the evidence which supports the Russian view. This is the key difference. It's a question of prominence rather than amount of material. BTW regarding the adminsitrator above, I'd take issue with the assertion that the US government is not a 'side' in this. The head of the CIA has visted Kiev since fighting began and the US press for sanctions on Russia. I would seek views of more adminstrators were the tag to be removed without consensus. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The US government is deeply involved n this. Biden's son is in the Ukraine doing who knows what, the US is pressing for Ukraine's NATO membership, etc.

One question to those who put this article together: how is "The Christian Science Monitor" a reliable source? The name alone and a quick visit to their site would lead to believe otherwise. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite their name, they're not actually some big Christian preaching mouthpiece (unless it's an opinion editorial piece, as goes with any newspaper). See a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Christian Science Monitor. Stickee (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't oppose the lead as it stands currently. "Conclusion" --> "Judgement" I do not find objectionable. I still think that emphasizing the 5 days is somewhat POV, but it doesn't stick out in the article; nor is it technically incorrect. Geogene (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The five days isn't that important, although it gives something of a chronological sequence. I'll be happy to remove the template if no other objections to the change. In fact if Stickee doesn't object I am happy for them to remove the template whilst I sleep! This discussion may soon be rendered redundant anyway by the publication of the Dutch report. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To summarise the locus of the NPOV dispute in relation to your comment 3 levels above, there doesn't appear to be dispute about the content of the lead, nor any dispute about the air time of the content. It appears to be focused around the order of the content of the lead. I still have some concern that the "claim and counter-claim" ordering results in false balance, but I'll leave that for another time. Perhaps after the prelim report comes out? Anyway, I've taken off the {{POV-section}} tag now.

By the way, the Dutch preliminary report won't discuss liability or blame (according to the BBC). And the DSB says their final report won't be out for another year, so there's still quite a bit of a wait yet. Stickee (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This is Sceptic1954, my home internet is down and I can't sign in at the public terminal. Yes the difference was over order. If any governments intelligence statements are questioned then I think the reader should be aware of this before reading the detail of the statement, that way they may read it more critically. Let's see what the preliminary report says, it will hopefully say how the plane came down, even if I can't identify who217.26.11.122 (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Now signed in, I can confirm that 217.26.11.112 was me. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Heavily unbalanced, many claims are presented in a way that suggests they are factual. The wording implies the plane was already crashing when fighter jet is alleged to come into proximity i.e. suggestively discrediting alternative theories. Fails to mention counter-claims or the myriad of references which do not adhere to the POV expressed. Disproportionate volume of text given to one theory, NOWHERE does it mention there are multiple theories. This, quite frankly, stinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.195.175 (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects the coverage in the majority of reliable sources on the issue, giving more time to conspiracy theories would be undue weight, contrary to core policies at Wikipedia. Geogene (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I put the NPOV template back up because HiLo48, Mondschein English, and a number of IP editors seem to want it there. Hopefully this will draw in more experienced editors who will vouch for weight being determined by the bulk of reliable sources...and not "equal time" for conspiracy theories. Geogene (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, the article should reflect the amount of weight and attention given in the reliable sources and media. Stickee (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

However does one compute the amount of weight and attention in RS? Do ten RS, which may derive from a single RS, each with 100K readers/viewers count more than one RS with 2 million readers/viewers? Who can posibly compile makle a list of all RSs? Seems to me that it's a question of finding an RS to suit a point of view.Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems start right from the beginning: airliner "was shot down". Is it really a fact? AFAIK official investigation isn't finished yet. Saharaza (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the article cite a source for it? Geogene (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The source says it crashes, and "there are reports that the plane was shot down". Saharaza (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Source #3 [4] says it was shot down. I have moved source #2 to the end of that sentence so that the three sources for it are together and the sourcing of the shootdown is not implied to be there. Geogene (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Still it isn't a fact yet. I think we should stay who exactly thinks that it was shot down. Currently we have a perfect candidate for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:According_to_whom Saharaza (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

From the link above: Do not use this tag if naming the individuals who hold a position would be silly because of the number. Facts that are widely held should be asserted as simple facts. Do not use in-text attribution to imply that a widely held view is a minority position. Geogene (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Still, it simply isn't a fact yet, so it cannot be accepted as "fact that is widely held". Saharaza (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that seriously challenge it having been shot down? Geogene (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable prove that it was shot down? It's pure speculations, until results of official investigation are ready. Saharaza (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The way that "proof" works on Wikipedia: reliable sources say that it was shot down. Therefore, it was shot down. Geogene (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The Gold Standard in RSs The Dutch report prefixes what may be understood as shot down with 'probably' ergo element of doubt.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Then we should say "probably shot down" where the article speaks in Wikipedia's voice. Geogene (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Russia's state-controlled media outlets are the only organizations clinging to the fiction that it was anyone besides Russian-armed separatists who shot down the airliner. We should treat their assertions accordingly. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're so certain about the fact that it was shot down, no harm will be done by waiting for the official report, rather than allowing Wikipedia to become part of the western propaganda war that began way before the crash. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You continue to advocate censorship. Do you expect to find a receptive audience here? Geogene (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Censorship? LOL. Of course I never expected you to agree, but that has no impact on my view. As for how many others agree or disagree with me, many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have read over this discussion several times over. There is absolutely nothing in it which justifies the POV tag. The main gripe appears to be that reliable sources don't say what some particular Wikipedia editor accounts want them to say. Too bad. Volunteer Marek 01:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Good to see that this has been reverted, as it was done without consensus--82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, I have read this discussion several times over. There is absolutely nothing in it which justifies the POV tag. There's a lot of talk about how the article uses "Western sources", wikilawyering about the word "probability" and stuff like that but it's all one big WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And then that is mixed in with a lot of pointless arguing (see WP:NOTAFORUM) and some folks saying "we can't say for sure what happened therefore we should NOT say what the reliable sources say" (???) which just betrays a fundamental ignorance of Wikipedia policy.

Until one of youse can give specific, policy based reason for the tag, it goes.

