Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 19

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 15

←

Archive 17

→

What Malaysia didn't say

Where the discussion ended 10 days ago: (i) there is no evidence that Malaysia (Mr Najib) ever said that investigators believed the plane was brought down by a surface-to-air missile from an area controlled by pro-Russian separatists; and (ii) there is overwhelming evidence that it was very unlikely that he said this. But the wikipedia page still says "Malaysia said… investigators believed the plane was brought down by a surface-to-air missile from an area controlled by pro-Russian separatists." Thoughts anyone?Jen galbraith (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

[1]mh17 investigation - wsj and reuters reports - reuters, 7 sep - 'Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 broke apart over Ukraine due to impact from a large number of fragments, the Dutch Safety Board said on Tuesday, in a report that Malaysia's prime minister and several experts said suggested it was shot down from the ground.' -

"The preliminary report suggests that high energy objects penetrated the aircraft and led it to break up midair," Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said in a statement. "This leads to the strong suspicion that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigative work is needed before we can be certain," he added. Sayerslle (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that article, it's a much better source to link to. It gives a good basis from which we can correct the article, which (as it stands) is still incorrect. Based on your link, we can correct the text to the following: "Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "pretty conclusive" and they strongly suspect that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigation is needed to be certain".Jen galbraith (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed text does not represent what the prime minister said. He said that more evidence is desirable in order to prosecute a criminal case. This is always true, in any criminal case (you can never have too much evidence). Let's not use it to imply more uncertainty than there actually is. After all, the prime minister also said reports are "pretty conclusive". My bad, I see that this is a different quote from the PM, not the one that we were previously discussing from the joint press conference with Abbott. Geogene (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Geogene (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The improvement is noted. Given some apparently conflicting quotations, I did a little investigation to reveal that the statements attributed to Mr Najib come from two sources: (i) the press conference with Abbott; and (ii) a blog entry on his own blog, (this was news to me). Fortunately the press conference is available for anyone to watch (thanks youtube), and the blog entry can also be found. Original research I know (so shoot me - why let the truth get in the way of a good story?). Fortunately however, there is an abundance of RS statements in clearly attributed to Mr Najib which are consistent with what he ACTUALLY said, so we can choose from these as necessary.

For example, there are RS statements consistent with the following: “First of all, we do have the intelligence reports as to what happened to MH17, and the intelligence reports are pretty conclusive. But what we do need to do next is to assemble the physical evidence, evidence that can be brought to the courts when the time comes, so that it will be proven beyond any doubt that the plane was shot down, was shot down by heavy missile, and this has to be proven in a court of law” (press conference, verbatim); and “This leads to the strong suspicion that a surface to air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigative work is needed before we can be certain” (Mr Najib's blog).

I can find NO RS statements clearly attributed to Najib (NOR do these appear in either his speech or the press conference) referring to either: (i) what he thought investigators believed; (ii) where he though the missile was shot from; or (iii) any reference to pro-Russian separatists. So the article (as it stands) is wrong, and this phrase should be removed from the article.

No doubt Mr Najib will make more comments in the future. Until then, for the sake of truth (!) can we please change the article to be consistent with what Mr Najib ACTUALLY said. For example: "Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "pretty conclusive" and they strongly suspect that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigation is needed to be certain.”Jen galbraith (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"[Mr Najib] said the evidence, which points to Russian-backed rebels shooting the passenger plane down, was “pretty conclusive” but that they needed to gather proof to use in a court of law." ([2]). Stickee (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

So this is almost to the point where the conversation got to about two weeks ago. As noted then, the news.com.au article doesn’t directly attribute the comment to Mr Najib. Nevertheless, there is a some ambiguity in the phrase, so let’s pretend for the moment that someone chooses to infer that news.com.au claims this to be a quote from Mr Najib. That someone is left with three alternatives: (a) sloppy journalism; (b) unfortunate editing by a tertiary source internet news service; or (c) The news.com.au “journalist” had a worldwide exclusive scoop, information not in Mr Najib’s blog, not said in press conference (which is what the news.com.au article is referring to), and yet (quite modestly) he chose to bury this bombshell in the middle of the article, in what is best an ambiguous phrase, rather than directly attributing this to Mr Najib. So, (a), (b) or (c)?Jen galbraith (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The article's coverage is consistent with the coverage in RS. I don't see much interest here in parsing quotes. Geogene (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns by spinning off the missile part into a separate sentence that immediately follows Najib's remarks, sourced to the original WSJ article. There's really no reason to do this because the sources are clear on the meaning of what Najib meant by "intelligence reports", but I also don't see a reason not to. It does tend to emphasize the dominant view of the cause of the crash this way, helping achieve NPOV. Geogene (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but you're not still imagining that the WSJ article attributes "investigators have said they believe...pro-Russian separatists?" to Mr Najib? To be clear: it doesn't.Jen galbraith (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but this is a not a forum. I find your argument to be both tiresome and pedantic, but I've changed the text to accommodate your concerns a second time. Does the current version satisfy your concerns? Geogene (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is (completely) unclear in the WSJ article which investigators they are talking of, and even after this change it is presented here in the suggestive context of Malaysian investigation (and what Malaysian investigators? DCA? Criminal? Intelligence?)

When talking of investigators, it should always be clear which investigators are meant, because there is a huge difference e.g. between Dutch accident investigators and Ukrainian criminal investigators and the private investigators who are haunting for the 30 M$ bounty. I am not aware so far of any statements by official accident or criminal investigators regarding the launch spot which makes sense as there is contradicting evidence, some pointing to southeast of Torez, some to north. This information is usually credited to intelligence sources. --PM3 (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the same suggestive context found in RS, many of which have been cited over the course of this argument. I'm a bit leery of having the ~~argument's~~ article's POV diverge from the POV in RS coverage on this point. Jen galbraith raised enough of a point about Najib's statement being taken out of context to justify breaking the sentence in two, but sources have implicitly linked these points and the article should too. Geogene (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the last change made it worse, because "it is widely believed" is not backed by the WSJ source. What about this: There are investigators who believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory. I think that this would disconnect the sentence from the Malaysian investigation while sticking to the WSJ article. --PM3 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That implies it's a less widely held view than it appears to be. Nevertheless, let's try it and see what others think. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The source says "Investigators have said they believe the plane was brought down by a surface-to-air missile from an area controlled by pro-Russian separatists.". Doesn't this diff match that? Stickee (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a decent solution. "It is widely believed" is not supported by the WSJ story at all. In any case, since that story came out just a few days before the DSB preliminary report, I don't see why this story is being used at all. Evidently, because the DSB report itself does not state what some editors want to slip into the article, that MH17 was downed by a Buk missile. – Herzen (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: That version was misleading, because in the context of this WP article "investigators" refers to the DSB or to criminal investigators, while the WSJ did not specify which investigators are meant. I am not aware of any information on what DSB or criminal investigators believe regarding the launch spot.

@Geogene: If you track down the "it is widely believed" to who believes it, I think you will neither be able to track it to official investigators nor to a majority of air safety experts, but to politicians and intelligence agencies, to unnamed sources and to public opinion in English speaking countries and some other countries. --PM3 (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We are almost there. Yes, there ARE investigators who believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory. How do I know? I read it in the fourth sentence of this WP article. Why this needs repeating here, I have no idea - unless of course it's to give the misleading impression that the DSB investigators have said this.Jen galbraith (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's redundant, but it does not point to DSB investigators. --PM3 (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Those unnamed intelligence source's conclusions have considerably influenced the view of most RS's outside of Russia, but this is my opinion (original research). I deleted the second part on the grounds of redundancy. I am a little concerned about whether that might have shifted the POV of the lead. Geogene (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead is still explicit about this issue:

The Boeing 777-200ER airliner lost contact ... over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists.
pro-Russian separatists having shot down the plane using a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory which they controlled.
photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile

And this is still biased by selection of sources, which mostly present the prevailing opinions in the US, UK and Australia. If you have a look around to the other language Wikipedias, you will see that only a minority included the claim fired from the territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists - which originated from US and Ukrainian intelligence sources - in the lead. So the assertion that this is the view of most RS's outside of Russia is probably wrong. --PM3 (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC) to be clear: I agree that "fired from territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists" is the most probable scenario and that most evidence points to that. But in the worldwide opinion, it's not that clearly expressed as in the selection of sources used for the lead here.

With regard to investigators, please note that Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke said "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area". Usernick (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but note that most RS are contented with anonymous US intelligence sources. Geogene (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the article says "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]". If these "Investigators" are the anonymous US intelligence sources, then this should be specified in the sentence, otherwise one could easily think that these investigators are by default those who are to prepare the official report. Also, the US position has been mentioned just three sentences before, and the sentence has to be moved then to where the article mentions the US position.

Further, what Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke said, is more notable, as his statement has been cited in several sources in different countries, in contrast to the sentence "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]", which does not even appear in google search. Also, it is more recent information, and the addition will implicitly clarify that in the sentence "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]" some other investigators are mentioned. Usernick (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This sentence had been removed after the above discussion and then was reintroduced here by My very best wishes. I think this was an accident, My very best wishes wanted to revert a Herzen edit and accidentially also reverted Geogene's edit. --PM3 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, deleting the sentence "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]" and adding that Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke said "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area" is also possible. Usernick (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Westerbeke is the chief of the Dutch criminal investigation, not the DSB investigation. Also, you have not given the quote in the context that sources are. Here are examples: "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area,” and possibly prosecute, Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke told journalists in Rotterdam."[3] and "Mr Westerbeke said any future prosecution would need to pinpoint where the missile was fired from, and who controlled that area." [4] Note that standards for criminal prosecution are higher than the evidence standards for the media to report that pro-Russian separatists probably shot it down, and for WP to repeat this. To use this quote outside of that context is actively misleading, it implies there is greater doubt than there really is. Also, I am not interested in removing the sentence a second time. Geogene (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

While you seem to refer to WP only, I refer to those words of Mr. Westerbeke, which were broadly reported in different sources. See, for example, http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dutch-say-need-to-know-mh17-missile-launch-site-to-prosecute , http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/09/mh17_investigators_find_metal.php and others websites, which are easily found by google.

Your comment with regard to the context can not be understood. I did not refer to the evidence standards at all, I just argued that the phrase "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]" is not really notable: maybe it appears in the WP article which I can not access, but google does not show even a single source for it. What Mr. Westerbeke said, is MUCH MORE NOTABLE, and thus should be added.

Further, I do not know how you measured the doubt, and concluded that my quote from a reliable source was actively misleading. Please note however that in reality Westerbeke had even more doubts. He said: "his department cannot yet be absolutely certain the aircraft was attacked but said that was likely. ... ‘If we can establish this iron comes from such a missile, that is important of course,’ Westerbeke told news agency Reuters. ‘At this moment, we don't know that, but that's what we are investigating.’ - See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/09/mh17_investigators_find_metal.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernick (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, please note who Mr. Westerbeke is: "Dutch prosecution service chief Fred Westerbeke, who is leading the international inquiry into the July 17 disaster" ... . http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/mh17-investigation/5741322 Usernick (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by pointing out the lack of Google search results. The "Investigators" statement you are referring to should not be appearing verbatim in Google search results at all. All content on Wikipedia is supposed to be a unique paraphrase from sources, not copy/paste. In fact, copy/paste is against the rules unless the statement is simple enough that the facts cannot be expressed any other way (WP:PARAPHRASE). The recommended procedure is to read a source and then re-state content in your own words. The reason you're finding Westerbeke in many different news outlets is because they were picked up off the wire, this is not the same as many sources for reasons of notability. This is evidence by the observation that most of the prose is duplicated from outlet to outlet. It's not hard to support the notability of the "Investigators believe..." sentence, there are hundreds of potential sources for it out there. In fact it represents the viewpoint of the majority of RS, or at least the majority of the ones that I've seen. Finally, the source you just presented is incorrect. Mr. Westerbreke is not a part of the DSB investigation. Consult other sources. Geogene (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If "there are hundreds of potential sources for it out there", then please refer specifically at least to some of them. Maybe they will be clearer on who these "investigators" are. If these investigators are from the US, then the US position has been already mentioned in the same paragraph in the article.

Also, here is what another source says on who Mr. Westerbeke is: "Dutch prosecution service chief Fred Westerbeke, who is leading the international inquiry into the July 17 disaster,..." (http://www.voanews.com/content/reu-dutch-hope-shards-will-lead-to-weapon-that-downed-mh17-over-ukraine/2447609.html )

With regard to your statement: "The reason you're finding Westerbeke in many different news outlets is because they were picked up off the wire, this is not the same as many sources for reasons of notability": can you support this argument with a reference to Guidelines? The fact that news outlets in different countries picked up those words of Mr. Westerbeke which I quoted directly confirms their notability. These words should be added to the article. Usernick (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, as you would know if you had visited the sources that I just gave you, there are two separate investigations being conducted in the Netherlands. The international DSB investigation and the criminal investigation. The DSB investigation, which writes the reports, as you will find in this article, is not concerned with attributing blame. So why would they be lead by a prosecutor? In fact the DSB investigation is being led by Chairman Tjibbe Joustra, as Google will immediately tell you. There's no need for me to mention example sources when there are some that the statement is already sourced to, as you already know. The Guideline you ask for is to be found under WP:NEWSORG: Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues. Just so you know, your repeating incorrect information even after having been corrected, and your not reading the sources that I have already given you, are tedious. Geogene (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned that there are hundreds of sources, but I do not see any reference to any specific source made by you.

Also, I've not stated that Mr. Westerbeke is a part of the DSB investigation. It seems that he is a Chief Prosecutor and Investigator in Netherlands, the country which must be very interested in results of the international investigation led by him.

The rule "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." is in the section "Identifying_reliable_sources". I can not see how "investigators", mentioned seemingly in WP only, and who remained anonymous, and whose country and office are not known, deserve more weight that Mr. Westerbeke words reported in multiple venues in different countries. Usernick (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like progress. Excellent. What you still need to grasp is that the general opinion in RS (at least the ones I've seen) as well is that the aircraft was probably shot down, with a Buk, by separatists. If you want more information on that, then there are currently 17 pages' worth of talk page archives in which this matter has been discussed continually since the day it happened, and you're welcome to read all of those, but I feel no burden of proof on my part to convince you of it after weeks of continual discussion. There is nothing about the consensus process that implies it is to be a Sisyphean task. The proximate source is the WSJ and not the Washington Post, but unfortunately that link has since been changed to go to a paywall. who did that? I'm still concerned about the context, as your proposed wording fails to mention that this is in the context of a court (as in "beyond reasonable doubt"), and so is misleading. I'm also not sure it belongs in the lead (but would probably not oppose in the body--as long as the context is appropriate). Geogene (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't discuss the general opinion, I discussed what sources state about the beliefs of different investigators. As PM3 said below, "When it comes to level 3, I am only aware of RS which cite US and Ukrainian intelligence sources or politicians of several countries." Also, as PM3 said, "I am not aware of a single source which states that a specific investigator* or investigation* organization said that the assumed missile was shot from separatist territory."

If you think that the "level 3" statement, assigned to investigators with unspecified affiliation, can be in the lead based on the WP only as a source, then the words of Mr. Westerbeke deserve to be in the lead as well.

With regard to "beyond a reasonable doubt" part, I do not mind against it at all, and actually I myself suggested using such words, when the PM of Malaysia used them, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_16#What_Malaysia_said .

However, Mr. Westerbeke said "possibly prosecute", see for example http://news.yahoo.com/dutch-know-mh17-missile-launch-prosecute-142020431.html . While "beyond a reasonable doubt" may be a standard to prevail in court, I am not aware of what standard Mr. Westerbeke needs to reach inside his mind to initiate court proceedings. Possibly, he may go to court if he believes that the evidence he has may satisfy the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard rather than satisfies this standard.Usernick (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: It's not hard to support the notability of the "Investigators believe..." sentence, there are hundreds of potential sources for it out there.

I am not aware of a single source which states that a specific investigator* or investigation* organization said that the assumed missile was shot from separatist territory. If you know lots of sources for that, could you please link some of them here? The media tend to confuse terms like "experts", "investigators" and "recovery personell", we should be careful when copying that. Also, it makes a huge difference if we are talking e.g. of NBAAI investigators or Federal Air Transport Agency investigators. The WSJ used the term "investigators" as a weasel word, and the WP article now is weaseling, too. --PM3 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC) * with "investigator" meaning "flight accident investigator" or "criminal investigator"; that's what is associated in this context with the term "investigator".

Okay, that's a fair point, and the reason for my trying various alternative wordings last week, alternatives which for whatever reason did not achieve consensus. Most of the sources--that I've seen--seem to favor the Buk hypothesis. This one used a weasel word to make this popular opinion seem more substantial. I've seen plenty of sources that give precedence to the hypothesis as a general opinion but none that will attribute to specific "investigators". But I also think that the WSJ would survive an inquiry at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Geogene (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the paywall issue, simply copy and paste the url into a Google search, and follow the link via Google. Stickee (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if the WSJ is ultimately reliable, we still do not know what investigators they are talking of. Copying this unspecified "investigators" into the context of this article can be greatly misleading.

Regarding the Buk hypothesis, there are different escalation levels:

Level 1: shot down by a surface to air missile

Level 2: shot down by a missile fired from a Buk M1 launcher

Level 3: shot down by a missile fired from a Buk M1 launcher which was located in separatist territory

Which level are you talking about? For level 1 there is a broad support, including Dutch criminal investigators. Many independent experts also support level 2. But when it comes to level 3, I am only aware of RS which cite US and Ukrainian intelligence sources or politicians of several countries. And this is correctly expressed in the lead: According to US intelligence sources ... pro-Russian separatists having shot down the plane using a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory which they controlled. --PM3 (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the point of "general opinion". If there are lots of RS which support what the WSJ wrote - investigators believe it was a missile lauch from rebel territory - than I think this would justify including that. Otherwise, RS would be needed which state that the general opinion is this way. --PM3 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm obviously missing something, but can you please clarify which “general opinion” you’re referring to?

