Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Citation of a RIA News story to verify a Ukraine Today story

On my Talk page, My very best wishes is repeatedly telling me that I should self-revert this edit. The sentence from the text of the article that is involved here reads thus: "Also in December 2014 the leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, said he saw MH17 shot out of the sky by two Ukrainian jets." This sentence was accompanied by one citation, of Ukraine Today, the article of which states this:

Zakharchenko was quoted by Russia's state news agency RIA Novosti as saying;

Oleksandr Zakharchenko, The leader of Kremlin-backed insurgents: "I saw how it happened. There were two aircraft and there was the Boeing. Then two planes flew away and Boeing fell. The DNR (Donetsk People's Republic) does not shoot down planes for two reasons. Firstly - we are people, not beasts and the secondly – we have no such technical means (to do so)."

All I did was track down that RIA Novosti story that Ukraine Today referred to and added it as a source. This simply strikes me as good and standard encyclopedic practice. We are used to news outlets publishing stories about stories by a different news outlet. In such cases, it is desirable for Wikipedia to cite the original story. Why should it be any different in this case? Yet here is what My very best wishes said on my Talk page:

I think you should self-revert simply because this page is under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom (you know about) and because you are currently engaged in edit war. Is not that a reason for you?

The edit I made was utterly neutral and simply verified the observation made in the article's text. (And making one edit that so far is standing hardly constitutes being "currently engaged in edit war".) What does that have to do with ARBCOM? If somebody can explain to me why I should self-revert here, I will do it. – Herzen (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Judging by their edit summary, I think Lute88 was attempting to undo the addition of the text altogether, but didn't do it right. Their position was that the sentence (beginning with "Also in December 2014...") was undue. Stickee (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that explanation. I must say that I was confused by that edit summary mentioning "Russian propaganda", since the text in question was based on a Ukraine Today story. I might as well say that I cannot take Zakharchenko's claim that he saw how MH17 was downed seriously. If he had, he would have said so long ago. So if this is Russian propaganda, it is very bad propaganda. I think it should be obvious to everyone why Ukraine Today picked this story up: it is because it makes the DPR leadership look very silly. Apparently, Lute88 and My very best wishes don't understand that. I follow Russian blogs pretty closely, but have not seen this new revelation of Zakharchenko's mentioned anywhere. I imagine it is an embarrassment to everybody. – Herzen (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is both notable and that "it makes the DPR leadership look very silly". I don't have a problem with this being in the article, but honestly, I don't think it's THAT notable that it absolutely must be included. So either way is fine with me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's "an embarrassment to everybody", Herzen, then why were you arguing with Marek and I in October to defend RIA's reliability? You declared, with respect to another matter, that "Everything RIA reports there is true. ... So this report making "crystal clear" that RIA is not a reliable source is not the case at all." You even tried to draw an equivalency between RIA and the NYT, saying "The NY Times has published plenty of stories that it had to retract, so RIA occasionally making a mistake means nothing." Given this, you obviously believe RIA is RS, and the presumptive reason you want this added is to use it as RS. I believe you are pretending to be "confused" because "Russian propaganda" clearly refers to RIA, where this material originates, a source you've never conceded is not RS. You would have changed the "Also" phrasing if you truly thought this claim was an "embarrassment" and not equivalent to what was reported in the previous sentence by the Dutch news service. This material does not pass the RS test, and accordingly shouldn't be presented as if it does. That means the double citation, creating the cursory appearance of multiple RS support, is misleading.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've now made it clearer in the inline text the nature of the sourcing. I take it you will not object, Herzen, given your contention that your editing here "was utterly neutral" and simply intended to make more transparent the sourcing as opposed to beefing up the apparent reliability of the material.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: As far as I can tell, your understanding of what reliability of a source entails is muddled. I also believe that Volunteer Marek and I see completely eye to oye on the subject of this Talk section. I maintain my position that RIA Novosti is at least as reliable as the NY Times. All RIA did is report Zakhachenko's strange claim (and I called it a "strange claim" in my edit summary). It did not say that this claim was true, or that it could be confirmed. So how does RIA's publishing this story in any way suggest that RIA is an unreliable source? If RIA were a half-decent propaganda outlet, it would not have published this story, because Zakharchenko's claim is preposterous. Volunteer Marek understands this (I'm not saying that he would agree with my last statement, but he understands what is going on here in terms of sourcing and the propaganda issues involved), but for some reason you can't. You seem to have this knee-jerk response that all Russian sources lie, so that any citation of a Russian source threatens you, because for you, Wikipedia is nothing more nor less than a battleground. Finally, for some reason it is beyond your capacity for comprehension that if a news story by one news outlet is about a news story published by another news outlet, Wikipedia should cite the story by the second news outlet so that readers can know that the claims made by the first news outlet are true. – Herzen (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Why were you reverting another editor in order to add something that is still 2nd hand relative to Zakharchenko if repeaters of Zakharchenko's claims are doing nothing more than repeat? Please explain the relevance of citing RIA Novosti if citing RIA says nothing about the reliability of the claim. As for "Wikipedia should cite the story by the second news outlet", if I didn't agree with that then I've wouldn't have called attention to the "second news outlet" right in the body of the article, would I?-Brian Dell (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I will also note that with respect to that RIA Novosti story about the Ukrainians harvesting the organs from 300 bodies in the field, you replied to wave away "RIA occasionally making a mistake" and state "The problem is that exaggerated claims about the number of bodies in common graves were published..." Given that no sooner does RIA Novosti mention the organ harvesting conspiracy theory than proceed into laying it out in the form of an extended quote (prefaced by "В этой же информации сказано"), you now seem to be saying that in fact there's no problem at all with that story! "All RIA did is report [the] strange claim" about Ukrainians organ harvesting, right? Please clarify for us whether there is indeed a "problem" or not with these RIA stories quoting utterly unreliable sources (and RIA not making it clear its view that what's quoted is not to be believed if that's truly RIA's view).--Brian Dell (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