And no, there's NOTHING in policy which says the tag may not be removed until every obfuscating battleground warrior is convinced that the article is neutral. The template may say something about not removing it, but a template is NOT a policy. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV which actually trumps consensus. And even the template says explicitly:

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. (my emphasis)

I know there's gonna be lots of wikilawyering attempts about what it means to be "independent" etc., but that's exactly what we have here. The problem in fact appears to be that some editors wish to ADD POV to the article, can't find reliable sources to back it up, and so as revenge, tag up this article. Sorry. Not how it works. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Igor Ostanin

I reverted content sourced to Bellingcat at [5]. I don't think a website "by and for citizen investigative journalists" are RS enough to identify the specific Russian unit that (allegedly) shot the plane down. I also think this is a lot of weight given to one source (which also applies to the BBC panorama content, although the BBC is much more RS than this.) Geogene (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Eliot Higgins, and Bellingcat,his project - is regularly sought out by the BBC anyhow, like today [6] - and he was on Sky News tonight actually.[7] - of course it is looked down on by the all powerful moral authorities at RT - look at the supercilious smirk (10:17)[8] - ugh, disgustin' -'Its a dangerous trend' she says -probably has a gulag lined up for 'dangerous elements' then - and, 'who are they?' that moron at the end says - its a kind of power worship really - powerful people like putin are to be believed because - they are powerful Sayerslle (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Can we get this specific content sourced to one of those larger outlets? Geogene (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A quick google reveals a short mention in The Guardian [9] (see the last paragraph) and The Independent [10] (2nd last para). What do you think about them? Stickee (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

the guardian mention is a good RS isn't it - after all wp is about providing information on what is out there , and not TRUTH as one is constantly reminded - I think the material, reffed to the guardian belongs in the article -Sayerslle (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is. I manually undid my revert. Bellingcat itself is probably fine in this instance since Guardian and The Independent reference it, until/unless somebody finds some weird conspiracy theories there or something. Sorry...next time I'll remember to good-faith Google first. Geogene (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if RS is commenting on this, that certainly raises its level of notability. We should be cautious about due weight, however. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Prelim Report

The preliminary report has just been released by the investigation (english pdf).

Doesn't seem to be any surprises really.
Caused by external factors, and high-speed projectiles. Not inconsistent with Buk or bullets ("A BBC correspondent says this evidence is consistent with the plane being struck by shrapnel from a missile.").
ATC transcript included (page 15).
Crew properly trained.
FDR shows no sudden movements before FDR cuts off.
3 other commercial aircraft nearby (closest is 30km)
Report says last radio transmission at 13:19:56, while Malaysia Airlines in article says ATC contact lost at 13:15.

Although this isn't a forum, some interesting points nonetheless. Stickee (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added detailed timing, flight track and flight levels information from the report to the article already (Crash section) based on the full report[11]. Other details you mentioned should be also probably added to respective sections. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Not inconsistent" and "consistent with" is not the same as "caused by". For the sake of such credibility that Wikipedia may enjoy on topics such as this the caution in this report should be reflected in this article. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the report does not mention missiles nor bullets. Its summary says that damage appears to indicate ...impacts from a large number of high energy objects from outside the aircraft.

Also it explains why we have not yet heard much of blackboxes. As expected when a perfectly fine plane is suddenly hit by many high speed objects, the recordings abruptly end without any indication of any problem before end of recording. Arnoutf (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't retrace the quote but somewhere today I read that someone from the Dutch Safety Board say that they were writing for the next of kin and for history. Please can we adopt the same principle here. Let's respect those who died are not use this to grind our own axes: We should not be using this article to make one or other side in this conflict look bad. Whatever we write is unlikely to save a single life in the region.Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: Haha yeah, they do tend to stop recording when that happens.

@Sceptic (3 comments above): Bear in mind the preliminary report intentionally doesn't discuss who did what, because their primary concern is safety and how the plane got to be where it is. CNN's reporter explains it better: "[The report] never once uses the word missile. How can this be? The purpose of the preliminary report is not to apportion blame; that is left to prosecutors. ... Once you understand that, reading the report makes sense." ([12]). Re-ordering the lead like that and inserting that quote has WP:GEVAL issues. The sources are still saying the report is consistent with and backs-up the prevailing cause of the accident. Stickee (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

and the source you quote says it was shot down but doesn't say by whom so perhaps the lead should reflect that. There's nothing in the report to suggest by whom. And if sources say that US intelligence claims they are only reliably reporting a claim, just as RT might reliably report a Russian government claim. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(It's not so much the case that the FDRs "stop recording" - there's just nothing left to record.) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

if the report points to ground to air missile, - that isn't trying to make one side look bad sceptic1954, -(Russians and their map) -or axe grinding is it? that's reality making one side look bad - here is eliot Higgins talking about the report - says it doesn't add much to the picture really [13] Sayerslle (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

With the available information I think it is safe to write that the plane was shot down. This does not indicate who did it or even that the weapon was a Surface-to-Air Missile. In a suitable subsection the article could then go on to cite the different explanations from notable news outlets that have dealt with the tragedy (as a side effect indicating credibility or lack thereof of these news outlets). For example rt.com that writes about a Ukrainian SU-25: "[We] would like to get an explanation as to why the military jet was flying along a civil aviation corridor at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane", http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/. I think such attempts from notable news outlets to explain the tragedy are noteworthy. Alternatively, if a news outlet is deemed to be just a propaganda tool, then the article could identify it as such, or just avoid it alltogether as a source. Lklundin (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RT is a propaganda tool - [14] says the ' damage is consistent with what we would expect from an attack by a large surface-to-air missile (SAM), with detonation triggered by a proximity fuse showering a target with shrapnel.' the interpreter report says 'The radar evidence under review, will make it clear whether or not the Ukrainian Su-25, claimed by Russia to be operating close to MH17, was actually there or not.' Sayerslle (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Interpreter Mag is a propaganda tool - as has been pointed out several times before. It is a self-published "Project of The Institute of Modern Russia" [15]: The Institute of Modern Russia (IMR) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy organization—a think tank—with offices in New York and Washington DC. IMR's mission is to foster democratic and economic development in Russia through research, advocacy, public events, and grant-making. We are committed to strengthening respect for human rights, the rule of law, and civil society in Russia. Our goal is to promote a principles-based approach to US-Russia relations and Russia's integration into the community of democracies. The source given is "Powered by Pressimus", tag line: Find useful snippets of content. Weave them into your stories. ((Press)) to share with the world. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

its written by intelligent people though, don't you think ?, - are you saying what is quoted from it is wrong, or do you just outright dismiss anything not from RT and herr putin. Sayerslle (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As this appears to be a personal attack. I will simply ignore it. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

He's not Herr Putin, he's a Gaspadin Putin. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the report doesn't reveal anything new regarding the cause. The report was never going to discuss who shot what (as said in their press release), so nothing has changed. US, Ukraine, Russia, Malaysia etc are still making the same claims about the cause, and the sources are reporting them with the same weight as before. Stickee (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag again

Volunteer Marek. I agreed previously to the NPOV tag being removed subject to a particular form of wording being in the lead. This was agreed but has now been reverted, so I restored the tag. Please don't put words into my mouth as to what my complaint is. My main complaint is about the balance of the lead. They are documented in a number of sections. To avoid the possibility of being accused of edit-warring I'll not replace the tag immediately. In fact I have an issuie about the wording of the Dutch Safety Board report not being more prominent in the lead, and surely that is the most reliable of all RSs. Seems that many people complain about you removing this tag without discussionSceptic1954 (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea what you're talking about. What was the wording you wanted? Can you put it here again?