Are you referring to the general opinion that “MH17 was shot down by a missile fired from a Buk M1 launcher which was located in separatist territory”? I think most would agree that that this is “general opinion”, and is already reflected by its prominence in the article.

Are you referring to the general opinion that there are investigators who have said that they believe that MH17 was shot down by a missile fired from a Buk M1 launcher which was located in separatist territory? This is trivially true (without the WSJ reference), and redundant, since we know that investigations by US intelligence concluded this.

Or are you referring to something else? Sorry to ask , but I'm genuinely confused.Jen galbraith (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe US intelligence officials only gave one interview to the press about MH17, to the Washington Post and the LA Times, and perhaps one or two others. In this interview, they said that the uniforms of the people operating the Buk system were Ukrainian, so they speculated that the person who shot down MH17 might have been a Ukrainian defector. They said, "We may never know the nationality" of the person who did it. And one said, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here." I'm just quoting from memory because I am tired tracking down sources which get ignored because they don't unambiguously point to the rebels as the guilty party. The idea that the US intelligence community believes that MH17 was shot down by a SAM, a Buk or otherwise, in rebel controlled territory or otherwise, is an insult to the US intelligence community. I noted a German government report to the effect that NATO did not detect a SAM launch at the time that MH17 was shot down. There simply is no getting around the point that the Russian Engineers' Report makes: if a Buk missile had been fired, not only would witnesses have seen and heard it, they would have photographed and filmed it. So all this talk about "everybody believes that a Buk missile shot down MH17" is getting tiresome. No matter how often different editors repeat something that is highly implausible on its face, it does not become something that should be taken seriously just because it gets repeated ad infinitum. And yet people who recite this mantra call people who point out the obvious and employ common sense "conspiracy theorists".

In short, repeat that "reliable sources" are "unanimous" in that MH17 was shot down with a Buk missile from rebel controlled territory as much as you want. But don't insult the US intelligence community by claiming that it has clearly expressed this position. – Herzen (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's probably the most demonstrably false thing I've seen you say so far (the US intel). From the WaPost article you refer to: "the [US intelligence] 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. The senior intelligence officials said they have ruled out the possibility that Ukrainian forces were responsible for the attack." ([5]). Stickee (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Was this the same source that said that US intel can spot the difference between Ukrainian and Russian uniforms, from satellites, on cloudy days? Geogene (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@@PM3:: Yes, I agree that this is misleading, and it is also a bit redundant. Unfortunately, it is at an impasse for the time being as there seems to be no consensus for removal and no consensus for change. Geogene (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: I think we have a consensus for removal. This looks like an accident: Your removal got right into an edit war about another paragraph and was accidentally reverted. I don't see anybody else who opposes deletion. --PM3 (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your "general opinion" suggestion 3 levels above: that was one of Geogene's iterations earlier on ([6]), and is echoed by the sources (eg "The common belief is that Ukraine rebels backed by Russia were the ones who launched the missile" [7]). Stickee (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is doubtful that such thing as "common opinion" may exist, since there are many people whose opinion is different from this "common opinion".

In any case, the discussion on "general opinion" or "common opinion" should probably be conducted in a different thread.

With regard to this thread, on what Malaysia has and has not said, let us decide on what to do with the phrase "Investigators believe that the plane was shot down by a Buk missile fired from rebel-held territory.[15]" which for some reason appears immediately after the sentence "Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "pretty conclusive", but more investigation was necessary to be certain.", while such Malaysia's statement as "Once that process is completed, we will look at the criminal side, who is responsible for this atrocious crime," and the statement of Mr. Westerbeke "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area, and possibly prosecute", have somehow been missed.Usernick (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for making sure that quotes are accurate and for avoiding weasel words and redundancy, but I'm not interested in sponsoring a tendentious quote-shopping expedition in search of expressions of uncertainty. This is a negotiation process, and I feel like good faith concessions are only being answered by further demands. I still am inclined toward removal of the "investigators" sentence because I have been persuaded by the reasons that were given. Geogene (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Geogene: who is tendentious? What would be wrong with properly reporting what Malaysia and investigators have actually said on the issue? Is it a matter of principle that as soon as someone expresses uncertainty, this uncertainty should not be reflected in the article from your POV, and only expressions of certainty, such as "reports are pretty conclusive", can be reported in the lead, while the expression of uncertainty made by the same person at the same time and published in the same sources must be omitted from the lead?

In any case, it seems that at least four or five users would agree to remove the "investigators" sentence (only Stickee may be against).Usernick (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That principle can be found at WP:WEIGHT. Geogene (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:WEIGHT does not state that if two expressions are made by the same person at the same time for clarification of his viewpoint and these expressions are published in the same sources, then one expression may be omitted. Rather, the two expressions should be considered as a whole and used together in the wiki article, since they together form a certain viewpoint ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints").Usernick (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You've quoted that incorrectly. What it says is that it fairly represents all significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You've quoted that incorrectly. It says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". Is it difficult to realize that the viewpoint of Mr. Najib is seen only from all of his relevant statements? When some statement is missed, it is simply no longer the viewpoint of Mr. Najib. Of course, if Mr. Najib's viewpoint was not prominent enough, then it could be missed, but again, a viewpoint is the quantum, you either report it or not as a whole. Usernick (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, good. Now read the second sentence, which is also relevant. And regarding PM Najib, didn't we settle that? Are we beating a dead horse now? Geogene (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Second sentence of what? It would be easier if you copied it here... Regarding PM Najib we didn't settle anything (if you meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_16#What_Malaysia_said , then it stopped with you getting silent and I me being too busy with other things). Of course, I still think that Mr. Najib's POV should be reported correctly or not reported at all... Usernick (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "not at all" is an option also. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Geogene did "settle it", several times with this edit inserting "but more investigation was necessary to be certain" and this edit. Stickee (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice before. That edit was certainly a step towards NPOV, but it still misrepresented Mr. Najib's viewpoint. The source, to which Geogene referred, states "This leads to the strong suspicion that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigative work is needed before we can be certain". However, this is only a (small) part of the uncertainty, since Mr. Najib also said "Once that process (of collecting evidence) is completed, we will look at the criminal side, who is responsible for this atrocious crime". I mean, I would clarify the types of uncertainties, i.e. would write smth like "Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 were "pretty conclusive", but more investigation was necessary to be certain on whether a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down and who is responsible Usernick (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's your own interpretation of Najib's statement, that's not going to go into the article, and you should re-read the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT, and perhaps continue into the second. This is ridiculous, my good faith effort at reaching consensus is satisfied, and I'm tempted to delete entirely so as to eliminate a point of contention (but will not, as it might be disruptive). If others want to waste their time arguing this with you, it's their business. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Geogene, it was my good faith effort as well: it was me who pointed out that the article differed significantly from what Mr. Najib has actually said. While I believe that you have made good faith effort at reaching consensus, this effort possibly was satisfied because you didn't mention your edit in that section of the talk, where we were searching for consensus. In any case, Mr. Najib did say "Once that process (of collecting evidence) is completed, we will look at the criminal side, who is responsible for this atrocious crime". Even if Mr. Najib is almost certain that the surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, he has not expressed any certainty on who is responsible because they have not finished collecting the evidence and looked into this yet and because we do not know what is included in the report which he has called "pretty conclusive". Usernick (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And some improvements to the article have come of it. A bit off-topic, but it's taking unnecessarily long for your account to be auto-confirmed (which would grant you editing rights to the article). If you want to edit it yourself you just have to make 5 edits in other articles. This would normally happen sooner for new accounts, but you've limited yourself to this talk page, and that's prevented your editing semi-protected articles for longer than would normally be the case. This situation may also apply to User:Jen galbraith. Geogene (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I honestly thought that the consensus could be found at the talk page first and then it would not matter who would change it. As well as Jen, I agree that prevailing viewpoint (in English language sources, but I would not be so sure about, for example, about German sources) is that the separatists fired a missile, but I find the the view expressed by Mr. Najib and Mr. Westerbeke, that the investigation is needed before the guilt can be attributed, also very prominent.Usernick (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that the article is unprotected and everyone now is able to edit. I'm just letting people know this because it's counterproductive to the goals of the project to keep legitimate contributors locked behind the vandal fence. Geogene (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mined crash site?

This does not make sense:

On 30 July, it was reported by a Ukrainian representative that pro-Russian rebels had mined approaches to the crash site and pulled heavy artillery around, making further work by international experts impossible.[108]

On 6 August, the investigation team left the crash site ...

If further work was made impossible, how could they continue to work until 6 August? I suggest to remove the first sentence, as the report of this representative contradicts the facts and I am not aware of any confirmations of this claim. --PM3 (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this from AFP: "Journalists turned into a nearby village to ask if there was another way round: "Sorry, but it is maybe mined," a local man said of the only other road." ([8]). Stickee (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A local man telling a journalist that a road may be mined hardly supports the assertion in question. Also, your comment doesn't address the time discrepancy. – Herzen (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I second that. Ukrainian officials continually confabulate; it is difficult to keep track of all their lies. Also, censor.net.ua is a notoriously unreliable source, worse even than maidanpr (which openly advocates nuclear terrorist acts against Russians). It should never be used. – Herzen (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: As the second part of the Ukrainian representative's claim is obviously wrong, and I am not aware of any confirmation on separatists mining the area, I think we should at least present it a bit more cautios, like: On 30 July, a Ukrainian representative claimed that pro-Russian rebels had mined approaches to the crash site and pulled heavy artillery around, making further work by international experts impossible. --PM3 (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Be careful of MOS:CLAIM (using the word "claim" to cast doubt). Stickee (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, you have a rule for everything. Next try: On 30 July, a Ukrainian representative said that pro-Russian rebels had mined approaches to the crash site and pulled heavy artillery around. – removing the words which obviously contradict the facts, so I need not to MOS:CLAIM them. :) --PM3 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, I just wanted to avoid opening these two cans of worms again :P Stickee (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: You haven't replied to my observation that there is no question that censor.net.ua is not a reliable source. Its only reason for existing is to dish out anti-Russian propaganda: take a look at the English version. For example, look at this: "The terrorists do not let the observers to the territory they control." But the OSCE itself reports that the rebels give it access to territory they control. censor.net.ua has a pattern of putting out primitive, delirious anti-rebel propaganda falsely claiming the rebels restrict access to international investigators and observers.

Secondly, the idea that the rebels would mine access paths to the crash site is crazy. Rebels provided access to international investigators from the very beginning; the rebels complained that the Kiev government kept investigators from coming to the crash site for over a week. Since this claim is extraordinary, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. What we have here is one source of abysmally low quality. – Herzen (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

At least the OSCE claim is rubbish. During the battle of the last month the OSCE had no free access whatsoever to the Donbass region, but hung around at two bordercrossings only, which they were not allowed to leave. And these new incidents include OSCE personel which is led to certain places with separatist clearance only. So its basically a worthless demonstration and not an independent mission. Alexpl (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of other sources reporting the same statements: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Stickee (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, would you mind substituting at least two reputable Western sources for this one Ukrainian propaganda newsblog, since you are making edits to this part of the article? – Herzen (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: I have replaced the censor.net.ua citation with a citation needed tag. There is absolutely no excuse for using an utterly disreputable Russian language source when there are plenty of reliable English language sources available. – Herzen (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Stickee (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just saying that ru:Цензор.нет (censor.net.ua) is a perfectly legitimate Ukrainian RS by independent journalists; we have articles about this newspaper in Russian and Ukrainian WP. My very best wishes (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Informed Russians consider censor.net.ua to be utterly loony and a laughing stock. What Russian WP says about it is irrelevant, since as I've said before, when it comes to matters Ukrainian, Russian WP represents the POV of the Anglosphere, not of Russians. Most Russians think that MH17 was downed by a Ukrainian fighter shooting it with cannon fire; most Germans believe the conventional NATO/Ukrainian nonsense that it was shot down by a SAM. Yet Russian WP doesn't even mention this theory which most Russians believe, whereas German WP gives it considerable attention. If you want a wikipedia which reflects Russian opinion, you have to go to Луркморье. – Herzen (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You have a very peculiar definition of who "informed Russians" are. Or, for that matter, what a "reliable source" is. WP:NOTHERE applies. Volunteer Marek 00:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ceaseless gainsaying of virtually every comment I make serves no useful purpose. Please stop hounding me. – Herzen (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Actuallly, it is a wording like 'NATO/Ukrainian nonsense that it was shot down by a SAM' that 'serves no useful purpose'. So yes, you should take this as an opportunity to rethink how you contribute. Lklundin (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant. This is an English/Russian/Ukrainian language source created by independent Ukrainian journalists. It has nothing to do with Russian public opinion. If you have doubts, please ask others at WP:RS noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you don't care about what Russians think (why? because you hate Russians?), but there is enough material here to make Censor.net be declared an unreliable source at WP:RS. It is an anti-Russian fake news site. Here is an example of one of its headlines: "In the late evening, someone looking like Putin shot a passerby in Kreschatik." – Herzen (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One more warning, comments like these: "I know you don't care about what Russians think (why? because you hate Russians?)" are completely uncalled for, offensive and, well, not particularly bright. Also, what some liveournal blog says has no bearing on how we evaluate sources. Volunteer Marek 00:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And your threats aren't appreciated either. I try to ignore your comments whenever I can, since I have never seen you drop your battleground attitude; why can't you just ignore my comments? – Herzen (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone's who's going around accusing other editors of "hating Russians" really has no business accusing others of "battleground attitude". Volunteer Marek 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Herzen on this one, since Censor.net has previously been accused of producing fakes ([14], [15]). Like I said, I also wonder why the Russian mass media is always treated as fake and Ukrainian as genuine, while both Russia and Ukraine are involved in the conflict. In fact, it seems to me that among the Russian, the Ukrainian and the Western news sources the Ukrainian ones are the most ideologically motivated: Russia does have some oppositional media like Dozhd or Novaya Gazeta which speak out in support of Ukraine, and the West also has some pro-Russia and pro-Putin news outlets (mostly among American conservative press); but I cannot think of a single Ukrainian news agency that wouldn't be pro-Maidan and anti-Putin. Buzz105 (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Russia still claims they are not involved- so either they lie which makes them instantly unreliable or they are indeed not involved making their media as relevant as that of Zimbabwe. Ukranian media is also not taken on face value. Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Russian government and Russia news media – much more diverse than those in the US, Britain, France, or Germany – are two completely different things, so your point is completely irrelevant. (But then, it is hard to attack Russia without making a fallacious argument.) – Herzen (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Buzz105:, very little specifically Ukrainian material or POV is in the article. Most of it is "Western", the next most is Russian, and there are a couple of Ukrainian statements. If editors here were searching Ukrainian media and government statements, there could be a lot more in the article. But what you'll find is mostly their materials that have been referenced by Western sources. There is no concerted effort to put Ukrainian POV in the article, unlike the Russian POV. Geogene (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Buzz105: Actually, I know of one Ukrainian news outlet that is not pro-Maidan, and so can be considered oppositional: Vesti. They are regularly harassed by the SBU and Right Sector. Not surprisingly, I have never seen Vesti used as a source here. – Herzen (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is probably because there are millions of news outlets in the world and we cannot use them all. Also editors prefer English language sources both because they can read those, and because the target audience of English language Wikipedia can read them. Arnoutf (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

ICAO State Letter

For the recently added text regarding the ICAO State Letter, I suggest getting the info directly from ICAO, e.g.

http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/_layouts/mobile/dispform.aspx?List=4eda7e5f-5dd9-4feb-b103-cd18e975af9a&View=8c57fcfa-a83b-4899-9f29-8d3f226caaf7&ID=972

Lklundin (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(Boldly) done. (But is this State Letter really relevant here?) Lklundin (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the link to the non-mobile version. ~~I'm not sure it adds much either. And the sentence in the following paragraph (added in the same edit) with "Article 3" seems a bit obvious too.~~ Update: I see you've now deleted the Article 3 paragraph. Stickee (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Maximum number of passengers for this plane ?

While 283 passengers were killed, the section 'Aircraft' reads: 'Powered by two Rolls-Royce Trent 892 engines and carrying up to 282 passengers'.

This apparent inconsistency should be explained or resolved. Lklundin (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Good call. I don't know the answer. Malaysia Airlines does indeed list passenger capacity at 282 for this type of aircraft in their fleet. Perhaps there were small children on board that did not have their own seat. Does someone know how to find a source to such an idea? Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably infants or babies (under age of 2) being carried http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/uk/en/plan/special-needs/infant-and-children.html. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's two responses. One says "Perhaps". The other says "Probably". Don't speculate please. HiLo48 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We have the same issue open at de:Diskussion:Malaysia-Airlines-Flug 17#282 Sitzplätze für 283 Passagiere? since 18 July. So far noone found a source which resolves this. --PM3 (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

More speculation http://www.ibtimes.com/malaysia-airline-updated-passenger-list-three-infants-among-298-dead-1632140 say three infants the official MAS list doesnt give ages. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So I guess this semi-resolves the discrepancy then? Stickee (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. If an infant caused the discrepancy and three infants were on board, then two of them occupied seats. If two infants occupied seats, the third one as well may have occupied a seat, while the discrepancy e.g. may have been caused by a crew member using the jump seat due to overbooking. So we still know nothing. --PM3 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I made a logical flaw: Of course all three infants may have occupied no seats, and two seats been left unoccupied. But the safest way to fly with infants is to reserve own seats for them and use an appropriate infant seat. So this information still does not help. --PM3 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No it does not help, but at least it gives arguments why in some situations the number of people actually on a plane can be more than the number of listed seats in a specific configuration. This at least makes clear in this thread that there is probably no true inconsistency. But without sourced information we should not change the article itself right now. Arnoutf (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: I noticed this image showing partial seating allocations published here. Do you know where they got the info to make the image? Update: I just found this with more seating allocations on it (but still only partial). Stickee (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

https://de.scribd.com/doc/234401036/MH17-passenger-list --PM3 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Combine it with [16] for the nationalities. --PM3 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

One passenger had an oxygen mask on

This is noteworthy, since this development suggests that passengers were not killed instantly, so that they knew what was happening to them.