RIA Novosti is not reliable and shouldn't be included, especially if we have a reliable source which represents the statement. My comment above was referring to the statement itself not to RIA Novosti. As to why they published it, and how they see it, I think the fact that they end the story: "На этой неделе российские следователи получили доказательства причастности украинского штурмовика Су-25 к крушению авиалайнера." - "This Sunday Russian investigators showed evidence of something-something Ukrainian fighter jet SU-25 in the airplane's collapse" (my translation). In other words, RIA Novosti takes Zakharchenko's statement at face value . They are trying to make it appear legit by coupling it with that BS claim from that "anonymous witness" who says he saw Voloshin do it with his own two eyes. My belief is that they know that many people in Russia, who really want to believe that Ukrainians did it, are likely to buy it. This is propaganda for home consumption, they know rest of the world won't believe it, but don't care. Either that or they're just a sloppy propaganda machine (were they the ones who published the faked photographs too? If so, then it might very well be the latter).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

RIA Novosti publishes a claim Herzen concedes is an "embarrassment" and then contends that this does not reflect poorly on RIA because we're not supposed to shoot the messenger. RIA is just passing the claim on, no editorial judgment used. Yet WP:RS mentions "editorial judgment" as "an indispensable part of the process" and "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control..." and "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." A lack of editorial judgment is not a feature, Herzen, it's a bug.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2014

The line: |summary = Airliner shootdown

A more accurate link would be |summary = Airliner shootdown

70.25.37.181 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Next Steps, Yet Again

When User:Guy Macon closed the moderated dispute resolution thread on this article, about a week ago, I said that any given editor had five options, of which two were imprudent. The first (prudent) was to leave this article alone. Since some editors here belong to so-called camps, who are trying to impose POV as to who shot the airplane down, that is unlikely but prudent. The second and third imprudent options were to edit-war, and to file new WP:ANI threads. Edit-warring would lead to blocks. New ANI threads will either be ignored by the community or will be treated as boomerangs. I also mentioned two options, the fourth and fifth, involving arbitration. Those were a request for a full evidentiary hearing, a new case, or the use of arbitration enforcement. I mentioned that any request for a new case should specify why a new case was necessary. I pointed out that Ukraine is in Eastern Europe, so that this article is within the scope of WP:ARBEE and is subject to arbitration enforcement. A request for a new case should have specified why the ArbCom needed to hold a full evidentiary hearing, rather than to let its administrators deal with specific violations. I and others asked whether there was: a request for site-bans rather than topic-bans (AE normally does not hand out site-bans); a need for secret evidence due to sock-puppetry (only the ArbCom is trusted to handle secret evidence); or a request for the ArbCom to impose content guidance (neither AE nor the ArbCom imposes content guidance). User:RGloucester then filed a case request. However, there was no explanation of why the ArbCom was being asked to conduct a full evidentiary hearing, only of disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Some arbitrators voted to Decline the case. No argument was given why a full evidentiary hearing was needed. RGloucester than said that he was withdrawing the filing. (I am not sure whether a filing can be withdrawn after other parties have requested its acceptance, but that is beside the point.) He also said that he wouldn't be going to AE and that no one else would be going to AE. That is unproductive and peremptory. He still hasn't explained why AE can't handle the case. He did refer to tribalization and polarization of the article, but said that AE would further tribalize the article. He didn't say why. Any particular AE request is against one editor, although one filer can request sanctions against multiple editors. Any arbitration finding contains sanctions against one editor at a time. Arbitration enforcement is still available, and his withdrawal cannot guarantee that other editors will not pursue arbitration enforcement. Tendentious and disruptive editing is still likely to result in topic-bans. Just because the case isn't being reheard by ArbCom doesn't mean that the edit-warring and quarreling can continue. Use judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an article on a contentious subject. Sorry, you're gonna get some quarreling - and in fact that's as it should be. You're also going to get some reverting - that is also as it should be - though by standards of a typical contentious article there has been hardly any edit warring on this one. Some people are blowing this whole thing out of proportion, and others are trying to over micro-manage it. Soon we'll be cursed with the blessings of too much advice.

ArbCom does not do "full evidentiary hearings". It's not a court of law. It's a step - the last one - in the dispute resolution process. The request for the case was very vague, basically a "there's trouble at this article, please take care of it" kind of thing. Vague bad faithed accusations (like "edit warring and quarreling") aside, I believe I was the only one who provided evidence of specific user misconducted... and I strongly believe(d) a case was not needed!

But like I said at the request; before I was too lazy or AGFed too much to file WP:AE reports. That's not going to be the case in the future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to submit an AE request, feel free to do so. The idea that ArbCom can only work for "site bans" and the like is absurd. Just take a look at the recent Landmark Worldwide case. Their job is to arbitrate disputes, not to site ban editors, unless that is warranted. Tendentious and disruptive editing isn't likely to result in a topic ban, given that no topic bans have been imposed on anyone editing this article. AE will not work because it will cause more polarisation. Anyone seen to target one editor in one camp, will inevitably be railed against by that camp, and vice-versa. An involved party doing this is a recipe for even more disaster, which is what I said when I talked about tribalism. I believe the evidence of a systematic dispute across many noticeboards was provided. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for any WP:AE requests at this time. There was in the past, but it didn't happen, there might be in the future. WP:AE requests are regularly filed by involved parties.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

First, to both editors, please look at what I did and not did not write. I did not write that ArbCom only does full site-bans. They do site-bans, topic-bans, and occasionally interaction bans. I meant that AE does not do site-bans, so that if anyone was requesting a full site-ban, they should request ArbCom. Also, an ArbCom proceeding is an evidentiary hearing with an evidence phase. That is the only advantage that it has over AE, is a long evidence phase. To VM, thank you for saying that you will go to AE if it is necessary. To all of the editors on this case, either work collaboratively or go to AE. RGloucester, it still isn't clear what you expected ArbCom to do that AE wouldn't do. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I was asking a neutral third party to investigate the systematic problems with the editing environment surrounding this article, and impose sanctions or take other measures as appropriate. AE is not systematic, and that's its problem. It looks at individuals, rather than the big picture. RGloucester — ☎ 17:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• @RGlouster. Repeatedly claiming without evidence that people belong to "camps" (like here) on administrative noticeboards and other pages means casting aspersions and sanctionable. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing one particularly troublesome individual from a topic area can do wonders for it. I've seen it happen, rotten apples and all that. Anyway, this is getting way off topic - this is still the talk page for the article and that's what should be discussed here. We can continue this conversation on somebody's talk page if you'd like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