The lede is "balanced" in that it summarizes article content, which is what the lede is suppose to do. Again, I see no problems being "documented" just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 20:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was not there solely because Sceptic1954 pointed out the non-neutrality of the article. So trying to score points against Sceptic1954 alone will never justify the removal of the tag. Anyone who has read over this discussion several times over will know that. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the discussion above has no substance. It's just editors - and anon IPs - complaining about the fact that reliable sources don't match their POV. Volunteer Marek 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That is extremely close to a personal attack, adds nothing to the discussion, and is purely provocative. It's sad that you are allowed to behave so badly here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Working backwards: no, I am not behaving badly. No it is not provocative (how so?). It's not meant to add the discussion, it's meant to point out the shallow depth of existing discussion. No, it is nowhere close to a personal attack. What is this personal attack I made? Saying that discussion has no substance? Saying that editors are complaining that reliable sources don't match their POV? You just did that right below.

Please keep in mind that spurious accusations about "personal attacks" are *actually personal attacks* themselves. Here: WP:NPA. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If the tag is there readers can decide for themselves. It's about far more than Marek says and it would take forever to document it. I hope some othereditor will put it back. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"If the tag is there readers can decide for themselves" - that doesn't make any sense. Should we tag every single article on Wikipedia so that "readers can decide for themselves"?

One more time, what was this wording you wanted? Can you put it here again? Volunteer Marek 20:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I will not replace the tag for now because I really can't be bothered to go back and retrieve it. The lead is a little better this evening than it was this morning. However IMO the article generally is a joke but I frequently feel that I've better things to do with my time than try to improve it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

it needs a lot more from Moscow RT pov, eh? I think the lead has been eviscerated by pro-Putin pov - nothing on all the RS reports about the Buk on the day etc - seems none of us is happy really. ah wellSayerslle (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that should definitely be put back as it got extensive coverage and is still mentioned every time the topic of this article comes up. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sceptic, for the third time, what's this wording you wanted? If you already got it, why are you putting the tag back in? Volunteer Marek 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to accept the fact that this incident happened well into a huge propaganda war, and a lot of what we would normally regard as reliable sources are, inevitably, presenting the views of outspoken people in their own countries. Those outspoken people are players in the propaganda war. That guarantees that we don't get a balanced picture. An NPOV tag is perfectly valid. Arguing aggressively against it is taking an obviously POV position. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether this incident happened during a "huge propaganda war" (sic). It also doesn't matter that you want to throw reliable sources out the window because now, that they don't agree with your POV, they are apparently no longer reliable. As I've pointed out again and again and again and again, none of these are in any any any any any way sufficient or even noteworthy to slap a POV tag on the article. This is *the definition* of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

your idea of a 'balanced picture' - what is that exactly - if the Australian leader says something -it has to be balanced by the Iranian leader ? - why are you obsessed with 'the views of outspoken people in their own countries' - its about the evidence , not 'outspoken people' - if RS focus on the Buk sightings, and the physical evidence of the debris - what would you 'balance' that with - some Russian theories - fine - but RS haven't been too impressed have they? if they have, bring it forth - the tag is spurious imo - a desire to hang a badge of shame on an article some just don't/can't 'like' because of its subject. 21:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk)

Just so you all know, I'm getting the sniff of an WP:EW here. I can, and will, lock the article atbthe WP:WRONGVERSION if necessary. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that I will reach for the key to the case of my banhmmer.

So, let's just cool things a bit here please? Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle - I did not say "if the Australian leader says something -it has to be balanced by the Iranian leader". (Classical misrepresentation and straw man argument there.) In fact I said very much the opposite. I don't want any political bullshit in the article. That is definitely NOT evidence. Volunteer Marek - accusing me of taking a POV position is just plain stupid, and insulting. You really are well into personal attack territory now. I am asking that political outbursts from anywhere that aren't based on known concrete truths should be omitted. Go on. Misinterpret that! HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, saying that someone has a POV or even that their editing with a POV is not a personal attack. At least not in general. Volunteer Marek 00:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

When you're tag teaming with another editor who accuses me of the most ridiculous biases and badly misrepresents me, and you fail to say anything negative about his bullshit and just continue to have a go at me, it's a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

First, I am not tag teaming with anyone, I'm actually not even sure who you're referring to. Second, and obviously, me NOT saying something bad about someone else is NOT a personal attack on you. That's in fact about the strangest claim of "you made a personal attack on me" I've seen here. Volunteer Marek 04:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is entirely correct here. HiLo is far more likely to call a source advancing the Kremlin propaganda line "excellent" than a source deemed reliable by Wikipedia policy. That's POV and should be called out for what it is.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I will ignore that moronic bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

At least two of you here are blatently violating WP:NPA. Please knock it off. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the number of personal attackers here. I apologise for being sucked in by the provokers. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

the article is way too long with virtually no credible evidence presented which therefore makes it very misleading

In order to be neutral, this article must state unequivocally that there is virtually no real hard evidence to point to in all of this so far. Reporters who say they "see" something, in other words, "gossip", is repeated in a litany and stream of reports thus giving the impression that this "preponderance" substitutes for fact. The facts are actually extremely limited so far, and on the ground investigation, due to the nature of the area of the crash being a war zone, hard indisputable facts are currently impossible to come by, where the preponderance of actual evidence which is the crash scene and the wreckage, is and perhaps will be limited and possibly even disputed into the future.

But apart from that, the other hard evidence is currently still not available to the public. Usually ATC transcripts are released by now and so long after the fact, black box evidence is released at least in bits but so far nothing, so no cockpit recording information can be objectively or fairly be evaluated. Usually any investigation will reveal openly and transparently this data, but so far there is not even a hint that this is going to occur on Tuesday so the report unfortunately will be filtered. The article needs to delete about 3/4 of the biased hysteria it reports in an attempt to give the impression that multiple unverified reports sum up to actual evidence.

Thus we have virtually no solid evidence at this point to go by, the article is thus extremely misleading due to probably the following reasons.

Currently there is an ongoing media frenzy, and the subject is therefore timely, so it seems that reporting as in any media surrounding war events, usually are poor representations of any objective reality. The old maxim "the first casualty of war is the truth" applies. One would need to go back to the WMD debate prior to the Iraq War and how it was reported in wikipedia at the time to bear out the suspect nature of articles during periods of media war frenzy.