BBC: Dutch minister says passenger 'wore oxygen mask'

An AFP report on this story says that "the Dutch cabinet said chances of returning to the MH17 crash site were becoming increasingly remote." That may be worth mentioning, since so far, the article only mentions what Malaysians say about the on-site investigation being delayed.

I suggest that we discuss how to treat this new development here first, because of the sensitivity of the issue. This is the first significant development since the DSB preliminary report was released. – Herzen (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

About 9 hours ago I added that info quoting the website for the TV station where the statement first appeared. Lklundin (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for not noticing that. – Herzen (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Dutch television reported that they have no idea how oxygen mask ended up around the neck of a single person. Not sure we should mention this before we hear more of this (in my view there could be alternative explanations - e.g. after decompression masks were automatically released, during disintegration this one got hooked by part of the plain and pulled over the head of the passenger where it was found). So we should indeed be very very careful on this until we get an official explanation.

Altogether I think this information has little relevance/significance for our article without a formal report how that came there, so I would opt to leave it out for the time being. Arnoutf (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian quotes a Dutch prosecutor, that the mask was found around the neck of one (and just one) victim, and that forensics could secure no fingerprints nor saliva (DNA) from the mask, "[s]o it is not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim":

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/09/mh17-one-passenger-wearing-oxygen-mask

So it is indeed vague what is being concluded in any formal report. Lklundin (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on removal, so far it is not significant and will just fuel conspiration theories. --PM3 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

So is there consensus on removal? I originally thought this should be included, but I agree with others that it is hard to know what to make of this. So I think that mentioning this is kind of gossipy and sensationalist. If several people had gas masks on, that would be different. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, at least, that the language ("indicating") was too strong. Commentary on the meaning of this bit of evidence is written more cautiously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Careful now, about the "evidence". When I added the text, I was quoting Timmermans, so the text was just his statement, which by no means constitutes "evidence". Whether or not his statement regarding the oxygen mask is relevant, can be debated. Following the above info from the Guardian, I am in favour of removing the quote. So nothing about any evidence. Lklundin (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here's a list of news agencies that have written a full story on the matter. I haven't included individual newspapers otherwise the list would be 5 pages long.

Not necessarily making an argument for or against inclusion though. Stickee (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my mind again and now think this should be included. Here is a link to the LA Times story. It explains how Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans basically blurted out this new piece of information which was not included in the DSB report, for some reason. Indeed, that report said that the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder data streams just end, with no indication of any trouble. How anybody would have time to put on an oxygen mask in the wake of the instantaneous, catastrophic destruction claimed to have occurred by the DSB is a mystery. – Herzen (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory building please. The DSB did not claim an "instantaneous destruction", but said that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft. It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural intergrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up. They also wrote that the cockpit likely separated from the rest of the aircraft early. I think that would immediately stop all flight recordings. --PM3 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop throwing around the term "conspiracy theory" as a means of stifling discussion. That is extremely uncivil. How many times do I have to say this? The official Western account of who shot MH17 down is a highly implausible conspiracy theory, involving Russia providing rebels with missiles they didn't need. – Herzen (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be stupid to include at this point. They couldnt secure DNA or fingerprints of that passenger on that mask, so it may have just got around the persons neck by coincidence, or somebody else put it there later. Altough I understand that its beneficial for certain individuals to use such an "opportunity" to raise doubts in the work of the DSB researchers. Alexpl (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have therefore removed Timmermans now obsolete statement - as well as a non-notable story about people being shocked to learn of the oxygen mask. Instead I wrote the actual reported information regarding the mask, which may have some relevance. (But with only one person found wearing a mask and no proper access control to the crash site, it could just be someone who found the mask and a dead body and decided to mess with the world). Lklundin (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

spurious tag - again

We've been through this already. People got warned and sanctioned for edit warring to add a POV tag to this article without substantiating it. So here we go again.

1. Spurious tagging is disruptive and can get you blocked.

2. Edit warring to restore a spurious tag is even worse.

3. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you just express your dislike of the article. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

4. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you believe it extremely unfair that the article does not reflect the conclusions that you personally arrived at after reading all kinds of junk on the internet. See WP:OR.

5. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you whine on the talk page about how mean editors or imaginary cabals won't let you push your own POV on the article. In fact, that's exactly the reason why you DON'T get to add a tag. See WP:NPOV.

6. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that your deeply cherished views about how "Western media" or "mainstream media" or "reliable sources" are "biased" against your opinions and prejudices are taken seriously.

7. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you've found some wacky conspiracy websites or news outlets of the Islamic Republic of Iran and since these are not used in the article, then it must be POV.

8. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN demanding that "all views", no matter how fringe or unrepresented in reliable sources, are "given equal due". That is in fact completely opposite of Wikipedia policies of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE all of which support WP:NPOV.

9. "Substantiating" a POV tag DOES NOT MEAN that you claim you can add a tag because there is couple other editors, or more often than not, sketchy throw away accounts, soapboxing about how unfair it is on the talk page. NPOV actually trumps CONSENSUS, and CONSENSUS is not a majority.

Substantiating an article means pointing out specifically where the article violates particular Wikipedia policies. To be precise - asserting that the article violates a policy is not enough. Anyone can assert anything. You need to support it.

Until this is done, the tag goes. Volunteer Marek 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the continued edit warring to restore the spurious tag, as in here [28] ""Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.""

Stuff in the tag itself is not policy. The policy is right here: WP:NPOV. The tag template documentation is here Template:POV. It says very clearly:

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. (my emphasis)

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. (my emphasis)

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.' (that whole thing needs to be emphasized, but especially the "not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public" part, since some of you appear to be confused on that point).

Volunteer Marek 21:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

See my explanation above where the sources contradict what you claim in this article. USchick (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Where? The Vkontakte/Strelkov stuff? Sources do not contradict what is being claimed (not by me, btw) in the article. Please start linking to what it is you're referring to rather than playing games where I'm expected to read your mind. Volunteer Marek 22:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaints of the Malaysian transport minister

Instead of starting a new section about a relatively trivial matter, I thought I would bring up this edit here, since PM3 mentioned it above. I do not understand why this edit was reverted. The first time I added the relevant information, my edit was reverted because I did not paraphrase sufficiently. So I paraphranesd some more, and the edit was still reverted. Here is the relevant passage:

The Malaysian transportation minister expressed dismay at Ukraine and the rebels not keeping their commitment to guarantee safe passage to Malaysian investigators to the crash site, making it unlikely that they will be able to reach it before the start of winter. Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak met Arseniy Yatsenyuk at the UN at the end of September, but Yatsenyuk remained non-committal on when investigators could regain access to the crash site.

I believe I accurately reflect the content of the source I cite. I believe this information is relevant to the investigation section, since it informs the reader on how quickly the on-the-ground investigation is proceeding (not very). The Malaysian PM meeting with Yatsenyuk at the UN is notable, just as Putin meeting with Poroshenko in Normandy was notable. – Herzen (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that source but the information is fairly mundane. Also I see nothing wrong with the POV. As long as it's sufficiently paraphrased away from the source, I don't see what the problem is. Geogene (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have moved this to a separate section, because it's another topic. --PM3 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks PM3. Stickee (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It was reverted 3 times by Volunteer Marek, Lute88 and My very best wishes. From the edit summaries, their concern was that you selected (or "cherry picked") a quote that singles out Yatsenyuk in an out-of-context situation.

It would have been best to bring it up here 3 days ago rather than adding it in a third time (WP:BRD). Stickee (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

One side in a war can't unilaterally declare peace, especially when they're outgunned. Nevertheless the Malaysian government has made it clear that they blame Ukraine, so that's really not taken out of context. [29] I don't know why Western powers didn't demand blue helmets in eastern Ukraine before July. Geogene (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I added it a third time because I responded to the valid criticism, but my edit still got reverted. In the edit summary of his first edit, Volunteer Marek wrote "ok, first that needs to be properly paraphrased because as is, it's close to being a COPYVIO. Second, don't cherry pick statements. Yats couldn't 'commit' because rebels control the area." That is OR. As Geogene just noted, the Malaysian government has made it clear that they blame Ukraine (for impediments to the investigation). The source I cited (which is a (the?) Turkish international news service) also presents Ukraine as being at fault more than the rebels: the title is "Malaysia dismayed over Ukraine’s empty MH17 promise". So I wasn't "cherry picking" at all. Rather, the problem here was IDONTLIKE on the part of Volunteer Marek. – Herzen (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"That is OR": Believing you are right or the other party is wrong isn't a reason to continue to edit war. Everyone who edit wars thinks they're right. Stickee (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is no longer protected. Are there any objections to my adding the text quoted at the start of this Talk section? No reasons not to include it have been given here thus far. – Herzen (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If your 'here' includes the list of Edit summaries then your last statement is false. Lklundin (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I would still argue against such edit because it places blame on the Ukrainian side, whereas the area of crash is controlled by insurgents, not the Ukrainian government. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like it for that reason, but Malaysian government officials are voicing that perspective, and it's their opinion that matters, not mine. My only concerns are weight and notability, I only saw 9 sources for it in Google news the other day and they looked like regional outlets. But I don't have a strong opinion on this point either way. Geogene (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of any other stories that report that investigators are not going to get back to the crash site before winter? I think the article should mention that. If by "regional" you mean Malaysian, it should not be surprising that regional outlets are still paying attention to MH17-related developments (Western media have totally lost interest), given that MH17 was a Malaysian plane and Malaysians were on board. The source I used was not regional, but Turkish. This Turkish outlet seems to have particular interest in interactions between the Muslim world and the West; thus this story. – Herzen (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The objections made in the edit summaries have been dealt with and dismissed, so my statement is true. In any case, I don't see how anyone can construe "here" to mean anything other than this Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the source. Of course the minister raises valid points. According to the publication, here they are: (a) in the end of September, the investigators are still unable to work at the crash site; they were fired at by unknown gunmen at the crash site; (b) Ukrainian government can not provide any guarantees of their safety because this area is still controlled by rebels. That can be included of course, but I thought it was already clear from the text. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

PM3 made an edit which states that the resumption of the on-site investigation will be delayed, so there is no longer a reason to include the material I proposed here. – Herzen (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at this:

The Ukraine continues the recovery work today. --PM3 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling on an admin to enforce sanctions

The 3 revert rule is being ignored by some editors. Considering that this article has sanctions, it shouldn't take 3 reverts. I call on an admin to review this page and enforce sanctions please. USchick (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the rule being broken. And the only editor who's come close to breaking it is Herzen. Volunteer Marek 01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to stop your personal attacks on me. I haven't come any closer to breaking 3RR than you have. – Herzen (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh... what "personal attack" have I made against you? Please keep in mind that unfounded accusations of personal attacks can be taken to be personal attacks themselves. (You made 3 reverts, so yeah, you came "close". I didn't) Volunteer Marek 01:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool down. You're imagining things. I only made two reverts. – Herzen (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And now you've actually broken the 3RR rule: [30] [31] [32] [33]. Yes, the insertion of the tag is a revert; it is essentially a resurrection of a previous edit-war over the tag from couple weeks ago. Please self-revert. Contrary to what you may think, I actually DON'T want to report you. Volunteer Marek 03:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Some anonymous IP keeps inserting the superfluous '(all)' and '(None)' on the Shootdown Summary. It is there again now. Lklundin (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin: I've already reported that IP to AN3 for violating 3RR. Stickee (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I asked for semi-protection of the article on account of that IP's mischief. – Herzen (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all speculation out of the lede

Can we please agree to stick to the facts at least in the lede? “The initial results of the investigation point towards an external cause of the MH17 crash,” said Tjibbe Joustra, the board’s chairman, adding in an interview that metal fragments were found in the bodies of flight crew and are undergoing further analysis. The preliminary report stopped short of laying the blame on a missile strike. Source: Bloomberg [34] USchick (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

None of that is "speculation". It's all reliably sourced and notable information. Stickee (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's all propaganda speculation and none of it is supported by the investigation. USchick (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about the investigation but about the flight. Like Stickee says, it's all reliably sourced and notable information. Volunteer Marek 01:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And cherry picked. USchick (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Says you. If you got other reliable sources, please, let's see'em. And no (before you waste more of my time), I don't mean sources about the investigations, those are already included. Volunteer Marek 01:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

At least the investigation is factual. The rest is wild speculation and posturing from individual countries and some of them aren't even involved. That's undue weight for sure. USchick (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You're getting desperate. You keep coming with new objections when your previous ones are shown to be merit less. Information based on reliable sources, which has appeared extensively in reliable sources is not "undue". Volunteer Marek 02:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding personal attacks: "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible." – Herzen (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, is "I" ok? As in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Volunteer Marek 02:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no effort to collaborate here, only hostile accusations. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT also applies to editors who refuse to listen to opinions of other editors asking for collaboration. USchick (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to collaborate with someone who claims that a reliable source doesn't actually say what the reliable very clearly says. And does this repeatedly, even when the source is quoted directly. Volunteer Marek 02:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But you forget, Volunteer Marek -- "speculation" = whatever information certain editors don't want to be in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The people who made the claim were discredited, and then they rescinded on their own claim. Yes, that's speculation even if it was widely reported. Why is this speculation still in the lede? USchick (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources. Volunteer Marek 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think introduction is fine. I would mostly agree with VM arguments in these recent discussions. We can not serve as experts on anything, but only summarize what majority of English language RS tell. What they tell is not necessarily the "fact" or "the truth", and they should not be indisputable facts. This is a complicated story, and introduction simply summarizes content of the page; some content is obviously controversial. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

German expert Peter Haisenko on photos of MH-17's cockpit

According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.

What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit:

The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. (Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” Global Research, July 30, 2014) More here http://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324 Въ 95.220.104.74 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all GlobalResearch is not a reliable source (as stated on this talk many times before). Secondly, we would need a ballistics, of at least weapons expert for these claims, not a civil pilot; who is not professionally familiar with this kind of damage to aircraft (one may hope). Third this claim was previously discussed - so nothing new here - ie no need for change to the article.Arnoutf (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How about a real military ace with 485 combat flights on Su-25? In a RTR TV talk show of October 10, 2014 former vice-president of Russia Alexander Rutskoy dismissed any versions of a surface-to-air missle shooting at the Malasian Boeing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj_QFj1VcsQ. Had it been Buk, he said, Malasian aircraft would have fallen apart into small fragments. The holes were sure to having been left by Su-25 cannon, he said. Mr Rutskoy claims of having had a vast experience of shooting that cannon both in real actions and at the military firing fields. Въ 95.220.104.74 (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If it were reliably sourced and analysed by a secondary source we might have a look at it; especially since Rutskoy (considering his political activities) may have an agenda with his statement; we should be careful with using him as primary source. Arnoutf (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

While unsuitable here, Mr. Rutskoy's statement regarding the SU-25 can be used on the Russian version of this article, where magically the SU-25 has a service ceiling well above 10km. Lklundin (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just not reliable, but a conspiracy website. Eg 9/11 Truth in 2014: Is a Breakthrough Possible? Stickee (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We´ve already dicussed that guy / the publication before. Here: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 18#The air-to-air missile version Just forget it. Alexpl (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In that RTR TV channel talk show of October 10, 2014 Mr. Rutskoy also confirmed flying as high as 11,000 meters aboard his Su-25 (its maximum ceiling being 14,600 meters) before attacking the targets and on return flights. No surprise. Su-25 is propelled by the same pair of engines as MiG-21 with its service ceiling of 15,000 meters. But one does have to put on an oxygen mask higher than 7,000 meters, said the retired ace. Въ 95.220.104.74 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case we will soon learn that Rutskoy has been court martialed and shot for revealing state secrets regarding this as yet completely unknown super-capable SU-25. Unless of course Rutskoy is just a Russian propagandist (making you a useful idiot). If in doubt just apply Occam's razor. Lklundin (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How about suing the Ucrainian Ucroboronservice as well? ("UKROBORONSERVICE" is a state enterprise which major activity is the realization of state interests of Ukraine in the field of export / import of products, military-technical and special-purpose services. ) It also reveils the same "secrets" on Su-25 service ceiling. Look at its official site: http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 . Should it be lower than 10,000 meters, you might sue it for false information on this product :)) Въ 95.220.136.114 (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

MH17 ATC communication @ YouTube

Nice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HDR32KEAns&t=214s --PM3 (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

By the sounds of it, it's the audio of the transcript published in the DSB prelim report (pg 15) right? Stickee (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. While the DSB refrained from publishing this, it's freely available at YouTube. --PM3 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Could be some sort of reenactment by that Igor dude. The rest of his videos leave litte room for speculation on his motives. We cant link to that. Alexpl (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This applies even more to the telephone recordings which not only are linked in the article, but embedded as external audio. But of course they meet the right POV, while this video fails to do so.