MVBW, if you want to sanction me, go ahead. There is no doubt that these Ukrainian crisis-related articles are dominated by polarised camps. I'm not judging either camp, but the existence of these camps is not a question. I wish those that edit this article well. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not consider myself to be a member of any "camp". Do you? Same with many others. If you want to accuse someone of being a pro-something "camp member", please do it with respect to specific person, on appropriate noticeboard (such as WP:AE), and most important, with evidence. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant by "camps". I was not implying advocacy. Regardless, I'm not commenting on this article any further. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You're a self-declared "Marxist." If it would be a pejorative and/or irrelevant to Wikipedia editing to place you in the Marxist "camp", then I suggest you extend to the rest of us the same courtesy you expect to be extended to yourself, RGloucester. Your "camps" taxonomy is a piece with the "nothing [to] do with a 'false balance'. Absolutely nothing" line you've been pushing that creates a bogus equivalency between the "camps". How about asking the UN to review the "tribalism" going on between North Korea and South Korea, and by extension China and the U.S., circa 1950 - 1953? Note that the UN DID review and... threw in with and officially endorsed one of those so-called tribal camps! What the AE route invites you to do is to open your mind by asking you to name names and consider whether one editor or several editors might actually be more in the wrong than others.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Still Do Not Understand

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

There is no point in dwelling on the past.

---

Perhaps I am not paying attention or am confused, but I still do not understand why User:RGloucester, who filed the request for new arbitration, is so pessimistic about arbitration enforcement. What did he want the ArbCom to do that the administrators at AE do not do? Some of the arbitrators asked that question also, and it hasn't been answered, which is why the case is probably being declined. Really: What was or is he asking from the ArbCom that cannot be done under WP:ARBEE? I am aware that there are "camps" and that the article is "tribalized". Camps and tribalization are the basis for many, possibly most, cases of imposition of discretionary sanctions, that edit-wars occur because editors are divided into camps reflecting the unfortunate fact that there are real wars out there in the world and editors take national sides. Discretionary sanctions have been used in multiple regions having ongoing histories of wars, such as Eastern Europe, Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan (history of war, even if no current war), and so on. The administrators at arbitration enforcement are even-handed and deal with disruptive editing from both camps. It still isn't clear what RGloucester wanted the ArbCom to do that AE cannot do. It is true that AE will only sanction specific editors, but it has been known to sanction editors on both sides of conflicts. Maybe I have missed something in someone's mental model, but what was the ArbCom being asked to do? Either ArbCom or AE can hand out topic-bans to both camps. ArbCom can hand out site bans, which AE cannot do, but I didn't see a request for site bans. ArbCom can, in rare cases, receive secret evidence; I didn't see a reference to secret evidence. Was ArbCom being asked to make a content decision? It doesn't do that any more than AE does. Either I don't understand, or RGloucester doesn't understand. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is too bad if you don't understand. Stop pinging me to this page. If you have questions, take them to my user page. I may or may not answer them. RGloucester — ☎ 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Lead change

I have just reverted a change in the lead that specifically says ut was shot down by separtists, this is not proven so I have reverted it (twice) to the previously agreed wording, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK User:Mehmetaergun has decided to edit war rather than discuss what is a major change to the lead which now declares that the aircraft was shot down "by pro-Russian separatists" without providing any evidence. Not sure I want to revert it again in this minefield of an article anybody around who can help? MilborneOne (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So much fanfare for moving (nothing else, only moving) a clause from the ~5th sentence to the ~3rd sentence, along with its citation... As far as I can see, MilborneOne is overzealous in her/his reverts. The reader of this article will be interested in who shot down the plane and most people will want to read that as soon as possible in the article. Before my edit, that info was nicely buried in a later sentence. So, just specify it as such and put it in the lead. Put an "allegedly" if you care so ("allegedly shot down by"). Mehmetaergun (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The diff is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=639955404&oldid=639934802 Mehmetaergun (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read your change, you changed the context of the text to say the the aircraft was "shot down by pro-Russian separatists" as a statement of fact (not supported by the attached reference) from a section that says "According to American and German intelligence sources, the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists" - clearly not the same thing. The reader is interested who shot it down and if you have any evidence then please provide it to support your change, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The reader is indeed probably interested. But since there is no formal ruling yet, nobody knows at this time. So we cannot give this information. So please do not change it. (in other words I agree with MilborneOne on reverting this) Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with MilbourneOne, no one knows who or what shot it down. SaintAviator lets talk 03:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

- how can anyone think different to everything is unknown miasma, saint aviator? we don't know nuffink for sure - how putin is reinventing warfare Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

interesting pic

Soap/Forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
pro russian fighters, posing themselves with the crash. http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2015/01/07/1227176/667769-5c224fe8-95d7-11e4-985a-7acd3b83aa30.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

corrective.org/Spiegel latest investigation

just putting this here in case any german speakers can use it - implicates Russian 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade (Kursk)? [1] Sayerslle (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This part you mention is the Bellincat stuff. What is really new in the Spiegel to me: 1. Mentions, that people spoke to the russian crew in Torez. 2. Speaks to witness near launch site (who anwers correctly to unspecific question: being asked "Did you see the vehicles" he answered "no, not me but someone else saw this vehicle (hence, he put the plural question in a singular answer). Quite a few interesting details like this. What you can see is a preview online of a even broader article in the printed edition. --Anidaat (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for that guide to what the material relates to. Sayerslle (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a bit more.--Anidaat (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

BUK is not rocket shell () shell be heard for many miles () BUK is a big rocket. but no one heard it, did not see. Why is it not mentioned in the article?