This of the worst articles in wikipedia I have ever read, and until recently, I thought that many contentious subjects were fairly represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.183.72 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is one of the worst Wikipedia articles only presenting the Ukrainian and US views. Does not even mention questions in the US about the capability of that AA rocket. I am finding the Russians more forthcoming sadly. Elemming (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, data from the CVR and FDR and not typically released until a, at least preliminary, report has been published. The fact that data was leaked in this case, shortly after the analysis began, makes it somewhat unusual, even if the content of that leak did not much to what was already known. Even so, it seems likely, that the flight recorder data will not add much to what is known already. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The OP is right. The article is full of unsubstantiated, propaganda style claims that the evil Russians are at fault. It's an appalling article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

specific examples? there shouldn't be unsubstantiated propaganda style claims - articles are meant to be led by RS. if there are egregious examples of propaganda that has strayed from RS , why not do something about it. your manner of writing - 'The article is full of unsubstantiated, propaganda style claims that the evil Russians are at fault' - is very broad brush - I don't think, if the regime of lavrov and putin, are the victims of false propaganda that would be right. that would be awful. they wouldn't stoop to propaganda so why should wp editors let them suffer from it without a fight. they shouldn't. its bloody well not right if its happeningSayerslle (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Op has got it pretty much spot-on for the status of the article so far. As for Sayerslle's request for "specific examples", all that is needed is to go back through the archives to see "specific examples" of manipulation. I think InedibleHulk put it pretty well HERE: "I absolutely agree that factual and objective coverage is the way to go here. But I'm just as convinced it can't possibly happen. Theoretically, sure. But it goes way beyond Stickee, Wikipedia, this plane or any one state's disinformation machine. I suggest surrender." --82.198.102.128 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The OP writes: "Usually ATC transcripts are released by now and so long after the fact, black box evidence is released at least in bits but so far nothing." In my experience, that's wrong. Very sorry if it's "of the worst articles in wikipedia I have ever read". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have put a lot of effort into reporting the entirely predictable, obviously propaganda driven claims of politicians and politically motivated people, who in reality have based their statements on nothing concrete at all, and whose statements, because of their predictability, add absolutely nothing to the article. The article would be better off without them. And while the section of the article headed Cause states "The cause of the crash has not yet been determined by the official investigation", that fact is not directly reflected in the lead. It describes the plane as having been shot down, even though that is not even certain. It spends a lot of words on the US version of what happened. We really should add the above statement on the cause being unknown early in the first paragraph of the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects what the sources are saying on the matter. You've made it clear here and in the past you don't like what's being reported, but that doesn't matter. It's received significant coverage in the press and is included in the article. Stickee (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. Another red linked account with a few old contributions, coming over to this topic + a lot of anon IPs showing up to cheer this on. Anyway, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to "present credible evidence". This isn't a courtroom. It isn't some online mechanism for adjudicating real world disputes. It's not an authority on matters-that-be (well, sometimes, but it shouldn't be). It's an encyclopedia. And that just means that we write about what reliable sources say. Period. If you think the reliable sources got it wrong and want to vent about it, you're in the wrong place. Volunteer Marek 00:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Marek, an encyclopedia should report facts not propaganda. There are very few facts in this case other than "the plane was hit by high energy particles which caused it to crash". See the Dutch report.14.2.27.135 (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we report what is properly sourced AND notable. Being well sourced is necessary but never sufficient to justify the inclusion of something in the article. Something that is entirely predictable, and based on nothing concrete, is not notable. Yes, the propaganda based political rants are well reported, but that doesn't make them notable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, it's hard to tell exactly what the OP's problem with the article is except that they don't like it. Volunteer Marek 01:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But you can surely tell what my problem with the article is, yet you chose to ignore my post immediately above. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to your comment in this particular thread, "OP is right", then yes I have a sense of it, but I don't see anything there except more IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 13:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's the subject of many non-trivial articles from reliable sources, it's notable. Stickee (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Precisely what is notable about a politician saying precisely we would have expected him to say? HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a world leader expressing an opinion -- whether it is predictable or not, jingoistic or not, utter bilge or not is irrelevant. It shouldn't be presented with undue weight, but certainly in the context of an international reaction to an event of global magnitude and significance, it does carry some weight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

i haven't been following recent reportage on this at all closely but I gathered from RS - the most widely reported idea was that some version of - 'Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists gained access to a sophisticated Buk ground-to-air missile system, most likely via Russian channels.' - that is not the U.S version , as you keep parroting but the impression anyone would hold, not in thrall to some putin cult of personality imo, or simplistic 'anti-West' knee-jerk response to absolutely every bloody news story imo - so the most commonly held idea as relayed by RS is the ground t air missile , no? - oh heres a guardian story - ' But for some this is not enough. For various reasons, ranging from fear, to vanity, to hatred, people need an overarching theory. There must always be more to matters than meets the eye.plots illuminati Russian tv - ( also you write 'I don't like politicians. They almost all spout entirely predictable garbage' - why do you write that here? what is that to wp? your personal overarching loathings are being dragged into an inappropriate venue imo ) - oh here, hot off the press , more on the buk missile system the buk that downed flight mh17 inside Russia controlled by Russian troops - Sayerslle (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's an attack on me, but it's such a poorly structured, incoherent rant, it's hard to tell. Please discuss the topic, rather than me. HiLo48 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were agreeing with an ip saying that there was just what some reporters 'saw' and 'gossip' or something - i'm saying we should just reflect RS - you want to replace with 'no one has a clue what happened' - I don't think RS reflect that. - capisce that? Sayerslle (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea what you're talking about. For starters, my spellchecker rejects your second last word. What is it meant to be? And don't quote me as saying things I haven't said. If you want to disagree with my words, don't replace them with something else and disagree with that. That's a confrontational and ineffective form of debate. Stick to the words I have actually used. HiLo48 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

it means , understand? - i'm obviously incoherent to you , so fine, moving on Sayerslle (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

your exact words hilo It describes the plane as having been shot down, even though that is not even certain - but in RS, one routinely finds such as this, from September 2014, the guardian , -