Maybe just the ATC/radar recording segment can be found somewhere without the doubious TV report attached? --PM3 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary of today's arguments

1. An edit war about whether or not this article is disputed and whether or not a tag is warranted.

2. An attack on a new editor who raised concerns about the article.

3. An effort to OWN the article by editors who support the official US version, even though the international media reports different accounts.

4. Whether or not a discredited claim on a social media profile belongs in the lede.

Did I miss anything? USchick (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. The point. Repeatedly. Volunteer Marek 03:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two very different options here: (a) an RfC about content issues - then please follow all instructions and do not bring behavior (edit war, etc.), or (b) a complaint on administrative noticeboard about specific users (then content questions are hardly relevant). Keep in mind that this edit represents removal of material sourced to RS, not to social media.My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That particular edit had support on the talk page at the time of the edit. USchick (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This was the state of the talk at the time of your edit (relevant section linked). Zero comments. Not exactly sure how that constitutes "support". Stickee (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec, @ USchick) No, no it didn't. It was made at 19:40 today (10/12/14). At that time the only talk page comment about the issue was the one you made yourself, at 19:08. So unless by "had support" you mean "by me, myself, and I", then no, it didn't have support. Volunteer Marek 04:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek was engaged in an edit war about what plane was being discussed. When they finally determined that the plane that had no relation to this article, I deleted the information from the lede as irrelevant to this article and said so in my edit summary. My edit was reverted in the ongoing edit war. Are we going to argue about this also? I'm signing off for tonight. USchick (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a completely false, or even dishonest, description of what happened, yeah, we are going to argue about it. I have not been engaged in any edit war "about what plane was being discussed". One more time. You made your edit at 19:40. My last edit before that was... on October 5th! A week ago! How in hell could I've been "involved in an edit war" when I hadn't made an edit to the article in a week???? Your second sentence is incomprehensible. Your edit was reverted not by me, but by another editor.

You know, if you're going to try to make someone look bad, it helps if the evidence to the contrary isn't sitting right there in plain sight for all to see. Just like if you're going to claim that a source doesn't say something, it helps if the quote from the source isn't sitting right there for all to see. Volunteer Marek 05:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Lklundin was the one edit warring about the plane. Can I go now? USchick (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Volunteer Marek 05:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the plane I made a single revert of an edit that was clearly contradicting the quoted sources. A single revert does not constitute an edit war. Lklundin (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The first results of the investigation MH-17. September 15 2014.

According to NATO sources, just before the crash has been fixed radars that automatically determined as S-3.

AWACS plane from the source you're referring to was well outside of the crash area (somewhere over Poland or Romania) and it was clearly stated in the report. 195.208.49.60 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the Soviet category C-125 which consist only now armed Ukrainian army. Also near the plane was Ukrainian Su-25.

It's plainly not true. SA-3 are still used in Poland, but not in Ukraine. The report in question also states that SA-3 signal was typical to the region 195.208.49.60 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Audio recording and satellite imagery provided by the United States and Ukrainian media were fabricated, which were confirmed by independent experts. With statements Ukrainian army pro-Russian separatists shot down the plane by using S-11 "Beech" surface-to-air missile fired from whose territory they controlled. However, images from the crash site and inspection OSCE representatives from the wreckage were traces presumably from falling from aircraft machine gun and pointed to the nature of the debris hit the small missiles "air-to-air.". We also learned that there is no pro-Russian separatists S-11 "Beech". That also corroborate the OSCE staff. 195.208.49.60 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I hasn't seen any proof of fabrication from non-russian experts, nor I seen any proof of fabrication (as opposed to linear editing). Moreover, at least some parts of the recording were confirmed as original by separatists themselves, they just claimed that they were related to other incidents. There's lot of conspiracy theories surrounding debris field, but they are wildly speculative and unreliable. They may deserve a list in paragraph of "conspiracy theories", but there's nothing anywhere close to reliability of primary version. 195.208.49.60 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Russian government has accused the Ukrainian government. The Government of Malaysia has asked for help in the investigation of the Russian side.

Defense Minister of Malaysia compared downing Boing777 MH-17 from the downed passenger Tu-154 in 2001, when the Ukrainian army in error knocked airliner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aya ilya (talk • contribs) 19 sep 2014 11:31‎ (UTC)

"The cause of the crash has not yet been determined by the official investigation, which is being carried out by the Dutch Safety Board" - is this still the case? Are there any updates on the Dutch Safety Board's investigation? --Soulparadox (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"...MH17 with a Boeing 777-200 operated by Malaysia Airlines broke up in the air probably as the result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." No update since the Preliminary report from 9. Sept. [35] Alexpl (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No ICAO standards to determine whether a flight path is safe

This is interesting and may be added to the article:

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak yesterday who had said that the tragedy of Flight MH17 had exposed an "uncomfortable truth", that there are no clear standards to determine whether a flight path is safe. - See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh17-tragedy-could-have-been-avoided-if-information-had-been-shared-suggest#sthash.Cs8f5YUe.dpuf

In a Bernama report, the prime minister had pointed out that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) – the United Nations global aviation body – issued advice on areas to avoid, but did not declare flight paths unsafe. - See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mh17-tragedy-could-have-been-avoided-if-information-had-been-shared-suggest#sthash.Cs8f5YUe.dpuf Usernick (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines is a state-owned company, so Mr. Razak ist not neutral in this issue but has an interest in putting the blame on someone else. I think he is not a good source here. --PM3 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What a strange argument... Even if Malaysia Airlines is a state-owned company, how can you conclude that Mr. Razak has been influenced by this fact and lost neutrality? And do only neutral POVs get reported in Wikipedia? Is Mr. Razak wrong about the lack of the ICAO standards? Usernick (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ever seen a neutral politician? Of course he has an interest in bailing Malaysia Airlines out of this. This company has been costing the Malaysian tax payers lots of money, and the state just decided to invest even more of their money into it. Also it's a strategic company of Malaysia.

The ultimate responsibility for a safe operation and the choice of flight paths always lies with the airline, and Razak pretty obviously is distracting from that. He gives an interpretation of ICAO standards here, that includes personal opinion. I am not sure if there is a "right" or "wrong" interpretation here, it may depend on the point of view, and surely Mr. Razaks point of view should not go into this article without confirmation by a source independend from the airline's management. --PM3 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course assessments by non-neutral persons can also be included, attributing it to these persons. But then it should be staments of special relevance, which is usually not the case when politicians talk about "technical" thinks. --PM3 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Razak has not denied that "The ultimate responsibility for a safe operation and the choice of flight paths always lies with the airline," and he was not pretty obviously distracting from that. Rather, he regretted that. Also, since pretty many airlines were using that airspace, it is obvious that ICAO did not issue an order to avoid that airspace.

Would this be your first experience with political rhetoric, Usernick? Yes, but no, but yes, but no, but... if we could be, may be, could be construed to be (but no direct accusations or you're going straight to court)... we are deeply saddened by the tragic lack of stability in the world and extend our heartfelt sympathies to the families of the victims... therefore, if there may be an opportunity to redress an unsubstantiated, but possible, 'if' we are in any sense possibly culpable on some God moves in mysterious ways manner (but nowhere near as culpable as the next guy), we will do our utmost to ensure that exactly the same incident doesn't occur again. Er, how long did it take for him to get around to 'impromptu' press releases? He's been greased up in legalese fat to the point where no court in the world could land on his airfield. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy: what's your point???

Mr. Razak said what he said, reliable sources reported on the fact that he made such a comment. The question is whether this his statement should be reflected in the article, and, if yes, then where, according to the rules of Wikipedia. Are you against adding this his POV to the article? Then please refer to some specific rule. Usernick (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Regards to "it is obvious that ICAO did not issue an order to avoid that airspace": doesn't the second quote in your original post say the the ICAO doesn't declare areas unsafe, but only gives advice? Stickee (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If you agree that the ICAO only gives advice, then you must agree that the ICAO did not issue the order, right?

I suggest focusing on the core question: should the Mr. Razak's POV, or any other POV on the absence of ICAO rules with regard to determining whether a flight path is safe, be added to the article and where. Usernick (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it is or was not the job of ICAO to declare areas as unsafe, then exactly this fact may be stated in the article (and it might be mentioned that the air security processes regarding conflict zones now are being reviewed by ICAO's TF RCZ which was set up in response to the MH17 crash [36][37]). Those statements of people who afterwards know what could have been done better are pointless. --PM3 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, with the note that it should be mentioned that the air security processes regarding conflict zones now are being reviewed by ICAO's TF RCZ which was set up in response to the MH17 crash. Usernick (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ilyushin-76 was shot down not by BUK

At present, the article says: "Since the start of the conflict, several Ukrainian Air Force aeroplanes have been downed. On 14 June, an Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft was shot down on approach to Luhansk International Airport; all 49 people on board died.[52] After that incident, on 29 June, Russian news agencies reported that insurgents had gained access to a Buk missile system after having taken control of a Ukrainian air defence base (possibly the former location of the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment [156 zrp] of the Ukrainian Air Force).[53][54][55]"

This is a bit misleading, since Iljushin apparently was shot down not by Buk, at least according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force_Ilyushin_Il-76_shoot-down

Possibly, it should be clarified when the separatists "gained access to a Buk missile system" ( the fact that such event was reported on June 29, does not mean that they could not gain the access before Ilyushin was shot down).

Also, I've heard somewhere that that Buk could be non-functional. It seems an Ukrainian spokesman said so: Answering the question of "Ukrainian Truth" Dmitrashkovsky confirmed that is the part of air defense missile system "Buk".

But he's a non-working. Others who work there are other strategic sites, - he said.

On the question of whether the militants to fix it, Dmitrashkovsky said: "I do not think they need it." (this is a translation by google of http://www.62.ua/article/565758 )Usernick (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"Possibly, it should be clarified when the separatists 'gained access to a Buk missile system'", "...does not mean that they could not gain the access before Ilyushin was shot down": Except there's no sources to say when they gained access, only that they (DPR) and the news agencies reported access on 29 June. Stickee (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is stated "This is not the first military success militias last week." at http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1085256/ (google-translation). Maybe someone will clarify the date... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernick (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I dont see the problem. It cant be ruled out, that a system, whos capture has been reported on 29.06.2014, has been involved in a 17.07.2014 incident. It may have been captured a few days earlier, but that doesnt change anything. Alexpl (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The first problem is that the present article does not make it clear that from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force_Ilyushin_Il-76_shoot-down and the cited source it can be ruled out that the Ilyushin (not MH17) was shot down by Buk on June 14. The second problem is that there were reports that the captured Buk was non-functional. Usernick (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It´s not our job to write that a BUK took down MH17, as long as it is not confirmed by the experts. The IL crash has its own article where the matter is explained in greater detail, no need to do it here, I guess. Alexpl (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how MH17 was took down (except for what was said in the board prelim report). With regard to the IL crash, it is mentioned in this article. Probably there are sources which connect two crashes. But what I saw in the cited sources is that this connection is not Buk. I would clarify this.

Also, it is mentioned in this article that a Buk was captured by the separatists. However, that Buk was non-functional according to the Ukrainian sources.Usernick (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Usernick: where in you opening statement does it say, or imply, the a BUK shot down the Il-76? I put it to you that it says no such thing and that you're reading words that aren't there. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying that what Usernick has directed our attention to is a blatant case of SYNTH? Why are Ilyushin Il-76 and the rebels obtaining a Buk launcher discussed in the same paragraph? And the "After that incident" is a nice touch.

And some editors wonder why complaints about this article keep coming and coming.

The Ilyushin shootdown article states "According to the Ukrainian Prosecutor's Office, the aircraft was brought down by MANPADS equipment." And that makes sense, because the plane was shot down on approach: no SAM required. The paragraph should be split up, so that the Ilyushin and Buk missiles are not mentioned in the same paragraph, and the "After that incident" has to go. (That synthetic passage was added with this edit by someone who says he was born in Baku and supports something called the People's Committee to Protect Ukraine, which appears to be a Euromaidan precursor.) – Herzen (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Herzen. That is a part of what I meant. Usernick (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. – Herzen (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's not relevant, better to remove it completely. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I take it you mean the Ilyushin shoot down. I think there would be resistance against removing that completely. That the rebels shot down several Ukrainian military planes is part of the narrative that the rebels shot down MH17 by mistake, thinking that they were shooting down a Ukrainian military plane. (To repeat, the SBU has abandoned this narrative.) The Ilyushin is also relevant because the rebels have said that they had no need for Buk missiles, since they were doing fine with MANPADS and anti-aircraft cannons: the planes they are interested in downing don't fly at high altitudes. – Herzen (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. But if both narratives are invested in it, it won't happen. Geogene (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above unsigned post. (Have it been you, Herzen)?

With regard to the Buk, which possibly was captured by the separatists, there is a source mentioning that the Ukrainian government has since denied that any of its Buk missile systems have ever fallen in to the hands of rebels, but it did not issue a denial on 29 June ( http://www.channel4.com/news/did-russian-separatists-shoot-down-mh17). And, as we know, according to some sources, it was non-functional.Usernick (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to sign. My recollection is that the rebels did say they captured one Buk launcher, but they treated it as a novelty and weren't confident of being able to get it to work. – Herzen (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the separatists said this; but Ukraine said something else, according to the sources which I cited above.Usernick (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A summary for editors new here

Stuff for new editors:

Welcome!
It has been concluded more than once that New Straits Times is not a reliable source for this.
That people continually propose using "that NST article" as a source proves that it's fringey compared to other sources.
Yes, the article is biased towards a "Western" POV; this reflects what seems to be the bulk of sources.
Russian sources have a very different perspective from most of the rest of the world.
The article is supposed to be biased towards the bulk of reliable sources.
What "neutral" means in Wikipedia is different from what most new users assume it means. (see WP:NPOV)
The NPOV tag is strongly opposed by consensus.
The article is no place for conspiracy theories. (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE)
"Systemic bias" is not an excuse to override any core content policy.

Edit warring takes place on most weekends. Geogene (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Geogene, but please be careful, or Lklundin will tell me off again for being needy. Tennispompom (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding point 4, I would agree to "bulk of English language media", which are the preferred source for English language Wikipedia articles. The language-independend "Western POV" is another one.

Regarding the NST: There is an NST article used as rerence here (No. 117). If it is not considered as a reliable source, that should be removed / replaced by another source. --PM3 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the policy on NPOV discriminates between English RS and global RS for weight purposes. I discriminate by necessity, but I realize my experience isn't the definitive sample of all RS out there. Interesting that the NST slipped in ...but the statement it references is not controversial or likely to be challenged. Geogene (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. It didn't add much anyway. Volunteer Marek 21:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: If there have been discussions about the reliability of New Straits Times, I missed them. Wikipedia says New Strait Times is "Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print". Thus, I find it highly unlikely that one can make a general conclusion that it is unreliable. Rather, the idea that it is unreliable seems to derive from the systemic bias of some editors. The New Straight Times does not always adhere to the US government's narrative about MH17, hence it must be unreliable. See how that works? If a source entertains the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, it is unreliable. Thus, there are no reliable sources which consider the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17.

Calling the theory that a fighter jet shot down a conspiracy theory and WP:FRINGE is a cheap shot, uncivil, and a false allegation. As I said before, if this were fringe, German Wikipedia would not cover this topic, and Time magazine would not point out that the DSB preliminary report is consistent with a fighter jet having shot MH17 down. Since Germany is part of the West, Western POV recognizes that Kiev might have shot the plane down. The reason English Wikipedia does not consider this possibility is not the Western POV of English Wikipedia, but that pro-Kiev editors own the Ukraine articles.

No matter how often some editors shout Conspiracy theory!!!, the theory that a fighter jet shot down MH17 does not become any more of a conspiracy theory than the theory that rebels shot it down with a Buk. – Herzen (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I browsed the Time article [38] again. Time is complaining about DSB report being vague, and blames obstruction from the separatists for it. It would be disingenuous to use it to cite a statement that those are consistent with bullet holes when that's not what the article is trying to get across, in context. In fact, the tone of the piece implies that they wish the DSB would just blame the separatists right there. Geogene (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously Time would have liked the report to point directly at the rebels. Unfortunately for Time, the DSB didn't do that. And Time, unlike any other major US news outlet as far as I know, explicitly pointed out that the DSB report "leaves room for" the theory that Kiev shot down the plane. I honestly don't see how Time being unhappy about that means that it is "disingenuous" to use that Time article to explain what the facts are. Every time a reliable source is presented entertaining the possibility that Kiev shot the plane down, WP editors produce an argument for why that source cannot be used. It doesn't matter how convoluted or incoherent the argument is. The point is that an argument gets made, and then editors who like the article as it is can say that there is consensus not to use this source. – Herzen (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not uncivil to call conspiracy theories what they are. Also, Time didn't say that the DSB report is consistent with an air-to-air missile, and I recall the first time you brought it up. The fact that you read it like that shows the lengths you'll go to to substantiate your own very strong views on the subject, and I don't think agreement with you is possible. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is what Time said:

the wording of the 34-page report … was also vague enough to leave room for one of the more common theories among the rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the disaster on the Ukrainian government on the night of the crash; and in the days that followed, some of the separatists claimed in interviews with TIME that a Ukrainian fighter jet had, for some reason, intercepted the airliner and sprayed it with chain-gun fire. As evidence, they pointed to the many small holes in the fuselage, suggesting that these looked like the work of a machine gun shooting another type of high-energy object — bullets.