This may be true,http://lenta.ru/articles/2014/07/18/buk/ but doubts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx7KQmSzQfU that there is no published evidence (flame rocket motor during the flight, the rocket launch sound, sound rocket flight, the trail in the sky from the missiles warhead explosion noiseand the effects at aircraft wreckage left behind by from the the warhead (many hundreds of fragments = punctures)). Any of effects for the rocket start, noticeable at 10 or even 100 times smaller missiles (MANPADS for example start from the ground can really be seen Pilot-target). The explosion of the warhead missiles Buk is very noticeable. Quote (translated) - Why no pictures or insurgent rocket contrail after an impressive start? Why no journalists BBC, nor staff TheTelegraph, who conducted extensive research in the snow and in areas south of it, could not find any local eyewitness alleged missile launch?.http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikukr/252982-podrobnyy-ekspertnyy-analiz-krusheniya-boinga.htmlhttp://via-midgard.info/news/in_midgard/reportazh-rassledovanie-bbc-vnezapno-propal-s.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.3.56 (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Spiegel Journalist spoke to witness who saw it. There is two photographs of the trail of the Buk.--Anidaat (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Fail, Anidaat, been covered before. SaintAviator lets talk 01:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@lets talk If you want people to totally dismiss what you are trying to say, disrespectful comments like the one above is the way to go about it. Just saying Andrewgprout (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree all people will dismiss this. Im not the first and wont be the last person to alert a poster that something has been done before esp in this article. In fact the pictures are so silly its a no brainer. The article has a history of problems, people need to look at the archives to see whats been covered. Andrewgprout your level of disrespectful matches mine BTW, which does not bother me. SaintAviator lets talk 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No original research. Which is what this is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's the phrase I was looking for Kudzu1. SaintAviator lets talk 07:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Aviation accident trivia

@Liam-dino: Why so many comparisons to other accidents? It's true that there's lots of information out there to compare on things like deaths, how many months passed between accidents, and that sort of thing, but is that information really important enough to add? Useful and interesting information is good, but adding less useful information without discrimination is actually harmful to an article because it makes it harder to get at what's important. Sometimes this comes down to opinion and personal judgement. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Better, but I'm still surprised to see it ranked it by death toll in six different categories. Geogene (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you can loose most of it from the lead all that is needed is The crash of Flight 17 was the fifth Boeing 777 hull loss and was Malaysia Airlines' worst incident and its second of the year, after the unrelated disappearance of Flight 370 four months earlier. the rest is just trivia and certainly out of place in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. SaintAviator lets talk 23:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Pulled the excessive statistics, mentioned deadliest shootdown to date in a prominent part of the body, left that core sentence in the lead. Geogene (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The trivia was getting a bit excessive. I also fixed up some punctuation. Stickee (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Background

Is it me but the "Background" section appears to be growing with unbalanced comments which perhaps should be in a conspiracy article. I thought that the flight level stuff had been discussed before and it couldnt climb because of other traffic and I am not sure where the bollox about Ukraine kept the airspace open to make money came from or why it is relevant. It also infers the Russians closed airspace when it knew that MH17 was on its way. We need to keep this stuff balanced and relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is some bollox in there. Theres a lot of conspiracy theory blaming Militas / Russia. For instance theres a bit about a cargo plane shot down, saying the US has evidence it was shot down by Russia. When you back track the link and the link in the link, you get, 'It was not immediately clear who shot down the plane or the circumstances surrounding the incident'. This is loose canon writing. Sheer Bollox. SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a stab at Ukraine in the "overflight fees" and a likely stab at Russia in "closing a few hours earlier". There's also the claim that separatists captured a Buk from Ukraine, seems like both sides have since denied this and the narrative has moved on. And I'm not sure if all the military shootdowns in July are relevant, including the one mentioned in the "Aftermath" section. If those are from MANPADs or from missiles fired from within Russia, probably not. Geogene (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

Please add the following to the article.

"Independent investigation by bellingcat concluded after examining open sources information that "there is undeniable evidence that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on July 17th [in Snizhne]. The Buk missile launcher was unloaded in Snizhne approximately three hours before the downing of MH17 and was later filmed minus one missile driving through separatist-controlled Luhansk....the same Buk was part of a convoy travelling from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade in Kursk to Ukrainian border.

These conclusions are almost identical to findings of the CORRECT!V German investigative team. [The CORRECT!V findings are already in the current article]

Sources: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2014/11/08/origin-of-the-separatists-buk-a-bellingcat-investigation/ http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/new-report-says-it-proves-russian-forces-downed-flight-mh17-377063.html (this source is already in use in the current article under number 191)

71.193.117.8 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence starting with "According to Ostanin, the..." (sort of) already has this information. But it's possible it could be adjusted to include the wider Bellingcat report. Stickee (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

bellingcat is not a reliable source.118.210.244.236 (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

airport worker witnessed ukrainian jet using air to air missiles

This was big on russian tv. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30597555 118.210.244.236 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"In an interview in Russian with his back to the camera, the man, whose head was blurred and his voice digitally altered, said that an Su-25 plane that had taken off armed with air-to-air missiles before MH17 had been shot down had returned without its weaponry." Is that really "witnessing" anything? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In any case we have discussed this eye witness report before (look it up in the archives) and decided that even if this were true any relation (even implicit relations) to the MH17 crash would be stretching this too far into speculation. Arnoutf (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Banners

This article really ought to have a banner or two, making it clear that nearly all of the content is disputed.Keith-264 (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Banners aren't used as disclaimers, we have the general disclaimer for that. Stickee (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There really ought to be something on the page.Keith-264 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Been over this a number of times. Unless objections can be adequately substantiated, this amounts to just WP:IDONTLIKEIT POV pushing. In fact, the constant problem has been people complaining that they're NOT allowed to push their wacky POV or conspiracy theories in the article. That is not a justification for tag-bombing the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith; I've had a look at some of the sources, which don't inspire confidence.Keith-264 (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, could you point out two, along with reasons not to use them. Geogene (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I happen to be hungry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced treatment of media sources

The article says «The Russian government-funded[274] outlet RT».