Flight MH17 was shot down while flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur over an area of Ukraine controlled by pro-Russia separatists. preliminary findings - so what form of words would you saddle the article with ? - also its pretty self righteous of you to complain about personal directed sentiment when , in defending a npov (cough) pusher - you write stuff like ' Some [editors] here don't do a very good job of it. They don't recognise their own biases, and they simply know that Putin is evil. Haberstr may not have behaved perfectly, but it has happened in an area of incredible bias, where he has been in a minority against what may not exactly be a cabal, but it's certainly a culture which isn't very open to differing views. ' - so you are attacking a group for being not as open as you? self praise is no praise - you don't come across as 'open' to me at all - you are just as much closed as anyone else , and if your hedging and caveats , flying in the face of multiple RS, about what we should relay from RS were as circumscribed as you want, the article would say, what exactly, - ' the plane was flying and then not. it may have been shot down but even that isn't clear' - but where are the RS so expressing that? if you have them , use them, edit the article, and stop accusing others of having ill disguised agendas while you flatter yourself your own hasn't affected your approach to wp. Sayerslle (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's very dishonest discussion. The quote from me was made in the context of a sentence elsewhere in our article that said the cause of the crash was unknown. The Guardian quote is a new one about a preliminary report that has now just been published. I will accept that. I was never going to accept the propaganda driven ranting of a pro-US politician, in complete ignorance and only within hours of the crash, who had been spouting anti-Putin bullshit for months. There is a huge difference. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is substantial substantive agreement with a Guardian news report then I suggest you retract your "propaganda driven ranting" label from those remarks which have received that sort of confirmation. If we are going to label the remarks of others "dishonest" as readily as you seem prepared to, what's dishonest is your projection of yourself as neutral when you call the Associated Press an unreliable source while simultaneously calling that extremely dubious New Straits Times article "excellent". It's time you disclose your "excellent" criteria transparently for the community to evaluate if you want an "honest" discussion. You have only exhibited an interest in fact checking those sources that don't advance a Russian propaganda line.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and a wise Admin (yes, there are some, though I still have a fundamental problem with all of them) told me once that a good way to have a constructive discussion here is to avoid the word "you" in one's posts. Let's try. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

cause section

In my view, the preliminary report gives enough material to seriously edit the cause section.

I suggest to start with a brief paragraph giving the main finding of the report:

The official investigation is being carried out by the Dutch Safety Board.[116] The preliminary report published on 9 September 2014 concluded no indications of any problems were present on the black box. The report also concluded that the damage of the plain suggested impacts from a large number of high energy objects from outside the aircraft.

Then on to a second paragraph, which should probably report something about alternative theories in some sentences, something like:

Immediately after the crash several media and governments suggested a BUK missile as the most likely cause. Russian media and officials suggested that the crash might also have been caused by air to air missiles or gun fire from a fighter plane.

And leave it at that. The whole cause section should probably not be much more than about 15 lines. It may grow when more official reports are becoming published. Also other crash articles that have a cause section tend to keep those fairly short and to the point (see Japan Airlines Flight 123 Tenerife airport disaster)

The whole mess about who actually pulled the trigger is not about the cause of the crash, but about the blame; aftermath; criminal investigation; speculation about responsibility. I suggest to move that to another sections because that is not cause in itself. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Would support. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

- 'the SA-11 is a member of a class of weapon that carries a fragmenting warhead with a proximity fuze. If a missile like that functioned as designed, it would cause damage like that evident in the debris of Flight 17.' [16] -I don't think the alternative theories should be given equal weight , per UNDUE - all theories about the cause are not equal - its misleading to suggest they are equally valid, or have been so treated by RS -Sayerslle (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Sayerslle. Geogene (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle makes a good point. Still, I think we need to recognize the fact that there are millions of people with a perception of reality created by rt.com. To accommodate these millions of people I think the article should include (with rt.com as source) a phrase such as this: 'The glorious Air Defence Forces of the independent state of Ukraine has apparently managed to create - in secret - a variant of the SU-25 able to maintain level flight at over 10.000m, as opposed to the original design from Moscow which can maintain level flight at only 7.000m. Nevertheless, the even more glorious Defence Forces of Russia were able to track this secret airplane as it was flying at the same level as MH17, with the obvious implication that MH17 was callously shot down by Ukraine'. This will not only provide readers of rt.com with a much needed sense of rigtheousness, but equally important provide others with an insight into the alternate reality where rt.com exists. Or what? Lklundin (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's at least try to keep on topic in order to actually improve the article.
@Sayerslle - I did not intend to say that the Russian suggestions are more relevant than those of the others. The section I wanted to add actually should not make any claims about the actual cause (we will leave that to future reports). Instead it is my intention that this section lists theories raised by governments/media that are not the formal report. It is undeniable that the Russian government and media have launched such theories; and mentioning that the Russians suggested alternatives (unlikely as they may be) is in itself relevant to mention (and does not give undue attention to their POV in my opinion, as we clearly claim this is a Russia only theory). Would something like the following work for you?

Immediately after the crash media, military experts and governments in many countries suggested a BUK missile as the most likely cause (probably add some further explanation). Russian media and officials suggested alternative theories that the crash might also have been caused by air to air missiles or gun fire from a fighter plane.

Any suggestions? Arnoutf (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph suggested in Arnoutf's opening paragraph is great, and sufficient. The second is simply feeding the propaganda war surrounding the conflict. We don't have to play that game. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete the whole paragraph - there was a lot of work put into it by many people, and a lot of discussions to keep it WP:NPOV. Media is full of analyses on likely causes of the crash and the article should reflect the debate. Best solution would be to clearly mark this section as speculative (e.g. Probable cause or Debate on causes) and place the objective information (e.g. from DSB) in a separate section that will grow as new material is published by the investigative bodies. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it wouldn't exactly be the best idea to delete the entire section. It was covered by the sources in detail and the article should reflect that. Stickee (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I support the edit of the cause section. It should only include information from the official Dutch report. Everything else is guesses and propaganda and should be either removed or moved to another section. 14.2.27.135 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines is that we should do the opposite. The Dutch report is a WP:PRIMARY source. We should use mostly secondary sources in the cause section, just like the rest of the article. Geogene (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the WP:PRIMARY source is YouTube, The Institute of Modern Russia/The Interpreter Mag or Belingcat. --82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

the bellingcat material has been reported on in the guardian - its a well renowned world renowned RS the guardian - does it have no reputation in Montenegro? you probably agree with RT that it as a threat , this kind of material - what right has the RT narrative packaged and digestible for the epsilons home and abroad, to be annoyingly looked at in any critical spirit. exasperating. -Sayerslle (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So if Belingcat can be used because it was mentioned in the Guardian, then the official Dutch report can be used because it was mentioned in the Guardian, yes? So 14.2.27.135 has a valid point --82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, 14.2.27.135 does not have a valid point. We're not going to eliminate everything except the Dutch report in that section. And you're still confusing the former YouTube source with the current YouTube external link. Geogene (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