How is the meaning of "leave room for" significantly different from that of "consistent with", pray tell? – Herzen (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Is BBC a Reliable Source? They are biased, since they are under pressure from the British government:

Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster, Conservative) The logic of what my hon. Friend says is that we should be interfering with what BBC interviewers do, across the globe. That is not necessarily a positive route forward. Much as I understand some of my hon. Friend's concerns, surely we should not underestimate the intelligence of people who read such interviews, and their ability to read between the lines. I wonder whether that is happening only in relation to Russia; presumably the BBC has sensitivities with other countries in its interviews with politicians or leading business folk. It is a slightly dangerous path if my hon. Friend is asking any Government effectively to interfere in the BBC's operations abroad.

Greg Hands (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Hammersmith and Fulham, Conservative) I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I strongly disagree with him. Members of Parliament should watch carefully the overall direction that the BBC takes in its foreign coverage. It would obviously not be appropriate for us to interfere or intervene at a localised level, but we should all be concerned if the BBC is allowing the unmediated views of someone like Lavrov to be repeated at length.

Greg Hands (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Hammersmith and Fulham, Conservative) ... I recently met Peter Horrocks, the new head of the World Service, and found him much more amenable than his predecessor at the time of the Lavrov interview. A number of us in this House take an interest in what happens at the BBC Russian service and we look forward to a flourishing future for it.

(information from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-10-14d.73.0) Usernick (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it a policy violation of some kind to drown out the other side's comments in copy/paste irrelevancy? Because there's a lot of going on in this talk page, and I'd like to have something done about it. Geogene (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

An example of how the BBC is an instrument of UK government policy is that it deleted from its Web site this video of a BBC Russian Service report, in which eyewitnesses say they saw fighter jets near MH17 when it exploded. – Herzen (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That's another globalresearch conspiracy theory/crazy spin. You really need to stop reading that website. You can't use it here, and reading it is probably not good for one's thinking abilities. Long term side effects and all that. Volunteer Marek 02:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your point? Are you denying that that was a report done by the BBC Russian Service? Or that the BBC removed it from its Web site? What is the conspiracy theory here? And I never read Global Research, and I have never brought it up on WP. Note that I ignored the Talk section which is based on a Global Research piece, "German expert Peter Haisenko on photos of MH-17's cockpit". – Herzen (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you speculating as to why BBC pulled the report from their site? Do you know the circumstances? It's equally reasonable to speculate that, after some fact checking, they found some nasty holes in it. If you think it's 'spooky', why don't you email them and ask. You never know, they might come up with a non-conspiracy-worthy explanation. It's one thing to be able to see obvious holes in soundbytes: it's another to find holes and make up your own storyline as to where, how and why. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war 2

The "Stakeholders" section has been blanked because the information is deemed "arbitrary." Explanation given is that entities directly involved "had little to do with the crash," while entities that were indirectly involved had "a lot to do with it." So facts have no relevance in this case, and the opinion is to section blank the entire list of stakeholders as irrelevant. USchick (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That addition looked like OR to me. I think it's a stretch to call one revert an edit war, per WP:BRD. Geogene (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This list doesn't make much sense to me. Also I think it is unusual to define a set of "stakeholders" of an aiviation accident. Anyway, here is a list of the top "stakeholders" of the MH17 crash:

Countries / territories where the plane crashed:
- Ukraine
- Donetsk People's Republic
The countries whose citizens died:
- Netherlands
- Malaysia
- Australia
- Indonesia
- United Kingdom
- Belgium
- Germany
- Philippines
- Canada
- Romania
- South Africa
- United States
Airline and the plane manufacturer:
- Malaysia Airlines
- Boeing
Cities / places involved:
- Amsterdam – start site
- Hrabove – crash site
- Roszypne – crash site
- Petropavlivka – crash site
Organizations directly involved in the air accient investigation:
- National Bureau of Air Accidents Investigation of Ukraine (NBAAI)
- Dutch Safety Board (DSB, Netherlands)
- International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
- Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AIIB, UK)
- Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB, Australia)
- Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile (BEA, France)
- Department of Civil Aviation (DCA, Malaysia)
- German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Investigation (BFU, Germany)
- Federal Air Transport Agency (Russia)
- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA, USA)
- Eurocontrol
Other organziations involved in the on-site work:
- Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
- State Emergency Service of Ukraine

This list probably is incomplete. --PM3 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The stakeholders are the entities directly involved. I agree, there's a lot of other entities trying to push their POV opinion, and by throwing everyone else in the mix, you're trying to confuse the reader about whose opinion is important, and whose opinion is WP:UNDUE. I can't revert everyone on this issue, because I will be blocked for edit warring. USchick (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

All those which I listed above were or are directly involved in the flight, the crash or the investigation, while Torez and Kuala Lumpur - which you included in your list - were and are not. But as there is no common definition of the stakeholders of an air accident, the whole thing is useless anyway resp. it will always turn out as OR, as Geogene indicated. I set up this list just to demonstrate why I removed your list - it was far from reality. --PM3 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

When I tried to include sourced information in this article, it was dismissed as "irrelevant" because it was part of the investigation, not part of the crash (because this article is about the crash). Along the same lines of reasoning, anyone involved in the investigation would be indirectly involved in the crash and an indirect stakeholder. It's extremely important to determine who is directly involved in this crash, because that's whose opinion is most important. There's a lot of accusations flying around from countries who aren't even involved in this crash. Those opinions are in the lede for some reason, and they are WP:UNDUE. USchick (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The opinions that should receive the most weight are the opinions most widely covered in the bulk of reliable sources. So we don't need a list for that, it's already covered by policy. Geogene (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an edit war, it's removal of someone's original research, which was discussed and for which there was no, rightly, consensus. Also a single revert. Volunteer Marek 19:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How convenient, when only certain editors get to choose which sources are reliable. USchick (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we have a guideline, which I keep linking to, and which you and some others keep on ignoring. Here it is again: WP:RS. That outlines the criteria for reliability. So it's not that we get to "choose" which sources a reliable, it's that we "choose" to follow the criteria already outlined by Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek 20:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

anyone involved in the investigation would be indirectly involved in the crash and an indirect stakeholder -- Then, why did you include the DSB in your list [39]?

The only people who were literally directly involved in the crash itself were

the 283 passengers and 15 crew members, who's interests are represented by the governments of the counties that I listed above, and by their lawyers,
the inhabitants of Peotropavlivka and Roszypne who had falling bodies and debris through the roofs of their houses and into their backyards, represented by the governments of the Ukraine and the "Donetsk People's Republic".

So those would need to be the first on your list. Besides of that, the relevance of any statements for a WP article is primarily measured by (a) if they are on-topic and (b) their presence in the relevant media. --PM3 (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your attempt to engage in meaningful dialogue about the content of this article. This section is about the edit war. I recommend we open a new section where the actual content can be discussed. Are you interested? USchick (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There was neither an EW, nor does it make sense to include such a list into the article. Therefore I recommend to close this discussion. --PM3 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I clearly explained why it's important to determine entities directly involved, because that would determine whose opinions are important in this case and who is simply blowing smoke. My explanation has been dismissed as irrelevant. Thank you for that. USchick (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not our job to determine whose opinions are important – that would be WP:OR. We have to stick to secondary sources; important are those opinions which are on topic and widely spread in the WP:RS. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, you can't evade that. --PM3 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%, except that editors are cherry picking sources to support only one political side of a country that's not directly involved with the crash. According to Wikipedia policy, that's UNDUE. USchick (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No they're not "cherry picking". They are just excluding non-reliable conspiracy theory source crap from the article. As they should. Excluding crap from an encyclopedia article is not "cherry picking", it's "writing a decent encyclopedia". If you can't tell, or pretend you can't tell, the difference, then maybe an encyclopedia writing project isn't a place for you. Volunteer Marek 20:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but a list of "stakeholders" is no viable solution to this problem. --PM3 (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, thank you very much for discussing the content. I look forward to seeing your proposal in a new section. USchick (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I already proposed several changes to neutralize this article and realized that the majority of authors would like to stay with the current POV. And I accepted that. --PM3 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The crash site at Google Earth

Google Earth has updated the sattelite images, now you can explore the crash site on your own. Maybe this can help to understand or verify some information for this article. Here are the main spots, just enter the coords in the Google Earth search field (works not with Google Maps, which still has old data).

Main fuselage: 48°8'18N 38°38'21E
Aft fuselage: 48°7'55N 38°38'14E. 100 m south lies the Vertical stabilizer, and there are lots of smaller parts around.
Cockpit section: 48°7'22N 38°33'27E

Some parts fell into the villiage of Petropavlivka (48°8'20N 38°32'0E), you can finde the small white spots in the fields in and around the village if you look carfully. --PM3 (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah nice. And that stuff ~350m SW of the aft fuselage is also more debris right? Stickee (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Further southwest there's what look like four impact pits, one of which is surrounded by scorched cropland...nope those are artillery craters, as they're not in the 7/31 images. I know, not forum, but a nice break from fighting. Geogene (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes Stickee, there are lots of small parts in the area. Here is a map with some of them labeled, note that North is to the right: http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/img/map-top-flat.jpg

There are also some big craters to the north of Petropavlivka. --PM3 (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war 1

According to military analyst Rick Francona, "This would indicate a surface-to-air missile or an air-to-air missile, and I think a surface-to-air missile is probably the best guess right now." Both Russian and Ukrainian forces operate the SA-11. Other possibilities include S-200 and S-300 missiles operated by both Russian and Ukrainian military; or Russian S-400 missile. Kevin Ryan, director of the Defense and Intelligence Project at Harvard University concluded that it would take a professional military force to operate such a missile, either on purpose or by accident. "This is not the kind of weapon a couple of guys are going to pull out of a garage and fire," he said. Source: [40]

In the "Cause of crash" section one editor repeatedly removes this paragraph because they claim it's "outdated." What exactly makes it outdated? USchick (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an edit war, it appears to be a single revert. It's called WP:BRD. Volunteer Marek 19:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been reverted three times by the same editor, [41] [42] [43] with no explanation except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. USchick (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BRD sais that it is ok to boldly (B) add a text, but if it is reverted (R), the original adding editor should first discuss (D) and gain consensus before re-adding. Thus the burden lies with the editor adding the stuff. Arnoutf (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The "stuff" is a different viewpoint than the propaganda already in the article. Other editors support this "stuff" because they thanked me for adding it. It was removed clandestinely three times with no explanation. This is why editors are screaming for balance, because this article is politically motivated. USchick (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting fact ist that just one side is continuously pointing out the imbalance of this article while the other side does not. If the article were balanced, authors of both viewpoints would complain about imbalance, it's always that way. So the imbalance is obvious here. --PM3 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow that argument PM3. Good editors would complain if it is imbalanced, bad editors would complain if it does not support their point of view. Your edit suggests that both viewpoints have equal representation of bad editors (BTW in my opinion the Russian opinion gets way too much attention. If they are involved they are unreliable as they deny involvement and hence lie about that involvement, if they are truly not involved their opinion is about as important as that of any other uninvolved state, e.g. Lesotho). Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I just checked out the edit here. The reversion is on the grounds of being "outdated". If you look at the original posting time of the CNN article used as a ref, it was posted just under 4 hours after the crash, before any of the major information was released.

Some further digging: In a later interview, Francona said "it appears that the rebels do not want anybody in there to get their hands on that physical evidence because it's going to point to them." [44] and "The problem is the people that control the ground are the ones we suspect of doing this, so they have no reason to cooperate". [45]

Then there's Kevin Ryan, who in a later video said "This is what I think happened: a crew of 4 or so trained separitist rebels in the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system with a small acquisition radar on that vehicle acquired and shot down the MH17 Malaysian airliner. I believe it was the separitists who did that, for a couple of reasons." [46]. Stickee (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Tennispompom's Proposal (14 Oct)

Hi everyone, Just in case you've been missing me, I haven't forgotten you, been busy. I’ve been on a rapid familiarisation trail, Wikipedia rules, principles, etc. Even my User page now exists - thanks for providing the inspiration! Enjoy.

And now to serious business!

Yesterday was an eye-opener for me. I don’t know if it was triggered by my arrival, or if chaos and anarchy rule every day. Coming in as recently as I did, I have a fresh eye. You may find my observations painful, but nothing can be gained by my giving you a pep talk. I've spent quite a few hours typing into notepad, because the comments were coming so fast yesterday, I couln't get the article to update before someone made a contribution. I don't type that fast.

HERE GOES:- The first thing which needs to be sorted out is to try and bring a a collaborative, good mannered, considered and respectful WIKIPEDIA spirit to group of disparate, self-appointed editors who have fallen into a state of anarchy! It’s not so surprising, everyone has invested time, effort and conviction into this article, and want to protect their investment. But – due to the open nature of Wikipedia, nothing can be achieved while the editors are at each other’s throats. You are all caught up in the heat of the moment, whether your comments on the talk page reflect it or not, and as long as you fail to recognise that, the Article will remain a sad, ugly, mutilated corpse of a sheep mauled and torn appart by a pack of lone wolves. This reflects badly on Wikipedia, but also on you as individuals.

Nothing will be achieved unless collaboration and respect become the norm, and with that aim in mind, I now propose the below process. Please review it, think about it, and reply explicitly, so I can take a straw poll where everyone stands.

When you do reply, please say whether you are willing to participate in principle in a process such as the one I suggest below? If not, would you participate in a different organised, collaborative process? If you are not willing to participate in any collaborative process, would you stand aside and let the willing folks get on with it, or would you carry on editing as you have done up to now, irrespective of whether your approach disrupts the efforts of the volunteer group?

Those who are in principle for the process, please also list the items below which you would like to further discuss / query / change (e.g. discuss S.3, T.4).

next steps will follow on from your responses. If acceptable in principle, and no dissenters, then I’ll ask for volunteers. If we cannot achieve consensus for collaboration, then we’ll explore how else collaboration can be achieved.

STEP 1: THE PROPOSED PROCESS

Objective:

O.1 Re-structure, re-write and rationalise the article to be in line with Wikipedia rules and policies and by reference to Wikipedia best practice.

Approach & Team Structure:

S.1 Follow Wikipedia principles of NPOV, NOR, Verifiability. It became clear to me yesterday that we are unlikely to agree on our own beliefs and positions, however, we should all have sufficient self discipline to avoid belligerence and to agree on reliability or otherwise of fact, opinion, speculation and controversy.

S.2 Work as a team.

S.3 Adopt a project team structure. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but a project structure / hierarchy will improve efficiency. Obviously, this is voluntary, but if sufficient people agree, it’s quite doable.

S.4 I suggest the following roles: Project Manager (responsible: plan, article structure), Quality Control – at multiple levels, Pairs of editors assigned each section, one to draft, other to review, discussion amongst themselves but open to view on Talk page.

S.5 Issue management:- no initial interferrence with pair of co-editors from other teams unless issue escalated to main Quality Control group, to consist of all editors. Ultimate escallation to Wikipedia Administrators. Purpose of no initial interference is to allow for WIP and thinking, research (e.g. of Wiki rules), sources, etc.

S.6 Working method: ongoing and incremental review of all material, section by section, explicit agreement (sign off) ultimately by all parties

S.7 Ideally, each Article Section should have a corresponding Talk Section, prefixed by Responsible Editors, Current Status (WIP, Final Draft, review in progress, review resolved, issues escallated, Signed off by Section Editors), No of Issues open, No of issues Closed, Estimate to completion

Tasks:

T.1 Create Headings: headings to follow logical structure and sequence. Recognise that the story, and therefore the article content, is not frozen in time and must therefore evolve as facts, and opinions emerge and crystallise. (Two editors)

T.2 Move the existing content from current headings into new structure, by appropriately classifying the statements by reference to their type / source type / verifyability / contention. No editing / changing at this stage. (Two editors)

T.3 Write the first draft lede to be consistent with universal practice (lede should be brief, dry, an executive / management summary, nothing should appear in the lede which is not elaborated in more detail in the meat of the article). (Two editors)

T.4 Caveats section within lede: lede should make clear that the article is work in progress, as is the topic which it is covering. Lede should also state that the topic is contentious and that there is no common global concensus on the theory of how the crash happened, the party / parties responsible, nor on the evidence which has been provided by various parties.

T.5 Beef up the new / inadequate sections, review and rationalise each one in turn. Section sign off by section editors (two editors per Section)

T.6 Continue to update lede as new sections are reviewed modified (Two editors)

T.7 Add images, maps, graphics. (not sure if this should be separated out, can probably be handled by the editors of the relevant section, but needs to be reviewed for completeness / copyright, etc)

T.8 Cross-check Notes, References, citations, provide x-references to internal and external topics (any techies out there with a fast and powerful pc?

T.9 Whole article review formal review by all, sign-off by all. (Opportunity to review balance, weight, X-refs, etc)

T.10 OPTIONAL: invite senior Wikipedia editors / administrators to review (possibly aim for feature Article status, subject to final quality)

T.11 Review lessons learned – review / agree principles to be followed on maintenance, add to top of talk page.

T.12 Handover principles to maintenance editors.

Migration:

M.1 We need a Draft page for the restructured article, to coexist with the current page. Any ideas how this can be done within Wikipedia data structure/ config. mgt?

M.2 The current page should additionally be annotated stating that a major revision is under construction.

M.3 When new article is signed off and ready for handover, release the revised page.