In first place, that's irrelevant for this article. There is already an article in Wikipedia about RT.

In second place, there are dozens of references to other media in this article which funded is not explicitly revealed. Among other things, we do not read in any of the BBC links that it is founded by British government, so why is make an exception exclusively in the RT case? 87.217.138.12 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, actually it is relevant. We could change it to "Russian government propaganda channel". BBC is in a different league. This has been discussed many many many times previously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I dare you to do so, let's see where is the limit of your arrogance.

Discussing whatever point many many many many times previously doesn't make you right. AFAIK there is no official policy in Wikipedia endorsing such media discrimination towards RT, so you are basing such distinction just on your own subjective opinion, which clearly violates NPOV principle. 87.217.138.12 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is common sense, not discrimination. RT as a source is too tendentious to be considered reliable. By ANY standards, not just here.--Lute88 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That discussion is out of place here, so I won't even waste a second on it. I suggest you both to officially request RT to be banned from English Wikipedia as a source, and so you keep your rational on the issue for such demand that is NOT the matter for this article. In the meanwhile, if there is no official wikipedia policy endorsing such discrimination, applying it is a violation of the fundamental NPOV policy, that unlike empty appellations to "common sense" it is actually a well-defined official Wikipedia policy. 87.217.138.12 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations of arrogance, aside from being a personal attack, pretty much indicate that you're yet another incarnation of some previous account, returning to push the same point again and again. And yes, there is such an official policy on Wikipedia. It's called reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Always amazing to see random SPAs and IPs popping up seemingly just to argue on behalf of Vladimir Putin and his propaganda machine. It is because of attempts to drive a particular and not-necessarily-true narrative, as Russian media does (in a manner well documented by reliable sources and notable commentators), that we apply scrutiny to the sources we use in articles like this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation trail to fake expert

I came to this site to see what the status of the official investigation was. The investigation hasn't been completed and yet this article is ridiculously long and filled with suspicious sources. A couple sentences into the article I read: "Evidence from open sources indicated that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on 17 July and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne" citation Kyev Post (!) who in turn cites Bellingcat (a blogger who poses as an expert and has a history of making unsubstantiated claims!) What is an "open source" anyway? Someone needs to go through this with a scalpel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.29.59 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat and US intel

From the lead: Evidence from open sources indicated that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on 17 July and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne.[9] This is based on tracing the path of the missile, analysis of shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, and that photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile.[6] Trouble is that the second sentence has nothing to do with Bellingcat, that's leftovers from when we had US statements in the lead. It's the basis for Obama blaming the separatists, not related to Bellingcat's report. I don't remember when/why the US stuff got moved out so I thought I'd point that out here. Geogene (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The "This is based on tracing the path of the missile..." sentence was previously worded saying it was the American sources. Take a look at this version of the article ("The American sources stated that their judgement was based on sensors that traced the path of the missile..."). I think wording it like in that version may be beneficial. Stickee (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Restored similar wording. That was a point of contention last August, couldn't remember how it got resolved. Geogene (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Olga Ivshina - BBC Russian Service Report of July 23, 2014

I find it very surprising that in this contentious page there is no mention of Olga Ivshina's report on July 23, 2014 as it includes both interviews with eye witnesses who claimed to see a fighter jet following the plane and debunked the supposed vapor trail in the SBU photos.

<snip - references and links to conspiracy websites removed>

BBC Introduction: "The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing."

Olga Ivshina, BBC: "The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile. We attempted to verify these photographs and information at the location."

Olga Ivshina, BBC: "We are now on the outskirts of the city of Torez. Behind me, approximately five kilometres away, is the city of Snezhnoye. And the landscape here matches the landscape that we can see on the photograph published by the Ukrainian Security Service.

To find the place from which the smoke was allegedly coming from, we adopted as markers these three poplars and the group of trees. Presumably, this is the place that can be seen on the photograph published by the SBU. And here are our markers: the three solitary poplars and the small group of trees in the distance.

The smoke that can be seen on the photograph came from somewhere over there [pointing behind her], behind my back. The SBU believes that this is a trace coming from the launch of a “BUK” missile.

However, it must be noted that there are here, approximately in the same place, the Saur-Mogila memorial, near which the fighting continues almost unabated, and a coalmine. It turns out that the smoke with the same degree of probability could have been coming from any of these locations.

Having circled around the nearby fields, we were unable to find any traces of a missile launch. Nor did the local inhabitants that we encountered see any “BUK” either."

Either you want propaganda and a one sided view or you accurately and fully try to present both sides. WMD anyone? --86.144.246.171 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those refs cited meets WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete comments on the talk pages. It makes it look as though you are simply trying to ignore any evidence contrary to your opinions. And by the way the BBC meets the ref cite needs. This evidence exists - it may not be true but it should be available to the court of public opinion. --86.144.246.171 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've put back your comment but please don't spam links to conspiracy websites which will never be of use here on encyclopedia - that just looks like you're trying to generate traffic for those sites.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't provide a BBC ref, just a conspiracy site that claimed that there has once been a BBC article. That is not WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the original BBC report, as well as an explanation by BBC who allegedly deleted it because of "editorial standards". They published an updated version later. Buzz105 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A textbook example of what makes something unreliable. Geogene (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

But it does make BBC as a source reliable, that it publicly retracts articles previously posted by themselves counts for much (of course the retracted article can no longer be used). Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the updated version can be used (in it, the locals still mention that they saw the Ukrainian jets). Buzz105 (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Except, if I recall correctly from a translation on the internet, the updated version added a fact-check/refutation from an expert saying that it's impossible for Su-25's to fly that high. Stickee (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the earlier eye witness reports (discussed here several times before) that people observed military planes flying close to a military airbase. Hardly a smoking gun. In any case I would be very wary of an eye witness who claims they can identify planes 10 km up in the air. Arnoutf (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

last map is wrong

the last map is wrong because not show the Debaltseve salient, at time under ukranian control — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.222.228 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