14.2.27.135's point was dismissed on the grounds of it being WP:PRIMARY. As for the YouTube source, this is also WP:PRIMARY. Why is one OK and the other not? --82.198.102.128 (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The precedents set by YouTube and Belingcat could mean that any WP:PRIMARY source (unfiltered by secondary sources) could be used in this article. 82.198.102.128 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I like primary sources, I've been known to use primary sources, and I think that fear of primary sources on Wikipedia often goes beyond what policy intended. But as I said it's best to use mostly secondary sources. As for the suggestion that secondary sources should be avoided because a primary one is available...why? The usual preference goes the other way. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a silly discussion. Yes, the report itself is a primary source, but it has been massively covered in the media. That's where most of us heard about it. The media is a secondary source. There is absolutely no problem with us using coverage in high quality media as a source. And the content will be much better for Wikipedia than political bullshit and propaganda from politicians and their lackies. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

New information

According to this publication, the Buk which fired the missile to MH17 has been identified as belonging to military forces of Moscow Military District. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it did have a serial number painted on the side of it, didn't it (as the still photos in this week's BBC Panorama episode seemed to show)? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, our article says the district was abolished in 2010.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess, even after four years of merger with Leningrad Military District, not all the military hardware would have been re-painted or re-registered. It also seems hardly likely that all the “50” registration plates would be changed just because one military district was merged with another. But this is just speculation on my part. Nevertheless, to me the bellingcat analysis seems pretty watertight that the BUK that shot down the plane was from Russia and that it very quickly returned to Russia. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like OR. I personally have nothing against applying our intelligence to sources but unfortunately under wikipedia guidelines it is not allowed. We must apply the rules consistently, mustn't we?

as was discussed in a thread above a bit - this has been nmentioned in RS - and as wp is not about TRUTH , but in conveying information about what is being discussed in RS , it could be in the article o.k imo - RS, are not OR - the short mention in The Guardian [17] (see the last paragraph) - I don't see how it 'sounds like OR' - if sceptic1954 just writes his theories about all this that is OR - , that's how I understand the rule on OR anyhowSayerslle (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned, you're saying that bellingcat article is WP:OR"? How is that exactly? Or are you just saying it's not WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That was me, I was being ironical. Of course we have to apply some critical intelligence. But so often it gets opposed by people saying it's OR or quoting endless policies. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

These sources (including The Guardian) claim that the Buk likely belongs to the 53rd Russian Army brigade from Kursk, however the license plate of this particular vehicle was from Moscow area... The Moscow Military District was indeed merged with others. My very best wishes (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to comment on the idiocyncrasies of Russian military vehicle registration. But I suspect the question of the identity of the exact brigade to which the BUK is alleged to have "belonged" is a complete red herring. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

talking about applying critical intelligence sceptic1954 - you got to agree kasparov is intelligent, no? and look what he is tweeting -

Kasoparov63 Sayerslle (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly OR and hence does not belong in the article. 118.210.127.216 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe as far as wp is concerned you don't understand what OR means really. its been reported on in the guardian , - I get confused myself between OR, primary , secondary and tertiary but i'm pretty sure if its reported on in the guardian its not OR any more Sayerslle (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Russian defense minister

Surely we can include his single-line comment in the lead? Geogene (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. It's a pretty obvious violation of WP:UNDUE. Russia's claims and denials are already in the lede. We're not citing Ukrainian defense ministers, or any other ministers in the lede. Straight up POV pushing. Volunteer Marek 20:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's odd for Russia to blame Ukraine, this is something that resembles an actual justification for them to. It's still ridiculous, but it helps to make some sense of what would otherwise appear to be a complete non-sequitur. It's true that this is just a cabinet level official, but I haven't seen evidence that this opinion is substantively different from the Russian government's view as a whole. If this back-and-forth between Russia and everybody else is a prominent controversy for the purposes of WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize it. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There's far more of the US view in the lead than the Russian view, this adds nuance to the Russian view. In any event IMO it raises a valid question: were the Ukrainian authorities in any way negligent in allowing the plane to fly over the area? Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't add any "nuance" to the Russian view for the simple reason that there isn't any nuance to the Russian view: "blame everything on Ukraine, especially if we did it". There's no other people being quoted in the lede. It's WP:UNDUE favoring a particular POV. It goes. Volunteer Marek 00:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are, unless it was the actual nations of Malaysia and Ukraine that have been speaking to reporters, and not their human representatives. We didn't name the functionaries that gave those statements, we just took a shortcut and attributed the quotes as if they'd come from the actual countries. This is not much different, the defense minister is a mouthpiece of the Russian government in this context. Geogene (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

On this line of thinking, if sources were found in which "Russia" (in some sense) is saying the same thing that this defense minister is saying (Because "Malaysia" and "Ukraine" have already commented elsewhere), would you oppose that? Geogene (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are, unless it was the actual nations of Malaysia and Ukraine that have been speaking to reporters, and not their human representatives. We didn't name the functionaries that gave those statements, we just took a shortcut and attributed the quotes as if they'd come from the actual countries. This is not much different - well, no, it is different. We already have in the lead the statement: "The Russian government however blamed the Ukrainian Government..." So we are *already* "letting Russia speak". We are not putting in any officials in there for the other countries.

How about this: we move that statement to the paragraph right after the words "the separatists denied any involvement." and we drop the "minister" part. That way there's quotes there from Russian officials, US officials and Malaysian officials. That'd be balanced. Here there is undue weight given to Russian minister's statement. Volunteer Marek 03:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Geogene (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Former US intelligence personnel challenge Obama to present evidence of Russian complicity in MH17 crash

I believe that information from this article should be included. [18]121.45.26.144 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont see why and as far as I can see the US has not directly said that Russia was involved in the loss of MH17. MilborneOne (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore WSWS is not a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Reliability of WSWS. --Stickee (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The US was not really involved in the crash either. Don't know why opinions there matter so much. Unless, of course, we just want to keep playing the propaganda war. The US is definitely involved in that. HiLo48 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That was 12 days after the shoot-down, so hardly new. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Motive

We should discuss the motive behind this event. Possible theories: accident, training excercise, false flag.118.210.127.216 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Only if they're covered in reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what do you think of these?

from http://rt.com/op-edge/173828-mh17-crash-blame-game/ "The blame game against Russia that unfolded in western media hours after MH 17 crash in Ukraine has only political motives behind it, says a former Senior Advisor to OSCE. Accusing Moscow is a great opportunity that both politicians and media can’t miss." "There are programs on air crashes on National Geographic – it takes weeks and month before you can jump to any conclusions. Whatever is being said now is just speculations for political motives. "

from http://time.com/3011538/malaysia-airlines-ukraine-crash-china-response-mh17-russia/ "The Western rush to judge Russia is not based on evidence or logic. Russia had no motive to bring down MH17; doing so would only narrow its political and moral space to operate in the Ukrainian crisis. The tragedy has no political benefit for Ukrainian rebel forces, either. Russia has been back-footed, forced into a passive stance by Western reaction. It is yet another example of the power of Western opinion as a political tool."