End of Proposed Process

Tennispompom (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a little too ambitious (also completely contrary to how things work here, for better or worse. Btw, I apologize for my earlier suspicions that you may be a sockpuppet. I'm pretty sure now that you're not). You need something simpler, more specific and targeted. Volunteer Marek 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is much too anarchic for that. I think Tennispompom's suggestion could only work if all the editors working on this article were employees of the same organization. – Herzen (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Its unlikely to get a version, which is accepted by all. If I remember correctly, even the preliminary DSB report was at one point blamed to be not neutral. But I may mix that up with the german WP. Maybe it would be best to split the screen in half, with one side showing theories from various sources in "the west" and the other side with approved theories from "Federation" media and associated stuff inspired by them. Alexpl (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to create another page along the lines of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories based on conspiracy theories from the "Federation". My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are plenty of sources in "the west" that have the same POV on MH17 as "Federation" sources do. Those sources aren't part of the corporate media however, and for some reason only sources which are part of the corporate media are considered reliable at WP. – Herzen (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, Alexpl and Volunteer Marek, Thanks for reading through, but let's please try and avoid spinning off into space (i.e. at a tangent), and please leave the extent of my ambitions and capabilities to me. I put in a lot of my time to write this, so please answer my question openly and honestly - are you willing or collaborate and commit or not? Have the courage of your convictions, this is not a trick question, so please answer exactly as you are willing (or not willing) to do. Tennispompom (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom: Please note that these three editors are not the only ones who have been involved with this article, or who keep their eye on its progress. You're welcome to try to 'strike a deal' with these editors, but it does not mean that other editors are obliged to agree with your perceptions of how the article ought to be written. Please read WP:OWN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course Iryna Harpy, as you may have noticed, my question was addressed to everyone on this talk page, who considers themselves an editor. Tennispompom (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in being assigned to a committee or reporting to a project manager. Geogene (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Geogene, first direct answer. Would your position re structured teamwork change, if you were the project manager? Tennispompom (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No. But thank you for the consideration. Geogene (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My goodness Geogene, why - you're assuming that I'm planning to take over!!! "She who must be obeyed!" LOL! I'm doing something quite different - ever read Cold Comfort Farm? Great read. Blessed be the peacemakers (and problem solvers and achievers of consensus too). I can but try, if it can't be done, we've all lost. Let me ask you one more question - if a willing, effective, consentual group can be established, would you be willing to avoid disrupting it's workings while the redrafting of the article is in progress? Tennispompom (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm willing to collaborate. But I've pretty much given up on bringing a semblance of NPOV to the article. I've made all the arguments I can think of why English Wikipedia should discuss more than one theory of what caused MH17 to crash the way German Wikipedia does, but my edits have always gotten reverted. And, as I said above, the underlying problem is this circular logic which some editors employ: If a source entertains the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, it is unreliable, because everyone knows that the rebels shot down MH17, so that consideration of any other possibility is a conspiracy theory. Thus, there are no reliable sources which consider the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17. – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

All I want is for this WP article to be as open minded as Time magazine (see the quote I gave in a previous section), but for that I am told by Geogene "I don't think agreement with you is possible." – Herzen (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, thanks - that's the spirit! No need for despondency, I think I have a way forward which could achieve NPOV, and a high quality article. This is only step 1 - establish who's willing to work in a collaborative manner, as part of a team. You are right - a team is a form of an organisation, but not necessarily a hierarchical one. It can be done through consensus, as long as no one wants to put a spoke in the wheel. Can a team of builders build a house if they're all tripping over each other? No. Can they build a house unless they follow the same agreed standard? No, but as long as basic Wikipedia principles are followed, the snagging list at the end will be manageable. Once we've established that we can collaborate and contribute as part of a team, then the Second step is for me to put forward a framework - an article structure, which follows Wikipedia prnciples (which everyone has accepted in theory), but which classifies the sources in quite a different way so as to make the reliability issue a much less contentious problem. You'll see what I mean if we get that far. Tennispompom (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom: you wrote "would you be willing to avoid disrupting it's workings while the redrafting of the article is in progress?" - you cannot expect all potential editors of this article to answer that question. Please avoid wasting time, instead spend a bit of your own time familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia - in the specific case: WP:SANDBOX. Lklundin (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Lklundin, with respect, the time wasting you refer to is entirely due to your apparent inability to read the comments properly before responding. If you read my original question addressed to everyone - including you - instead of responding to piecemeal skimming over my responses to other users (and thus taking things out of context too!), you could have avoided wasting your, and now my time. Do try and be fair please, you have already made a sad start in good neighbourly relations by repeated unjustified accusations of time wasting, when in fact you are the one who's clearly struggling with efficiency by not keeping to the point. Here you are - I've made it easier for you by repeating my original question, so you don't need to scroll up: "When you do reply, please say whether you are willing to participate in principle in a process such as the one I suggest below? If not, would you participate in a different organised, collaborative process? If you are not willing to participate in any collaborative process, would you stand aside and let the willing folks get on with it, or would you carry on editing as you have done up to now, irrespective of whether your approach disrupts the efforts of the volunteer group?"

It's a straightforward question, save yourself and me some time and answer it please. From your reaction to me so far, I get the impression, perhaps wrong, that you are not interested or willing to commit to a collaborative joint effort, preferring to do things your way. If that is the case, have the courage to say so openly - who knows, you might find that I decide that it's not worth my effort on this article, an incentive for you? I really don't understand why it seems to be so hard to get commitment to collaboration - isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? I do hope you can confirm your willingness to collaborate, but will respectfully understand your choice not to do so, if that is what you wish.

I've already read up about the Sandbox, I'm looking for something with slightly better configuration management, if it exists. Tennispompom (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom, do not waste your time any longer. In political articles under sanctions (like that one) the collaboration is dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I see you don't take your own advice. – Herzen (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do: I am no longer really active in the project and only occasionally contribute to discussions as observer. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, Herzen, your cognitive skills are being selective again. In fact, My very best wishes is following his own advice well. He did suffer from wiki burn-out some time ago, but does (thankfully) return periodically in order to keep us on our toes. Note that I have certainly had disagreements with him, but respect his civil attitude and astute observations.

Protracted disputes and bewailing the fact that you're the only person who knows what sources are reliable, as you do, are a waste of time... as are reading tractats that one would normally dismiss with a WP:TL;DR just because someone is a newbie. It simply isn't the way Wikipedia works, nor will it ever be. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

the fact that you're the only person who knows what sources are reliable I don't know why many editors feel they need to personalize this and pretend that I'm the only one who has problems with this article. – Herzen (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My attempt at a structured collaboration approach didn't get any takers. I still don't see what prevents one editor inadvertently editing what another editor's work in progress, but perhaps it will become clear over time. So, I withdraw the proposal for a project-style collaboration. I'm OK if this section is removed. Do I need to do anything or will it drop off by itself?

PS Volunteer Marek - your apology is accepted Tennispompom (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The section will be automatically archived after 8 days of inactivity (same goes with all the other sections). See the bottom infobox immediately above the contents box. Stickee (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war 3

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 an AN-26,[8][9][10] but after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement, and the post was taken down.

This discredited statement from a social media profile is still in the lede, simply because it was "widely reported" in some sources. The fact that it's old information and has been discredited by other sources is irrelevant, simply because it supports the prevailing political agenda of this article. Would anyone like to address the systemic bias of this political effort to cherry pick sources? USchick (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you don't like it--this is an edit war? How is it "cherry picking" if it's widely reported? Geogene (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are other things being reported in RS, but since you don't like those particular reports, that information is being censored in this article. When I point out this discrepancy you accused me of slander on my talk page User talk:USchick#Slandering other editors in MH17. USchick (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I most certainly have. Geogene (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a discredited statement, it's discussed above, it's not an edit war, it's just your POV pushing.

Stop calling everything an "edit war" in some back door attempt to get that POV tag into the article, or in an attempt to force your POV down everyone's throat. Volunteer Marek 19:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If I get blocked for edit warring, I can't participate, so yes, it's an edit war because these changes are being made over the course of days, so they don't qualify for 3RR. But this information is being censored anyway because it doesn't fit the political agenda presented in this article. USchick (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge There Is No Cabal waging a clandestine edit war on this article. Lklundin (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No Cabal, only politically motivated propaganda. USchick (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That I can agree to. I suspect however that we disagree on the origin of the propaganda. Lklundin (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I imagine we do. That's why my original suggestion was to stick to the facts and remove any speculation, at least from the lede. USchick (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When you use the word "speculation" what you actually mean is "text sourced to reliable sources that I just don't like!". No go. Volunteer Marek 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

By speculation, I mean opinions of uninvolved parties with their own political agenda. USchick (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you mean "reliable sources". And what, involved parties are incapable of speculating or something? Volunteer Marek 19:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Marek stop trolling. Western media is not reliable here, because they have a political agenda.118.210.196.217 (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. You're in the wrong place. WP:NOTHERE. Volunteer Marek 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fabulous. These articles just keep attracting talking socks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You can tell when your opponent is about to admit defeat - when his argument reduces to name calling and rejecting reliable sources. Keep up your attitude and you will be banned in no time :) 118.210.196.217 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Dutch Professor apologizes to Putin

This is a reliable source and MUST be included. http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25981/53/ 118.210.196.217 (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"do not serve the people but are working towards a New World Order". Umm New World Order? Stickee (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The letter seems to be genuine [47], and Cees Hamelink is a real person and has an article about him in the Dutch Wikipedia, but I guess we need to wait per WP:NOTNEWS until reliable sources will discuss the letter in some detail.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The letter seems to originate from http://ommekeer-nederland.nl/brief-met-excuses-aan-president-putin/. There it is clearly stated that the letter is not written by the professor, nor signed by him. --Ajv39 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not find this. And Het Parool, which discusses the situation [48], is clearly a reliable source, meaning there is no reason to mention the letter in this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Being only a 5-day-old user, I'm not familiar with the editing rules. I'm concerned, should we hold off making additions / changes to the article until we are sure we all on the same page with respect to the Wikipedia policy? The POV Template error isn't the only problem, and questions have been raised re Undue weight, and other editing rules. Should we perhaps discuss and agree the standards first, before applying them by adding new items? Tennispompom (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No need for everything to stop whenever a disagreement happens. Geogene (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait. "I'm already phoned days flat," said Hamelink. "The editor of the Russian newspaper Izvestia asked for an interview. I explained to him that I have nothing to do with that stupid letter. ". But that is a reliable source and MUST be included! Volunteer Marek 21:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no need to include the letter there is no need to include a response. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The professor is a real person. The letter is written by the professor and is signed by him: http://ommekeer-nederland.nl/documents/letter-putin-en.pdf . Hence this information must be included in the article.118.210.196.217 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The letter was neither written nor signed by the professor, see the green comment here: http://ommekeer-nederland.nl/brief-met-excuses-aan-president-putin/ (Google translate, orange comment). --PM3 (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)--PM3 (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that this section be closed and archived.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, the issue is not closed yet. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. And I don't care if this Dutchman really wrote this letter or not. A letter from a private person to a head of state is not of encyclopedic interest. – Herzen (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The letter was clearly written by someone and it is a fine little peace of propaganda. There is sufficient of that to warrant a separate article: "Pro-Russian Propaganda Regarding MH 17". Lklundin (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what "green comment"?!? If you refuse to add this letter to the article then I vote we remove the following for fairness: "On 25 July, the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch that read "Vergeef ons, Nederland" ("Forgive Us, Netherlands")." 118.210.196.217 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that is not encyclopedic and should go. – Herzen (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please open a new thread for this issue. This section which you started is about a fake, let us keep to the topic. There is no need to discuss this fake together with anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@118.210: There is only one green comment on the page that I linked. It starts with "Opmerking:" --PM3 (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A variety of efforts used in this article to game the system

I'm closing this discussion because of some users moving other user's comments around making it look like they're replying to something else, the changing of section headings in midst of discussion for no reason and other hi-jinks which make it impossible for the discussion to be fairly represented. If you wish to discuss something below, start a new discussion section and don't mess with other people's comments.

Please note that the text below does not accurately reflect how the discussion actually occured. Or anything else for that matter. It appears to have been "spliced" together by some users afterward. Volunteer Marek 21:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to reply to a comment in this discussion, but it was hatted by Volunteer Marek. He should undo the hatting of this discussion. If he is unhappy with comments having been moved around, he should use the page's history to decide where they properly belong, and move them back there, instead of hatting this very relevant discussion which he doesn't like. Hatting this was extremely disrespectful to Tennispompom, who put a lot of time into writing the original post of this section. This hatting was an utterly unilateral move for which no consensus exists. – Herzen (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If he is unhappy with comments having been moved around, he should use the - NO. It is not MY responsibility to try and find the place where my comment belongs. It should not have been moved in the first place. Hell yes I'm unhappy with you or anyone else moving my comments into the middle of other discussions so that they don't make sense. It's not only a violation of Wikipedia policy, it's bad faithed and extremely rude. YOU don't get to call others "disrespectful" after showing no respect what so ever for something as basic as not changing other people's comments. If you don't have a sense of how insulting and obnoxious this is then I'm sorry, but you lack a basic sense of decency and etiquette. Volunteer Marek 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been moved around. The discussion moved forward, and for some reason he had a comment left over at the bottom of that same discussion. He came in, assumed bad faith and freaked out. I left an explanation on his talk page. The only thing out of place is his one old comment. Hopefully he'll be back soon. USchick (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been moved around and you moved it. Leave my comments alone. Volunteer Marek 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what "hatting" means, have raised the question in TeaHouse. I assume I placed my reply in the wrong place - wasn't deliberate. When I get a reply, I can easily recreate myself - I edit in Notepad, it's faster and I still have the text. Tennispompom (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As previously uninvolved in this article and seen the hatting at WP:TEAHOUSE, I have unhatted. Misconduct or refactoring by users is not a reason to close a discussion, especially one which you have commented on yourself. If it needs to be hatted, let an uninvolved user do it. Tutelary (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

For the nth-fucking time. I did not comment in THIS discussion. I commented in a different discussion then some *!&#$R^& moved my comment. If you don't understand why this is problematic and extremely disrespectful perhaps you got no business getting involved in the teahouse. Any other forum with a modicum of professionalism would come down extremely hard on this kind of behavior. Volunteer Marek 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Marek please stay civil and avoid swearing. You are risking getting banned. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I raised a NPOV issue because only one speculative theory is mentioned in the article. However, alternative theories cannot be included because Wikipedia policy / guidelines do not allow it:-

Anything other than UK, US, etc. media source is an unreliable secondary source (e.g. can't list the Russian theory surface to air missile, because Russian papers are subject to influence of their Governments)
Previous RS discussion boards confirmed that publications, such as RT, are not reliable sources, but can occasionally used as reliable secondary sources when reporting on statements made by Russian Government, for example, but not on anything else - items have to be decided on a case by case basis.
Fringe English publications which do mention the theory are excluded because they are fringe, or eliminated as undue weight (i,e, conspiracy theories)
The likes of BBC, Washington Post, NY Times, etc. make no mention the Air to air missile theory
when I suggested it should be reported by using the Russian, etc. source as a Primary source, i.e. by definition reliable, the POV Template excludes the possibility of using a primary source - source MUST BE SECONDARY.
Finally, there has to be a reliable secondary source, otherwise NOR rule applies.
RESULT - there was no legitimate source which could be used within Wikipedia rules to allow significant alternative crash theories to be included in the article. That is what the bulk of the discussions here was about.

By identifying that the template has one word too many ("secondary"), and that a primary source is not excluded by NPOV policy, but is actually advocated to use in cases where mainstream media present opinons and theories, it now becomes quite possible to include more than a single theory in the article.

Unforunately there's no real alternative to reading through comment by comment - not at all easy. Here's a selection of them. If you search for the text, you can see where the debate arises:-

Volunteer Marek rejects my comment on addressing NPOV, with "Basically, anything you want to put into the article must be based on verifiable, secondary, reliable, sources, or it's a no go. "
Herzen explains that it is systemic bias, and explains how it works on my talk page.
PM3 states "We have to stick to secondary sources; important are those opinions which are on topic and widely spread in the WP:RS. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, you can't evade that."
Volunteer Marek also states "That comment makes no sense what so ever. "We use reliable sources" is NOT a rhetorical trick, it's Wikipedia policy."
I then go on to propose that an unreliable secondary source can be treated as a reliable primary source, and Volunteer Marek quotes the POV template (secondary sources are required), therefore as article doesn't breach POV template, it is by definition neutral. Quote Volunteer Marek: " The template specifically says: 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."
Artnouf writes:- "If it were reliably sourced and analysed by a secondary source we might have a look at it; especially since Rutskoy (considering his political activities) may have an agenda with his statement; we should be careful with using him as primary source."

Tennispompom (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry re poor format above. How do i indent a bullet point? Tennispompom (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this outline, it's perfect. I attached a very accurate name to it. In good faith, I assume this wan't done on purpose, but as a result of a recent event, and quickly developing events. Now that we have time to reflect on it, i hope we can fix it. USchick (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The secondary sources issue is addressed here: WP:PSTS. Personally I think that NPOV and RS/NOR are more or less the same thing but Wikipedia does choose to make a distinction. Either way however, they're both "pillars". Volunteer Marek 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a few updates on the POV Template's Talk Page. Apparently the the text "reliable secondary sources" appears in the documentation to the Template source code. The Documentation is NOT protected, and was not added by the User CBM, who edited the Template itself. Apparently the documentation was modified separate;y, quote User PrimeHunter:- "secondary" was added by User:SlimVirgin 19 September 2012.[3] By the way, Template:POV/doc is not protected and can be edited by anyone with no template knowledge.
I'm now querying whether it is appropriate to use template documentation in lieu of rules. Tennispompom (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is an eminently reliable secondary source which brings up the fighter plane having shot down MH17 theory: Time magazine. That Time article is mentioned in this Talk section. Believe it or not, when I added the observation by Time that the DSB preliminary report's findings were consistent with a fighter plane having shot down MH17, that edit was reverted because the person who wrote the Time article is not an expert. So when experts say that a fighter plane could have shot down MH17, that is not allowable for inclusion in the article because reliable secondary sources do not report this; when a reliable secondary source observes that a fighter plane could have shot MH17 down, that is not allowable for inclusion because the author of that news story is not an expert. – Herzen (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an excuse that was made up, since there's nothing about that in Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What do people think of my adding the following to the end of the preliminary report section:

According to Time Magazine, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.