On July 17, Debaltseve was under separatist control. Geogene (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The prosecutor's office has denied the Netherlands 20,03,15 fact that shot down Buk

Then it was announced a refutation Media again all said lies. Netherlands officially denied media reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.201.221 (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

References

No, they did not deny anything. We covered this in the section above. The statement may be found here, which is effectively a "no comment". Stickee (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This March 19 here (Niva19 Mar 2015 Reaction to Dutch broadcast RTL News about MH17 investigation) This http: //rt.com/news/242449-netherlands-downed-buk-missile/ 20 March DISCLAIMER RTL News lied and was dismissed March 20, 2015. On the page is where you can also see the rebuttal (In Russia, in Ukraine and in Germany). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.14 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"No comment" is not a rebuttal. Your use of the word "lied" suggests you have a strcng POV to push here. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitive proof that it was a BUK missile

Dutch media RTL news has confirmed that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system. Please put this in the lede of the article. De Oranje Ridder (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This looks like the first firm evidence. Very significant. Needs to go in both artcle body and lede, and may also affect infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's in other sources too [2] [3] [4] [5].Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think this can be described in intro as a fact. This may affect other parts of this page as well because they now appear in a different light. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Fact or not, I expect a spate of edits attempting to discredit this evidence, its chain of custody and so on. Obviously, any actual weakness related to this evidence cannot be left out. Lklundin (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

They can't be left out if they are mentioned by enough WP:RSs. Standby for the onslaught of Russian media counter-claims... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Mind you, BUK Missiles are used by Russians and Ukranians alike. This news only confirms that it was shot down and by what, not by who. De Oranje Ridder (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that Ukrainians never used such missiles during this war: all planes which were downed during this war (10 to 20?), except that one, were Ukrainian planes, and all missiles used to shot down these planes belonged to Russian rebels. This should be noted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by My very best wishes (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the DSB has released a "reaction" to the news report here. Stickee (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Which basically just says "the investigation is still ongoing". RT took that and wrote that "Dutch reject new evidence". Lol.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

References

I have already added this to the article yesterday and tried to describe it in as objective way as possible. While this is indeed very interesting finding, it can and will be questioned as the evidence was collected by third parties and forensic examinators. This might be less of problem that RT tries to present, since they seem to have video evidence as well, but still... Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Dutch legal experts have commented on this topic. They agree that evidence collected by non investigators may be less strong compared to when it would be collected by the investigation team, but is likely still useable. Especially in this case there seem to be relatively little problems as there is indeed video evidence, it is well known that the RTL team was on site, and it would be almost impossible for the RTL team to get shrapnel of a used BUK missile unless found at the site. But indeed let's see what happens. Arnoutf (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

On the page is where you can also see the rebuttal (In Russia, in Ukraine and in Germany) immediately the next day. Holland denied. RTL lied. Splinter received on 6 months later (it will add the in investigation but no more.) http://rt.com/news/242449-netherlands-downed-buk-missile/ And a wonderful fak. This fragment of Ukrainian Buk (M1) but Russian (M1-2 and m2) uses a different shard. Buk has regular many thousands of fragments, found 1 why ??? hahaha This fact enough biased that trolling is imminent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.14 (talk • contribs) 24 mrt 2015 07:03‎ (UTC)

• I agree this should be included in the article, but I think the current wording ("a Russian unit that was most likely manned by a Russian crew") is somewhat far-fetched, since the original report does not explicitly state that (it was just a willful interpretation of the report by the mass media). The original report only mentions that the shard is from a BUK rocket (which is used by several countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Finland, and Georgia), and that it has the Cyrillic letter "Ц" on it (both Russian and Ukrainian alphabets are Cyrillic, and the letter is identical in them). It says absolutely nothing about "a Russian crew". Buzz105 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The archived ref I just fixed says it was a Russian battery that shot the aircraft down. - Ahunt (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"A Russian unit manned by a Russian crew"

I wonder whether it is appropriate to quote some mysterious "leaks from the ongoing Dutch investigation" in the article's lead, given that the original report has been deleted from the Jane's website, and there are no other sources confirming this information (all the other sources only mention the RTL investigation and the missile shard). As far as I remember, there were problems with using a retracted BBC report as RS. Buzz105 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally, when a media outlet pulls a story, it has good reason for doing so. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, Jane's has not explained why it yanked this particular story. I think we should cut that information for now and wait for confirmation from other sources. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we sure the story was "pulled" and not just moved behind a paywall? - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe so, since:

1)The article was initially behind the paywall (unregistered users could read only the very beginning);

2)I couldn't find any info on it in any other sources, and something like this, if this was genuine, would undoubtedly have been covered by more than one source. Buzz105 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So it's "undoubtedly" not genuine? For my part, I doubt that it's fabricated. Have you seen the Russian language video the Dutch just released? I note that officially Russia has said it is up to this Dutch-led team to determine the truth.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Dutch mainstream media now state that the investigation team appears to have strong suspicions it was a Russian BUK system operated by a Russian crew [6]. Perhaps wait a few days to see how it evolves. Arnoutf (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

MH17

Soap/Forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
why did the Russian shoot it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.4.58 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC)

British or International English?