from http://www.globalresearch.ca/western-powers-seize-on-flight-mh17-crash-as-pretext-for-war/5392646 "If one considers possible motives for shooting down flight MH17, the regime in Kiev and its imperialist supporters should be placed first on the list of suspects. The plane disaster has provided a highly opportune occasion for these forces to bring governments that until now opposed a confrontation course with Russia onto their side, and to influence recalcitrant public opinion. In Russia’s case, on the other hand, it is difficult to find a plausible motive." 121.45.26.144 (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum plenty of places on the internet for this sort of stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The article cannot imply that somebody did or did not shoot down the airliner based on perceived motivations, as that would be original research. As for the sources, RT might be used in some contexts but the general opinion here seems to be that it's a Kremlin mouthpiece and therefore not independent. In this particular instance I don't think the opinion of the OSCE official is notable. Global Research is a conspiracy theory website and so is not reliable, in addition, it has been argued that any source that cites Global Research is likely to not be reliable for this reason. Time is reliable, but there are weight issues in addition to the OR issue I mentioned above. But I want to draw others' attention to it in case there's interest in including China's views. Geogene (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Joe Biden's Son

I just deleted a new addition. Do we agree that whatever Hunter Biden does with a Ukrainian gas company has nothing to do with the subject of this article? Geogene (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I was scratching my head trying to figure out how it was related. Stickee (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"...Ukrainian air traffic controllers purposefully redirected the flight to fly over the war zone.."

If this particular Russian claim remains in the article it should be noted that no evidence was found for this, including by the Dutch, who reviewed ATC comms with the aircraft. If we can't get rid of this contention now, what would it take to remove it? Can the Kremlin say ANYTHING that would be blocked from the article on reliability grounds?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just put, "Russia alleges that Ukrainian air traffic controllers..." in the text if it isn't there already. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a source of unending frustration for me. If the Kremlin announced that the seas are made of chocolate pudding, I'm convinced a small army of Wikipedia editors would insist on adding that claim to Ocean. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is made clear that it is a Russian claim, and not put in WP's voice, I don't see the problem. Cla68 (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat the question: is there ANY Russian claim that we should hold back on the grounds that it is B.S. or clearly disinformation? This isn't a trivial matter because we already had an extended argument on this page about whether we could ever say a source "claims" or "alleges" something: some argued that we must always say a source "said" because other language (like, dare I say, "alleged") implied that Wikipedia doubted the claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We should hold back on all bullshit claims, from ALL sides. Start with those from Tony Abbott. He had no concrete information to support his. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not "start" with those that have been contradicted by other evidence? The Guardian says the Dutch report "contradicts at least one of the conspiracy theories in circulation that the plane was told to fly lower than planned by Ukrainian air traffic control" but, like with that bogus New Straits Times source, the party taking the initiative to investigate and point out the contradiction is myself. You instead call for priority removal of uncontradicted material largely consistent with RS.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, remove claims contradicted by real evidence. Now, about Abbott's unsupported rant? It has never belonged in the article. Even if what he claimed without evidence turns out to be the complete truth, it still doesn't belong, because he said it as a propaganda statement, not based on evidence. We include the truth based on real evidence. I'm glad you approve of that approach. I hope you don't approve of Wikipedia becoming a tool for the spreading of propaganda. HiLo48 (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You are the final arbiter on what constitutes "evidence" therefore Abbot has none? If it is "the complete truth" then in my books it is not "propaganda". I again invite you to take as much interest in the "evidence" as you take in trying to remove material that points a finger at Russia. I have pointed out a contradiction between the Dutch report and a propaganda claim. What is stopping you from doing the same?--Brian Dell (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Abbott presented no evidence. He just made a propaganda based statement, and we are helping him spread that propaganda. I really don't understand why you would want such stuff as Abbott's rant to remain in the article. It's not going to convince any thinking person that we are being objective. It makes us look biased. You must believe that the conclusion you already believe to be the truth is quite likely to come from the official enquiry, and if we then report it based on that enquiry, all will look terrific. A much better look than reporting political bullshit based on nothing. Surely you will want Wikipedia to maintain a credible look. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Does it not allow "any thinking person" to make a better appraisal of Abbott himself? Perhaps you're more worried about "non-thinking persons"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not an article on Abbott. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying there, HiLo48. But I'm not sure I'd even expect to see it at Tony Abbott. When diasters happen many notable people make public comments. Some may be wise, some may be stupid. It's not up to us to filter out all the stupid ones? Abbot is a major player in this disaster, so I think reporting his comments is justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I care about this encyclopaedia and want it to be a quality publication. It shouldn't contain stupid comments. It should also not contain propaganda. Abbott's comment was both. HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Best not to care too much: it's a way to misery. I disagree with you on this point. Abbott's comment is significant. If you feel he is making a fool of himself let him do so. Wikipedia is here to report. The lead, and perhaps other parts of this article would be improved if we were reporting the various claims, not trying to make judgements as to what actually happened. The existence of claims are one class of facts that we can get at. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Abbott's comment was nothing more than a continuation of the propaganda war in which he had been playing a role for months. How is it significant? HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Weren't there three other commercial airliners flying over that area at about the same time? I think one of those was flying west. Should they be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

They're sort of mentioned already in the Crash section (but only names 2 flights): "Flightradar24 also reported that a Singapore Airlines Boeing 777...". Perhaps that sentence could be replaced/updated with the new info? Stickee (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just updated it with the newer information. Stickee (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Think its fine as it is now. The claim is nestled within the "Russian Media Coverage" section only. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As Zhanzhao points out, this text is in appropriate section. Obviously it is not presented as fact but as one of the claims made in Russian media. Someone brought up starting a Conspiracy theories about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article and that might still be a good idea. Volunteer Marek 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cause Section Edit War

@Rob.HUN:,@Volunteer Marek:,@Dusti:,@Stickee:. I'm starting this as I promised on [talk page]. There has been a back and forth edit war over the past couple days regarding Rod.HUN's reordering of the Cause section. You can see an example in one of his most most recent edits. I have undone, one last time, this edit as well as a reference addition that appears to be generally unrelated but was a conflicting edit stopping me from doing the straight undo. If the reference is uncontroversial then I would ask someone else to re add it as soon as possible. I hope that those involved can come to a consensus about the changes and that everyone can accept that consensus in the end but it is very clear that the continued edit war is unsustainable. I pinged those that I quickly saw were involved but feel free to ping others who have knowledge/interest or where involved and I didn't see James of UR (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance James. As stated in my original revert comment, the reordering was creating undue weight as well as WP:GEVAL related issues. I'm not too sure a full discussion need be entered in to, since it seemed to just be a single (now blocked) editor making those changes. For some more details in the meantime, take a look (or comment on) some older discussions in here or here. Stickee (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Another map