I believe that that statement accurately describes the content of the Time article; also that statement does not assert that it is stating a fact, but just reports what the main US newsweekly has reported

As you know, that was brought up here Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 16#Consistent in which several people, including an admin, said it was a misrepresentation of the source. Stickee (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for digging that up and giving a link. I wish people would do that more often. However, I can't find any comment there which claims that the way I presented this source was a "misrepresentation". And note that in my new formulation, I use a direct quote, whereas before, I glossed "to leave room for" as "consistent with". I really don't see why this shouldn't be included. And I can't see any definite conclusion having emerged out of that earlier discussion. And I'm not sure whether being a reviewer (I don't know what that means) constitutes being an admin.

This Time article seems to be a perfect test case for the issue discussed in this section: here is an unimpeachable secondary source pointing out what several editors have been arguing Wikipedia should mention: that there is more than one theory "out there" of how MH17 was downed. It really is impossible to create a valid argument for why the addition I proposed should not be made to the article. – Herzen (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The "admin" comment was referring to Ymblanter whose comment I linked to in that section, not me. You also brought this up a few days ago and got these 2 responses [49] [50] by Geogene. Saying "leaves room for" is pretty much the same thing (as you said yourself in that thread). The very next paragraph goes on to say how it is inconsistent with the other evidence. Stickee (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Ymblanter's remark was about an interview with a Russian general, not the Time magazine article, and PM3 convinced me to lose interest in what that general said. As for what Geogene said, I rebutted his points. Geogene interpreted the article in terms of what the author would like to be the case, instead of what the author himself says is the case. There is no way of getting around the meaning of this statement: "[T]he wording of the 34-page report … was also vague enough to leave room for one of the more common theories among the rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine." Trying to deny that that sentence says what it says is a textbook example of the serious issue with this article which is the subject of this Talk section. – Herzen (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What. The. Hell. Happened. To. My. Comment??? This is not what I was replying to in my comment at 18:06 above [51]. My comment above was in a section entitled "POV Template Template:POV is inconsistent with core article policy NPOV " not "A variety of efforts used in this article to game the system". It was in reply to an inquiry about the relationship between NPOV policy and use of secondary sources. Not about some statement about "gaming the system" or "one theory"

This is very obnoxious to say the least. It also looks extremely bad faithed. I have no idea how this happened, but whoever did this needs to stop this kind of nonsense, or they will be blocked very quickly. Volunteer Marek 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and move your comment wherever you think it belongs. There were too many discussions going on in this one big section so I broke it up. So sorry to inconvenience you. USchick (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I won't have my comments misrepresented by you moving them to where they don't make sense. If you wish to discuss this further start a brand new section. And don't change other people's comments again. Volunteer Marek 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(reply to tennispompom) Just put however many colons you need in front of the asterisk and I think that should cause an indented bullet point--frankly I use trial and error (and the "Show Preview" button). Ah, ok. Well, I sometimes use primary sources and the article uses a primary source (the DSB report) so I reject the "Must Be Secondary" interpretation. There's even a section in an essay linked as WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD because sometimes editors are a little too opposed to primary sources. But as that essay says, primary sources should be used carefully, and I would add, sparingly. There are some problems that arise from too many primary sources, the most important issue in this particular is notability/weight...just because a primary source exists doesn't tell you how much coverage it deserves. A scientist, for example, that might want to push a particular viewpoint in the field they work in, might be tempted to cite a dozen papers favorable to that viewpoint and disregard less favorable viewpoints, to imply something that his/her colleagues might not agree is a neutral summary of the overall community. A non-expert Wikipedia editor would see the sources but would not know that the sampling isn't representative. So instead it's easier to have a healthy bias against overuse of primary sources. Getting a bunch of quality, mainstream, secondary sources makes it easier for non-experts to write a neutral, or at least mainstream encyclopedia. Geogene (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reposted Geogene (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this in a new section. This section has been made a total mess by USchick editing other user's comments. Volunteer Marek 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I just found a reference to WP:5P on Tennispompom's Talk page. To quote from pillar 2:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"

I don't see how anyone can claim that this article "document[s] and explain[s] the major points of view" about who downed MH17. That is why the article in its present state is a farce and does not in the least satisfy "the fundamental principles of Wikipedia". The editors who consider themselves to own this article have clearly decided that "the truth" about the downing MH17 exists, and that it is their job to make Wikipedia telegraph this truth to the world. – Herzen (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette (and basic politeness) 101

Don't move other people's comments around.
Don't splice together different conversations to make it seem like an editor was responding to something other than they were responding to
Don't change section titles in midst of discussion, especially in a non-neutral manner
Generally, leave other people's comments alone. It's extremely rude and quite disruptive to change what someone else said, and it can be taken as acting in very bad faith.
Keep the discussion focused and on topic, don't insert one discussion into the middle of another.
If you don't know how to indent, bullet point, etc. ask somebody.

Volunteer Marek 01:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please stop hatting discussions which you are apart of. Leave them unhatted. Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not choose to be a part of that discussion. I was "made" a part of that discussion by other users moving my comments around and changing the headings. Next time, respect other people's comments and this won't be a problem. Volunteer Marek 01:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

VM, perhaps you could strike the misplaced comment, or perhaps move it somewhere else, or add a comment after it stating it is misplaced? In any case, this edit doing the splitting and which caused all the confusion probably shouldn't have been done in the first place. Stickee (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That section has become too much of a mess to clean up. I don't like being misrepresented. The only thing to do know is to hat it, note that it's a mess, and restart the discussion in a new section. Volunteer Marek 01:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

An putting everything aside, why is USchick changing section titles in a middle of discussion, started by someone else, to something very biased. Per WP:TPNQ:

Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

Be precise in quoting others.

When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.

Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures.

and

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

Volunteer Marek 01:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any comments here which have been altered. Can you please give a difflink of what you are talking about? --PM3 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's saying his comment at 18:06 was originally replying to the comment at 16:45, but after this edit, it's now replying to the comment at 20:36. Stickee (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more explicit than that. I can't find any comment at 20:36. And Volunteer Marek doesn't come up in the diff you give at all. USchick just created a new section out of an extensive comment of Tennispompom's, and Tennispompom did not express any resentment at that. So this is a tempest in a teapot, as far as I can tell. – Herzen (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view the whole section 'A variety of efforts used in this article to game the system' is a good example. While you read it in the order that it is now presented in, the time stamp switch between Oct 17 and Oct 18. Which means that you read answers and further comments before you read earlier answers/comments which, as a consequence, may appear out of context, irrelevant etc. while they were not when originally posted. (I think this is what V Malek refers to as splicing). In general I think it is best to only put answers at the bottom of the thread, and if that means your new addition looks out of place too bad, always better than in retrospect misrepresenting someone elses. Arnoutf (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The edit in the wrong place was inadvertently done. I had been struggling with indenting bulleted lists, previewing and re-editing without success. To make matters worse, I didn't know one can edit a single section - I had been editing the entire very long Talk page where it is extremely difficult to find the right position. Sorry for messing up the sequence, it was inadvertently done.

Having said that, there is no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Volunteer Marek lists a series of injunctions, most of which I did not do, and none deliberately. I have asked for help with formatting, both on this page and in the TeaHouse.

The "hatting" episode and the (seemingly pointed?) creation of a section on basic etiquette, are unnecessary and heavy-handed responses to an inexperienced newbie's formatting error. Coming so soon after the same User's accusation of sock-puppetry on my first day as new user, this new instance of an extreme reaction could give the wrong impression of Volunteer Marek's intentions. He did apologise for "sock-puppet" accusations and I accepted, so I continue to assume good faith on his part. Please stop taking out your frustrations on me and go for a more moderate slap on wrist, if required, on my user talk page.

Can we close this Etiquette section now? Tennispompom (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The other things he's talking about were by another user, not you. It was moreso this edit, which just led to a talking-to by an admin. Stickee (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion will be auto-archived once it has received no comments for a specified period of time, see Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archival. @Tennispompom: I have left an additional reply on your talk page. Lklundin (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

In essence, any discussion where someone forged/modified comments by other contributors must be discarded. Therefore, the hatting by VM is appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I caused such a ruckus. That was not my intent. Previously, my comments were also rearranged by other users in the heat of conversation, and I simply moved them to the right location. There were edit conflict all over the place, so I understand how this could have happened. I would like to add to the list of what not to do:

In the middle of a discussion, please do not put your comment all the way to the left (and in italic) like that's the end of the discussion. Because what happens when people don't want to respond to that comment, and instead, want to continue the discussion, they simply continue, and the new comment to the left is left dangling at the bottom. This happened several times, but everyone was adult about it, until now. USchick (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Area of the crash site

The area of the crash site is given in most international sources as (an estimate of) 35 km² and/or 13 mi² (earlier sources said 30–35 km²). I had added it that way to the article, but this has been edit-warred to 35/14 [52] by using a template, which contradicts any sources I am aware of. As a consensus workaround I now changed it to 34/13, which is given by a few sources which probably converted 13 mi² into km. But this number suggests a precision which is not there, the numbers are not that precise. Therefore I strongly suggest to change it back to the original 35/13, which best fits the majority of most recent sources and – as 35 resembles a rounded-to-5s-number – best fits the fact of inaccuracy. "About" may also be added. --PM3 (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Would saying "an approximate X km² area" solve anything? Although if the conversion template gives a different number than the sources, then perhaps don't use the conversion template. Pinging @Ymblanter:, @Andrewgprout: since you guys made an edit relating to it. Stickee (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, the convert macro shows itself as being imperial-centric, since it produces 'square kilometres' (similar to 'square miles') while the SI notation is 'km²' (and 'square kilometres' is how you read that out in English (when the magnitude is different from 1)). So while the macro should ideally be fixed, that is another reason to leave it out for now. Lklundin (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with just writing 35 km². Don't know how the habit is here, in Continental Europe we only use SI units. Will look for a source for "approximately". --PM3 (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Aware of ARBEE

I'd like everyone to confirm they are aware of WP:ARBEE and that I will be topic banning people from this article that have engaged in battle ground attitudes, pointed edits, disruptive editing, POV pushing, edit warring, and personal attacks. I suggest that everyone make themselves aware of WP:ARBEE and quickly adapt to conform with the expected behaviors. After 24 hours, anyone who hasn't acknowledged reading ARBEE will get a formal notice on their talk page.--v/r - T P 23:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Geogene (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. (I didn't know about the concept of pointed edits.) – Herzen (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. USchick (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged, though I consider this request as a violation of WP:AGF as I did behave well. --PM3 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Volunteer Marek 03:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Buzz105 (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Finally an admin to sort out the rubbish and get rid of evil editors. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. NB origin of confusion may be an incorrect NPOV Template, pls see my next post. Tennispompom (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Stickee (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Usernick (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I take issue with the above 'adapt'. It implies that _every_ contributor to this page has been in violation of the policy. PS. I was away for a couple of days and only saw the suggestion now. Lklundin (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Reading through some of these talk page comments, I see that there are accusations about western media and western governments, particularly the US government, of a conspiracy for a new world order and some other rubbish. Being that I work for the US Government during the day, I don't need to be caught in some conspiracy bullcrap and accusations of being an arm of the US Government on Wikipedia (not saying the accusations have happened, yet). So, I'm out. Some other admin can enforce WP:ARBEE.--v/r - T P 20:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can request eyes on this page from another uninvolved administrator? Geogene (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmies, User:Black Kite, User:Dennis Brown, User:Dougweller, User:DangerousPanda, User:Bbb23, User:JzG, User:BrownHairedGirl, User:SlimVirgin and User:Ponyo are the sysops I most often interact with. Perhaps one of them might be interested. It might be better if someone else found a sysop, though. Per the same rationale, I wouldn't want people to think I influenced this article at all by picking the enforcing sysop.--v/r - T P 21:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. Thanks! Geogene (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

What if we all agree that T P is a neutral admin? Considering that he's the only one so far willing to work with us, I'd like to keep him! He went off on me in ANI, so you know he's not partial. USchick (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there isn't a chance of that happening even if everyone here agreed. All I need is some wacko with a blog fully of conspiracy nuts to suddenly enter the picture and make wild threats toward my kids. Or someone in Russia prints some paper about how the US Gov't is in charge of the Wikipedia article on this and then I get in trouble for giving the appearance of government endorsement/involvement in what I do on Wikipedia. Just not interested in my hobby turning into a nightmare. Thanks anyway for the vote of confidence.--v/r - T P 22:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have watchlisted this - and I'll be reviewing the contents of the talkpage in due time the panda ₯’ 22:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

How about we post on the admin forum and ask every interested admin to help us out. This will remove the bias that TP was referring to. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the administrator who brought up ARBEE has an openly adversarial attitude towards Russia and and is vocally contemptuous of the idea that theories about MH17 besides the official USG version should be considered, and that another administrator dropped into a discussion to make a comment about "the Russian propaganda version" of events, I wouldn't hold my breath about admins instantly solving the problems to which Tennispompom has drawn our attention. – Herzen (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some admins from both sides. That way we can have a fair battle. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins should not be on any side. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I think that the intervention of the admins would be very timely now. The posts of Volunteer Marek added on 00:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC) and on 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC) are unacceptable. Usernick (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What VM was referring to in the 00:13 comment was the actions of another user. Those actions by that other user were taken to ANI and nearly resulted in them being blocked by TParis. Stickee (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely it is not unreasonable to assume good faith towards Admin - whatever their private view, they understand Wikipedia policy and are more than capable of self-discipline in maintaining neutrality. I'm not familiar with any Admin, but - as we certainly need one - could I suggest User:SlimVirgin? This user edited the supporting documentation to the Template:POV in 2012 (see Section ""), which Volunteer Marek confused with Wikipedia policy and quoted on this article's talk page to argue against neutrality improvements. I've looked at SlimVirgin's list of articles, many of which have been identified as Wikipedia "good articles", so she is experienced, clearly cares about quality and is no stranger to controversial topics. One could hint that by editing a single word on a Template's documentation section two years ago, she inadvertently set off a chain of events and might like an opportunity to resolve it in role of Admin. I need to leave a note on SlimVirgin's user talk page anyway re the Template:POV, and perhaps I could request that she also admins on this page. Thoughts? Tennispompom (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No, some Admins here are not capable of self-discipline in maintaining neutrality. If they were, their views would be unknown. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I support it. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen. You said: "Given that the administrator who brought up ARBEE has an openly adversarial attitude towards Russia...". Why do you think so? No, he did not. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

POV Template Template:POV is inconsistent with core article policy NPOV

This morning, Volunteer Marek sent me the link to Template:POV, and after checking it, I found that there is a crucial difference between the wording in the template and the wording in the core NPOV policy. The template uses the phrase “reliable secondary sources”, while the policy simply states “reliable sources”.

Other Wikipedia guideline docs make it plain that “primary” (and tertiary) sources are not excluded, especially in the context of media coverage. I've posted the links to the relevant Wikipedia rules docs in my response to Volunteer marek in the RfC section, if anyone would like to check.

Since then, I have also posted a request for update on the template Talk page, the Talk page of the User who introduced the wording into the template 6 years ago, and put a note on the Wikipedia Talk: Twinkle Talk page, requesting template maintenance, per instructions on the Template page. There has been no action yet.

It appears that the earlier lack of consensus regarding use of primary sources for media reporting arose because the Template isn't consistent with the policy it is designed to support. So can I ask everyone - in light of this discovery - do we have consensus that the Policy documents are correct, and the Template needs correcting by removing the "secondary sources" limitation?

Should we wait until the editors responsible for maintaining the template complete their maintenance? What's the right process to follow when the template is wrong?

Tennispompom (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is difficult to track. But I don't see how this is connected to any of Volunteer Marek's points about the NPOV tag, which he quoted in bold:

The tag may be removed by any editor.

This template should not be used as a badge of shame.

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.

That editor's relevant comments appear to occur at 05:08, 15 October 2014, 20:57, 16 October 2014, and 21:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that you believe you have found an inconsistency between the last statement from the NPOV template and the core NPOV policy. But I don't see where primary vs. secondary ever came ~~into it~~ into the NPOV tag debate here. Can you point out what I missed here? Geogene (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right, it is very difficult to follow. I'll set out the logic first:-

It's not at all difficult to follow. USchick (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: There is a ruling on the TEMPLATE:POV Talk page on this subject. It states:-

The policy is WP:NPOV. It is one of the WP:5 pillars of wikipedia. To the extent that the template documentation is useful it is to underscore policy. The precise language of the template is not all that critical, but the precise language of the policy is. Refer to that instead.

CAVEAT: The sequence of discussions under this heading was accidentally messed up (by me of all people!), attempts by others to fix it caused further confusion, hatting, un-hatting etc. Many entries which were originally in this thread are now in the section which immediately follows "A variety of efforts used in this article to game the system"

RELEVANCE to Article: Reference to Template documentation was used to justify (incorrectly) the requirement to use only reliable secondary sources in the construction of the article, and to override the Wikipedia core policy WP:NPOV which requires reliable sources.

CONCLUSION: It is incorrect to exclude reliable primary and tertiary sources in any article, including this one. Arguments on this Talk page, which are based on the incorrect requirement for exclusive use of secondary sources will need to be revisited.

Tennispompom (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This wording in the lede

There's a very poorly worded run-on sentence in the lede that says:

According to American intelligence sources, intelligence assembled in the five days after the crash pointed overwhelmingly to pro-Russian separatists having shot down the plane using a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory which they controlled. The Russian government however blamed the Ukrainian Government.

After reading this sentence, it seems that Americans decided that the rebels are responsible, but Russia blames Ukraine. In reality, according to the source attributed to that sentence,

"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." [53]

Does anyone else think this source doesn't quite represent the sentence and that the sentence needs to be reworded? USchick (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead is based upon this from the same source: "the officials said the intelligence assembled in the five days since the attack points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists in territory they control", which is pretty much a complete match to what is said in the lead. Although they don't know the exact identity (eg Steve Jones from 17 Downing Street), they know "overwhelmingly" that was separatists. Stickee (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is that this is a run-on sentence (really?) then just change it to: "According to American intelligence sources, intelligence assembled in the five days after the crash pointed overwhelmingly to pro-Russian separatists having shot down the plane using a Buk surface-to-air missile. The missile was fired from the territory which they controlled. The Russian government however blamed the Ukrainian Government.". And done. Volunteer Marek 01:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

USchick's argument appears to be "there is some other sentence in the source which is different from the sentence in the text. This means the source is being misrepresented. Never mind that there is actually another sentence in the source which matches the text, don't pay attention to that." This kind of thing exhausts one's ability to assume good faith. Volunteer Marek 01:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that the source presents many different sides, but for the purpose of this article, editors cherry picked what they wanted it to say. USchick (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The source does NOT "presents many different sides". You're just taking a sentence out of context and pretending that it does. In other words, you're trying to misrepresent the source. Again. The "don't know" part refers to whether the guys who pulled the trigger were actually Russians or rebels. The source also states "The senior intelligence officials said they have ruled out the possibility that Ukrainian forces were responsible for the attack.". So no, no "many different sides". Stop it, these kinds of attempts at manipulation are transparent. Volunteer Marek 18:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"they do not know the identities or even the nationalities — whether Russian or possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military" USchick (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

??? Volunteer Marek 19:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a question? USchick (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant passages have been quoted. Yet here you are sitting pretending that they don't exist. And you continue to try and misrepresent the source. Still. ???. As in "do you really think we're that stupid?". See Stickee's comment above. Volunteer Marek 20:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If relevant passages had been quoted, we wouldn't be having this discussion. USchick (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war 4: BBC Russian Service video

I added a mention of this video, in which several witnesses say they saw military jets flying near MH17 before it exploded, just to see how quickly my edit would be reverted. It took all of eight minutes. Geogene reverted it with the summary "didn't the BBC retract this for some reason?" Of course the BBC retracted this for a reason! The reason the BBC retracted it was that it contradicts the official US narrative. Whenever RT is mentioned, editors studiously add that it is "government owned" or "government controlled". Well hello! The BBC is owned and controlled by the UK government, and the US and the UK have a special relationship.

Why should we care that the BBC deleted this video from its Web site? The video is still available on the Web, and it speaks for itself. The BBC never claimed that this video is a fake, not produced by the BBC. With the endless discussion in the article of "witnesses" seeing Buks here and Buks there (but no mention of the fact that the only party that has operational Buk systems in the Ukraine is the Ukrainian military itself), I don't see how anyone can claim that the article not mentioning these witnesses' observations is nothing else but a manifestation of the flagrant, unhinged bias that this article is terminally compromised by, as evinced by so many current Talk sections that I've lost track already. – Herzen (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen In your comment above to quote "The reason the BBC retracted it was that it contradicts the official US narrative" you do yourself a great disservice in not realising that Government funded does in no means mean that a news service is in anyway controlled or even controllable by the said Government in countries like the UK. In fact the opposite is usually evident. Your inability to understand this I suspect explains some of your evident POV in your discussions.Andrewgprout (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you once, per BRD. You're calling it "Edit War 4". Geogene (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just that. It seems now Herzen and USchick have decided to *start* edit wars as a way of proving that there are edit wars on this article. It's a pretty obvious and obnoxious violation of WP:POINT. Volunteer Marek 23:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this information is unusable for the article, as long as there is no RS which confirms it. May have been false witnesses.

If the explosion, the fire and other planes in the air would have been visible inspite of the cloudy sky, people would have instantly used their mobile phone cams. But where are the pics? --PM3 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of witness accounts discussed in the article which are no more reliable than those in the BBC video. So why are those included but this one is "unusable"? And speaking of people instantly using their mobile phone cams, why has not a single photo been produced of a contrail from a Buk missile, which lasts for about ten minutes, IIRC? Any kind of junk and nonsense implicating the rebels in the downing of MH17 is fine for the article, but the slightest mention of information which casts doubt upon the official US account is "unusable". – Herzen (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: There was an alleged contrail sighting with a claimed timestamp of 13:25 UTC, you can find this photo all over the net, e.g. here: [54]. And it is not included in the article, I assume for the same reason that there are no reliable second sources for it. So what? --PM3 (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: That is nowhere near as prominent as the photo of a Buk contrail that is contained in the Russian engineers' report. – Herzen (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have great admiration for USchick, because while she identifies as Ukrainian, she wants this article to be objective. So I adopted her logic that since we all know that edits which attempt to bring even an infinitesimally small level of objectivity to this article will be instantly reverted, a single revert of an edit which attempts to bring in NPOV amounts to an edit war.

Note that it has not even occurred to anybody but PM3 to produce some kind of argument as to why this BBC video should not be mentioned by the article. Editors, adhering to their battleground stance with grim determination, know that they have the power of numbers on their side, so the nuisance of rationally discussing content issues can be avoided. – Herzen (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, more provocation. Geogene (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that in the same sentence, you are accusing others of "battleground stance" AND admitting that you're trying to start edit wars to "prove a WP:POINT", right? Volunteer Marek 00:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

About people pulling out their cell phones: this location in rural Ukraine, and residents with options have left. Over 1 million people have fled, so babushka with a cell phone, even if she has one, wouldn't know how to use the video feature, or probably still has a flip phone. USchick (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet there are statements by witnesses saying they could see those fighter planes, but not one statement by a witness who says he/she saw a SAM contrail. – Herzen (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like something might come of this edit of mine after all. Usernick told me on my Talk page that the BBC put a reedited version of their video back on their Web site. The edited video still contains interviews with witnesses who said they could see those fighter planes near MH17. Here is the Google translation of the blog post stating that the BBC published the reedited version of this report. – Herzen (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, it seems that there is no more opposition to the idea to refer to this BBC video. What do you think should be said about the video, and where to this info should be added?Usernick (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Defence officials in Moscow have suggested that a Ukrainian fighter jet caused Flight MH17 to crash, but Tuesday’s report made no mention of any military aircraft in its airspace." [55] Stickee (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Stickee, and what is your point? The report made no mention of many other things as well. And in any case, the issue here is how to report on the BBC video.Usernick (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov expressed dissatisfaction that the report does not mention the presence of military aircraft in the area, and as far as I know, the DSB never responded to his criticism. – Herzen (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: How about this: "Three witnesses told the BBC Russian News Service that they saw a military jet near MH17 around the time that it exploded." You speak Russian, so please confirm that that wording accurately represents the content of the TV news report. (I guess that the reason that the earlier edit of this report is better known is that no one has added English subtitles to the new edit, as far as I know.) I suggest placing this sentence at the end of the paragraph in the cause of crash section that begins with "On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference". I hope that people will not consider this placement to be SYNTH. This is the least confusing place to put this. – Herzen (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Can you please link to the video? It will have to be a reliable source to be considered. USchick (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This article in other languages

With the help of Google Translate I have checked every version of this article in other languages. Nearly every big article in other language covers this event considerably better than the English version. Namely, no single party is blamed and alternative theories/viewpoints are discussed. The English version is pretty much an exception and I believe it is due to its editor's POV pushing and reluctance to accept non-Western theories. Articles in the following languages present multiple theories of this event: German, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, Dutch, Swedish, Ukrainian, Korean, Croatian, Czech, Bosnian and Urdu. Go ahead and read them if you don't believe me. If we are going to use other languages as a basis for the English version, then in my opinion the best ones (most detailed) to use are the following: German, Spanish, French, Russian and Ukrainian. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia in whatever language is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I will argue the other way. The Russian propaganda primarily attempts to promote the impression that MH 17 was downed by an SU-25. However at Talk:Sukhoi_Su-25#Global_Service_Ceiling I notice that a good dozen languages list a service ceiling of just 7km for the SU-25, making it impossible for it to intercept an airliner crusing at 10km. Consequently, for the propaganda to work the service ceiling of the SU-25 needs to be higher. And lo and behold, the Russian version (last I checked) lists a service ceiling of no less than 14.9km, while the Arabic and Georgian versions list a service ceiling of 10km. I find that rather telling. PS. Anyone with knowledge about wiki-bots are welcome to comment on my idea for a global-bot on the aforementioned talk page. Lklundin (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There are diffent versions of the SU-25 with different service ceilings. And almost all articles in the WP on that plane have been heavily manipulated or "worked over" after the russian federation blamed an SU-25. Alexpl (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line remain that Wikipedia in whatever language is not a reliable source. So can we close this thread. Arnoutf (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No, we cannot. Why do you rush to closing threads? The point is not about Wikipedia (in other languages) being a reliable source. The point is that the English version of this article is poorly written, biased and not neutral, unlike articles in other languages. Also, if a source was used in other languages then surely it can be used here. The other languages use the same Wikipedia, with the same rules, with the same definition of a reliable source. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

We heard that before. Did you read the archive of this discussion? There is nothing new in your request - I remember user Herzen asking for the same thing as you do. Then he asked to include a dubious statement from a retired russian colonel who said a BUK strikes only "from above", to claim it must have been an attack by an aircraft. So why is this article "biased"? Is it, maybe, Girkins vkontakte post in the lede :)))) Alexpl (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case the argument is two sided. If we decide not to use a source, surely Wikipedias in other languages should not use it either. Arnoutf (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the decision about using/not using a source should be black and white, and well defined. IMHO the decision rules haven't been properly followed in this article. Otherwise why would so many articles in other languages differ in their sources from this one? 118.210.196.217 (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Different Wikipedias actually have different rules and different sources. And they're all tertiary sources (and even that is really being generous). Crowd-sourced sources are generally not reliable. Volunteer Marek 17:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously that argument hasn't been settled, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion (I remember the previous request from Herzen). Guys you have to be more accommodating and make more of an effort to understand us. You cannot say no to EVERY single request that we make. We are not actually asking all that much. All we want is a little neutrality and coverage of other theories. You can still keep all the current content (about BUK), as long as you provide alternative explanations like in articles of other languages. Is this really asking that much? 118.210.196.217 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to include relevant information from any reliable, non biased neutral source. But accepting fallacies as reason like you ask us to do in this thread is indeed asking too much. Arnoutf (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexpl wrote: 'Then he asked to include a dubious statement from a retired russian colonel who said a BUK strikes only "from above"'. FYI, the preliminary report from the DSB states (as a caption to figure 10): 'Cockpit floor with floor parts showing puncture holes (red circles) coming from above the floor'. So the radar guided SAM worked perfectly: The proximity fuze went off as it was right next to and slightly above the cockpit, denying the pilots even the slight protection from the cockpit floor and their seats to instantanously incapacitate them thus preventing even a mayday to be sent. So in this case the retired Russian colonel seems to have gotten his facts straight, thus only his agenda is off. Lklundin (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Without exact knowledge of the planes alignment to the horizon in the moment of impact, thats impossible to say. But I really dont think that the BUK is a SAM that has been designed to target the crew - in order to down a plane... Alexpl (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The flight recorder shows that MH 17 was flying straight and level at the moment of impact, leaving little room for roll/pitch. Further, the article quotes a ballistics specialist explaining that 'since it struck the cockpit rather than an engine it was probably a radar guided, rather than heat seeking, missile'. That is not quite the same as saying that a radar quided missile is designed to hit the cockpit, but it is close - and actually hitting the cockpit follows the standard military doctrine of also trying to kill the expensive-to-replace personnel, rather than just targetting the hardware. So I will stand by my statement that the SAM worked perfectly (against this wholly defenceless target). Lklundin (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alexpl: PM3 convinced me that the interview with that Russian officer was not worth pursuing. I can change my mind in response to valid arguments made by other editors. If only the same could be said for editors who think the truth is out there about who downed MH17. Since this bickering is going to go indefinitely, perhaps, for the sake of brevity, I should start referring to editors who are not willing to make the article indicate that more than one theory exists about this subject as "MH17 truthers".

By the way, that Russian officer, Mikhail Krush, is a major general and he is not retired. – Herzen (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Mixed that with the ret. east german colonel. Alexpl (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Chinese reaction

In the section on Russian media coverage there is a statement "Media coverage of the crash in Russia has differed from coverage by other worldwide media". So, for checking whether this statement is correct, I have searched what Chinese media says about the incident.

One of the most widely reported Chinese statements is this one: "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." (see e.g. http://chinadailymail.com/2014/07/21/chinas-response-to-the-mh17-tragedy-condemn-the-west/ )

I think that this statement should be added to the lead or reactions section. Also, I think that this statement proves that there is no basis for the separate "Russian media coverage" section.Usernick (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are more sources showing why there should be no separate "Russian media coverage" section:

"Western powers largely alone in condemnation of Russia

In Kiev, Brussels, Washington and Ottawa, the response to the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was angry and almost unanimous: The evidence was seen as clearly pointing at Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine, which means Moscow itself was at least partly to blame.

But while Western powers like to refer to the “international community” when mustering a case they believe in, such solidarity doesn’t really exist. Among Russia’s allies – most crucially, its fellow members of the BRICS club of emerging powers (Brazil, India, China and South Africa) – the initial response to the tragedy was silence, followed by increasing skepticism of the evidence presented by the U.S. and Ukrainian governments." (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/western-powers-largely-alone-in-condemnation-of-russia/article19735260/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernick (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The story of "Russia against the rest of the world", as presented here in the article, indeed is bogus. While it looks like the majority of the world supports the "Western" position, there are several countries which pefer the Russian or a neutral POV. --PM3 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that the majority of the world supports the "Western" position on MH17. The population of China, India, Russia, Brazil, Iran combined is very big. Of course, there is no unity in each of these countries; but there is no unity in the West as well. If I remember correctly, a Czech MP referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods in the context of MH17. And I learnt about this plan from Zeit, FAZ, or Spiegel for the first time.Usernick (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Those two links may be opinion pieces. But maintaining a separate roped-off area devoted to Russian sources is not an ideal practice, it looks like a POV fork and also raises issues of weight. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. If we do a good job of explaining what happened, it won't be necessary to play "he said she said." USchick (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Media coverage of the crash in Russia has differed from coverage by other worldwide media" should probably be reworded. Note that is sourced though. And that's also, as pointed out above, the reason why it makes sense to have a separate section dedicated to the coverage in Russian media. It is something that has been widely discussed in sources (unlike coverage in Brazil, India, China or South Africa). Honestly, there's even enough source attention there to have a separate article there on this topic - and in fact this may be a good idea if this article gets to large. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest rearranging the section on Russian media coverage into a section dedicated to the statements concerning coverage differences between various media.

Other sources that may be added to such section are: " "The one-sided accusation [from the West] is not surprising in light of their long-time stance on the crisis in eastern Ukraine, and their attitude towards Russia’s absorption of Crimea in March.” This is broadly consistent with the editorial stances taken by most mainstream Chinese publications." (http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/mh17-china-defends-russia-criticizes-the-west/)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101852007#. , http://time.com/3011538/malaysia-airlines-ukraine-crash-china-response-mh17-russia/

http://www.thewestwire.com/germanys-largest-public-broadcaster-admits-too-little-russian-interests-in-ukraine-coverage/

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/mh17-the-interim-score/ Usernick (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, what you need is secondary sources which talk about how this event was covered in particular media. NOT cherry picked instances of how this event was covered in particular media. We do have such secondary sources for how it was covered in Russian media. I'm not seeing it for other countries' media. Volunteer Marek 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Several of the sources that I provided indeed talk about the position of the West, Western governments, U.S. and other Western nations, or even U.S. and Australian officials.

However, there is a source saying "The premature trial by Western media is not based on known facts and logic.". Another source says: "Another German TV channel – ZDF, which has also been criticized by its viewers for inaccurate reporting – has lately tried to get off the hook by mocking Western media’s coverage of the Ukrainian crisis. The black-and-white parody presented a German general in the times of World War I, who had to cope with the recent developments in Ukraine. The massacre in Odessa, the MH17 tragedy, the Russian aid convoy – these were the events he tried to get across to an editor of a fictional newspaper, probably inspired by the work of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth." Another source says "Numerous new, potentially troubling aspects of the story have emerged over the past ten days, however, and they should be scrutinized if and when there is an impartial investigation. For now, they remain underreported or simply ignored in the Western media coverage of the event."Usernick (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first "source" is a quote from Chinese state-run media. The second is RT. The third is an opinion piece in a think-tank's magazine. Stickee (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with these sources by default, but I will read previous discussions concerning reliability of these sources when I find time for this. Meanwhile, I would like to ask you to provide more specific rationale for excluding these sources in this specific case. I am not aware of any blanket prohibition.

Yet another source says "The British press has been particularly ready to shoot from the hip (the Sun proclaimed “Putin’s Missile” brought down MH17 well ahead of evidence that it was a missile, or linked to Russia). (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/western-media-coverage-ukraine-crisis-russia)

I remember there were several publications in German mainstream press, but do not remember if they specifically mentioned MH17.Usernick (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, as it is noted in the beginning of this section, there is a problem with the statement "Media coverage of the crash in Russia has differed from coverage by other worldwide media", as it follows from the above quotes on Chinese and BIC's media (see e.g. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/western-powers-largely-alone-in-condemnation-of-russia/article19735260/). Let's discuss what options we have.Usernick (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)