I have made a map from Flightradar24 data of MH17 and SQ351 flight tracks, MH17 from 12:55 to 13:20 and SQ351 from 13:08 to 13:27. SQ351 is the 30-km-distance Singapore Airlines flight mentioned in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Crash, which had to climb from FL330 to FL350 to avoid the separation conflict. If you think it's useful for this article, I can translate the labels to English. The map gives a better impression of the weather related deviation to the left (starting at 13:00) than the small one. --PM3 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting map, didn't know the SQ flight was so close. Would this map go in the Crash section like it does on de.wiki? Stickee (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the crash section would be the right place. I have also added now the 26.000 and 32.000 feet restricted airspace areas as to NOTAMs A1383/14 and A1492/14. --PM3 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A very good map. I think that would be a useful addition. How close was SQ351 when MH17 was hit? Even though it was 2000 ft higher, it looks quite close. Could a scale bar be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It was around 30km away. I'm not too sure the map would be improved by a scale bar though. For such a small image (when displayed in the window) a scale bar might make it a little cluttered. Stickee (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought a scale bar was MoS for all maps? My Geography teacher at school was fond of reminding us all that a map without a scale is like a lock without a key. I'm sure we can trust readers to expand a small image into a large one, if they want to. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added a scale bar and will do the English translation now. --PM3 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I think that looks excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

After seeing the scale on the map, I don't have any concerns with it being there. It's small and unobtrusive. Stickee (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we go. --PM3 (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Only problem is that on monitors 1080px wide, the two maps spill over into the next section in the article. Or is that not an issue? Stickee (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Parry-Haisenko-NST theory

Besides of the mainstream theory that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile, and some more or less stange theories mentioned in the section "Russian media coverage", there is a shot-down-by-Ukrainian-fighter-jets theory which spread from several New Straits Times articles (Malaysia) – e.g. [19][20] – to media like RIA Novosti (Russia) [21], Press TV (Iran) [22], Radiotelevizija Slovenija (Slovenia) [23] and Mladina (also Slovenia) [24]. As these are all notable media and they all consistently published the same theory, I think the theory might also be notable.

This theory combines the well-known Russion allegation that there was a Ukrainian fighter jet near MH17, an article by Robert Parry that cites unnamed US intelligence sources [25], an article by the former German Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko [26], and a quote of the OSCE speaker in the Ukraine, Michael Bociurkiw [27]. This theory is also widespread on typical conspiracy-theories websites, which are not notable and do not exactly contribute to its credibility, as well as Haisenko's article by itself is not notable and Parry's may not be, too. However – see above.

I am sorry to throw such a controversial topic into the discussion, but what do you think of mentioning this – based on the notable media sources – in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? --PM3 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: There's a mention of it in the Cause section ("...a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft..."). Stickee (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is so obviously ludicrous that it hardly merits discussion. Conspiracy theories is right. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: That's just the first thing - the Russian military saying that there was a Ukrainian fighter plane that showed up as a dot on their radar screen. The NST mostly quotes other sources and discusses the looks of damages to the B777 and what US intelligence sources allegedly said.

@Kudzu1: Yes, it may be considered as a conspiracy theory, as well as some other things which are included in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Actually there are notable German media sources which say it's a conspiracy theory. Funnily, it seems that North American media completely avoid to mention it. The Parry-Haisenko-NST theory is well present in Europe and Asia, but blacked out in America. --PM3 (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. Volunteer Marek 13:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Russian military also says it doesn't have a presence in Donbass. Just as it said it hadn't left its naval base in Sevastopol during the Crimean crisis. I'm not really inclined to just take the Kremlin's word for it -- or even consider what it says to be worthy of more than a passing mention when it clearly flies in the face of all available evidence. As to the conspiracy theory thing, per WP:FRINGE, we don't generally devote a lot of space and weight to them. As for the "blacked out in America" bit, nice, but suffice it to say I have a different take on the American news media than you seem to. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This theory has much factual evidence as has been presented by Western Governments of the Rebel-Buk mainstream theory.

Rebel-Buk Mainstream theory based on: - audio tapes of Rebel chatter (discredited and available on YouTube) - Reuters article of a rebel commander which is contradictory (let alone him explicitly denying rebels had a Buk the next day) - Anonymous intelligence services (who actually said they weren't sure who fired the Bul though they were sure it was a Buk) - Political Officials (who Western MSM implicitly assume are more truthful than the Kremlin) - Holes in the cockpit area that can be shrapnel from a Buk

fighter-Jet theory based on: - Presence of a fighter jet as per Russian radar data (not refuted) - Eyewitness reports of fighter planes before/after crash to a BBC reporter immediately after the crash (removed by the BBC but still available) - lack of an eyewitnesses to a Buk plume - Holes in the cockpit area that can be 30mm bullets from a air cannon - unverified twitter account of alleged ATC operator "Carlos" reported immediately after crash that talked of fighter jets tailing mh17

In addition, little urgency shown in investigation by western officials despite UNSC 2166 which demanded ceasefire in the area held by rebels. (And broken without Western protest by Ukraine)

All these are FACTS not THEORY. A theory would be that the rebels used a Buk or it was a Ukranian fighter jet.

The ONLY thing the Buk-Rebel theory has going for it is the support of the Western Govts and the Western media (New York Times, BBC, WaPo, AFP, Reuters, AP) which are considered "Reliable News Sources" vs FRINGE (though these same agencies supported Western Govt errors on Saddam WMD etc).

Thus, I believe the main entry should give space to the Fighter Jet theory as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.69.221 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Bravo! Very well said. Sadly they will just continue calling it Fringe and OR and unreliable sources, basically any excuse they can come up with. I've also not seen any refutation of the fighter-jet theory. 14.2.46.246 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If the Russian military are saying "a Ukrainian fighter plane ... showed up as a dot on their radar screen", presumably its transponder was active, so can they also tell us at what altitude it was flying? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE^2. Also, WP:DFTT. Volunteer Marek 03:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Just have a look at the radar tape by yourself: [28] The dot appears at 20:56 and has no transponder sign. It may be just a large part of debris which broke off, e.g. the cockpit section, and there is no sign of any fighter plane up to the moment when MH17 was hit. I am not aware of any evidence at all that there was a fighter plane nearby when MH17 was hit, not in this radar tape nor anywhere else.

Besides of that, my impression is that the discussion in this section is biased. People from the one side say "fringe", while there are other theories in the article which are less notable and look more like fringe. People from the other side misinterprete the known information to support their personal view that MH17 was shot down air-to-air. That's a pointless discussion and not the way how write a good and balanced Wikipedia article. --PM3 (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)