Is now the time to make the change to International English? I understand that this was already discussed here and here. Sorry for bringing it up again. I understand that the logic last time centred around this being largely a European event, thus it appears to have been concluded that British English should prevail. Personally, I think this event was an international one. Obviously there is a significant Malaysian connection, and casualties link other English speaking countries (Australia, Canada and the States). This incident has had significant repercussions internationally (ie sanctions, accusations). Given this is British English the best choice? Using terms such as "lorry" serve to make the article harder for non-Brits to understand. I am happy to hear everyone's thoughts, even if we just decide to leave it as is. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As an American, my preference is for Commonwealth English (including dmy dates) to prevail on all articles that aren't about the United States (or other countries that use similar dialects of English, like the Philippines and other former U.S. territories) or related topics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is set in British English with Oxford spelling, and per MOS:RETAIN, will not be changed. I'm sorry if "lorry" is hard for you to understand, but we likewise don't understand American idioms. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN suggests that the current style should be maintained absent consensus which is what I am exploring here. We are open to discuss it. Actually, I am a Canadian. I also lived in Australia, they also don't use the word 'lorry' (only Brits and Irish do). In any event, you appear to be misstating the policy as a whole. MOS:ENGVAR makes it clear that Wikipedia does not prefer an particular variety of English. Furthermore, MOS:COMMONALITY makes it clear that we should be striving to use terms that are the same in all variants. It does not follow that just because someone has chosen to set the language to British English that it cannot be changed, and that is not what MOS:RETAIN says.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Australians and New Zealanders traditionally did use the word "lorry" prior to the American wave, and I'm sure that younger Australians will understand what it means. MOS:RETAIN means that the English variety is not changed unless there is a good reason to do so, and there isn't. The word "lorry" will not be wiped from the page and replaced with an Americanism in an article that is written in BrE. RGloucester — ☎ 03:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured we might be able to have an actual conversation here and look for consensus, as I have often heard you call for here. Since you have made it clear that you WP:OWN the article, I guess there is no need for further discussion here. Thanks for your courtesy.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that what you meant, RGloucester, that you are the final word on how this article is edited? Cla68 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) Hi, sorry for disturbing here, but I do really agree with RGloucester that we should maintaining the British English in most Malaysian related articles. I'm a Malaysian, and since I was in kindergarten we have learn British English. We never use the word such as "color", "recognize" or any American spelling like in the Philippines. We have frequently heard the word such as "lorry", "bus stop" and many other British words even now our entertainment shows in the television was mainly been influenced by American entertainment programmes. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 06:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what international English is? Our own article on the topic tells us that it does not exist. Arnoutf (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There isn't any such thing. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

So this thread is all about changing the language in this article into a non-existing language? That would make this whole discussion a waste of everybody's time. Let's stop it here. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should have phrased this better. I vaguely recall stumbling across an 'International English' option in a word processor once, but Arnoutf appears to be correct that there does not seem to be any consensus on 'International English' despite attempts. Unfortunately, this does not resolve the matter. I am not trying to be a stick in the mud here. What I am trying to do is call our attention to the principles set out in MOS:COMMONALITY. This is an international article, on an international encyclopedia, concerning an international event, that has international implications. MOS:COMMONALITY suggests we should be attempting to use words understood in all variants of English. My concern is that this article is clearly going to be read by English speakers in the from all over the world. We should be striving for this article to be understandable in all varieties or English. Now this is not a massive issue here. I don't think there is any need to make more of it than necessary. But it is something to discuss, and attempts to WP:OWN the article and kill discussion are frankly anti-Wikipedian Wikipedia:Five pillars. I have not gone through the article and changed the type of English used, nor am I attempting to do anything untoward here, or take any action without a broad consensus. I have simply raised this issue for discussion. It is inappropriate for editors to move to stifle conversation and any attempts to reach a consensus which might be contrary to their position. I would kindly ask everyone to assume WP:GOODFAITH and we can discuss if there is room for MOS:COMMONALITY. Statements to the effect that 'it is the way it is, and it will not be changed' are not helpful. I hope we can discuss reasons here, because in my view there is real value in striving to have Wikipedia understandable by everyone, and I think MOS:COMMONALITY backs me up on this. Best Regards--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly understandable. The "stifling" of ENGVAR-related conversations without standing is written into the MoS (MOS:RETAIN) because ENGVAR discussions are never productive. The compromise written into the guidelines allows all variants to coexist, so that all varieties of English are allowed equal and fair play. It is a messy compromise, but it prevents us from having to argue over what variety to use at every moment, and prevents editors from getting upset about finding words they don't understand, like "flashlight" or "movie theater", in articles. What is "understandable" is subjective, and every little is "understandable to everyone". I'm a great supporter of WP:COMMONALITY. That's why automobile was moved to car. However, WP:COMMONALITY only applies in cases where there is a term that is the most common in all varieties of English, where there is no divergence, as if with "car". That's not the case here. As it is clear that you understood what the word means when you read it, the problem of "lack of understanding" is nonsensical. Typing it into the search bar might help, just as I'm forced to do every time I see odd and nonsensical words or phrases like "gas" and "long distance". RGloucester — ☎ 22:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This rather long discussion could have been avoided if editors would read WP:ENGVAR. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• The BUK isn't mounted on a "lorry", it's mounted on a tracked vehicle. (Unless it's Chinese, of course) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There are wheeled Buks, too. Whether I would call such a wheeled vehicle a "lorry" is a different question. Grad rockets are launched from lorries, but Buks are launched from odd-looking military vehicles. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Might just be easier to call it a vehicle? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree it doesnt read right and you would be more likely to say "vehicle registration plates" in British English. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In that specific instance, I agree. I've fixed it up. That sentence was pretty rubbish in general. RGloucester — ☎ 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's probably why we have an article called that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: the wheeled lorry/truck is referring to the vehicle that tranported the Buk as seen in this picture [7]. While a Buk does have tracks, the entire Buk was sitting on a lorry/truck. Stickee (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that no version of English is preferred, it is at the discretion of the editors of each article. Since the article uses British English and most editors prefer it, there is no reason for change. Indeed, commonality means that we should use words current in both the UK and U.S. and other English-speaking countries, but that is not always possible. Fortunately, most of the differences are in slang expressions. TFD (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester is right on RETAIN. If "lorry" is a problem, I have no objection to replacing it with "wheeled launch vehicle" or similar. --John (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already replaced that specific instance of "lorry" with "vehicle", as it makes more sense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And I've removed the only other instance of the troublesome l-word. (I've got a feeling it was I who added it.) It really isn't important the exact name we use to describe a vehicle. --John (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Would truck be a better word? "Vehicle" gives less information to the reader. Although I guess it's not really that consequential. Stickee (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No. This article is written in British English. Regardless, I wouldn't say that it is anything other than a "vehicle" really, as it is somewhat odd by comparison to normal vehicles. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The instance I removed was in relation to vehicles used to remove bodies, not the Buk launch vehicle. --John (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this conversation was helpful, though it probably could have been a bit shorter, had I more clearly articulated what I was thinking from the start. I believe RGloucester is correct on his interpretation of MOS:RETAIN recently explained at 22:17 (ie that we should not change the overall default language from British English, short of broad consensus, and there does not seem to be any real appetite to do so). We should attempt to use universal words (also used in Brit English) where possible per MOS:COMMONALITY, as the above contributions appear to have now done. This has been the heart of my concern, so I am happy to lay this to rest with the limited qualifier that we continue to explore common terms as the article evolves. Thanks everyone.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not use words commonly used in international english. And that suspect BUK TELAR is photographed on a tow truck, heavy transport vehicle or transport semi truck trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.93.200 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no international English. Read the conversation before you comment. Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to start an edit war here, over something so mundane, but this edit[8] by @RGloucester: seems to be contrary to the above discussion. I find it ironic that the SMH[9] and Al Jazeera[10] references actually refer to the vehicles as trucks, not lorries. This edit[11] he made to the Truck article also seems inappropriate. As the Wikipedia article on Trucks originally stated, prior to RGloucester's edit, the word truck is commonly used and understood in the UK, which sounds like WP:COMMONALITY to me. I also find it interesting that this Daily Mail article[12] refers the the vehicle these bodies were loaded on as trucks. It uses the words truck six times (and does not use the term lorry or lorries at all). I really don't know why this is such a controversial issue, but I will let someone else, perhaps John, be the one to kick the hornet's nest, if he so wishes.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The bit on "truck" was unsourced. The dictionary did not support the citation. "Truck" is not a British word. It is a foreign word. You may be aware that the Daily Mail has heavily branched out into the US as a gossip paper, and has a US version. That's what you've just shown, and anyway, they do not dictate usage, and are about the lowest of the low as far as newspapers go. More useful is the BBC style guide, which proscribes "truck" as an Americanism. "Truck" is certainly understood in Britain, just as Americans will understand "lorry": as a term from "across the pond". What was agreed above was to remove "lorry" in reference to a vehicle that is not a lorry, i.e. the rocket launcher. RGloucester — ☎ 22:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"vehicle that is not a lorry, i.e. the rocket launcher.": There is a lorry/truck, as seen in this picture: [13]. Although the Buk has its own tracks, the entire Buk was transported on top of a lorry/truck. This is seen in the videos recently released by the JIT. Stickee (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We cannot look at the picture and determine what appears in it. That is WP:OR. Your comment is irrelevant. I cannot see what is in that picture, for to do so would be to violate the principles of the encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: It's not OR when the secondary sources say it:

• "MH17 breakthrough: owner of Volvo truck that transported missile fears for his life" News.com.au
• "MH17 Owner of Truck that Smuggled BUK Missile into Ukraine Identified" IBTimes
• "purportedly shows a truck carrying the Buk-M1 missile launcher" SMH

Stickee (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Is that the vehicle being referenced by the text? Why did editors above say that it was not a lorry, then? It was said that it was a "tracked vehicle". I suppose one will have to restore lorry, then. RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Never mind. I've sorted it out. It seems the editors above were confused. This was indeed a lorry, a lorry that carried the launcher into Ukraine. I've rewritten the text to make this clear, and added a secondary source. RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Truck is used, understood, and appears in most UK and Irish reporting on this issue. Put simply, the claims by RGloucester simply are not true, and I am not too shy to say so. This is just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behavior, contrary to WP:COMMONALITY. The following British newspapers use the term truck in their MH17 reporting:

• Daily Mirror[14]
• The Daily Telegraph[15]
• Daily Express[16]
• London Evening Standard[17]
• The Sun (United Kingdom)[18]
• the UK version of International Business Times[19]
• The Guardian[20][21].

The Irish also seem familiar with trucks, according to the Irish Independent[22].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The existing word was "lorry", and "lorry" remains per MOS:RETAIN. WP:COMMONALITY doesn't apply, as we don't share terms. "Truck" more commonly refers to goods wagons and the like. Everything I said was true. I provided the OED etymological analysis, and the BBC style guide. RGloucester — ☎ 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That is not how it is used in the numerous articles cited above, concerning the substance of this article. You, sir, are just a language imperialist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? I have never, ever, asked anyone to change a Wikipedia article from one variety to another, because that's both a stupid waste of time and against Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Do I dislike that "airplane" is not called "aeroplane"? Yes. Do I really care? No. Have I asked anyone to switch it around? No. That case is particularly egregious, given how it came to be. Regardless, it is irrelevant. RGloucester — ☎ 00:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried to approach this issue nicely, but it seems that was not to be. Again, other British articles talking about trucks in the manner in which the Buk was transported:

• The Daily Telegraph[23]
• The Independent[24] (also note comments from readers)
• Daily Express[25]
• Daily Mail[26]
• the UK version of International Business Times[27].

This is a mundane issue, but WP:COMMONALITY does apply, and for a reason. Hopefully, in future, if we all are a little more reasonable from the start we can avoid conflict on smaller issues like this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONALITY does not apply. I've provided RS that address the issue of the word itself, you've provided newspaper articles that use the word, which cannot be used to establish usability of the word itself. "Truck" usually refers to goods wagons, and we would not want ambiguity in our wording. Such an ambiguity would be dangerous, given that it would imply that the Buk was transported by rail. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of the term in those articles should not be so quickly dismissed. The BBC guide you cited is hardly the only authoritative RS on this issue, and does not raise any concerns about ambiguity. It just says that the BBC prefers lorry driver to truck driver. Apparently, these other publications do not. Our original Truck article also reference the Oxford Online Dictionary which included an entry for truck: "A large, heavy road vehicle used for carrying goods, materials, or troops; a lorry". This article [28] in the Daily Mail also points out that British children in a national competition used the term Garbage Truck in greater frequency than Dustbin lorry. I think it is safe to say that truck is now a British word, even if it did not start out that way. In any event, the edit you changed was the word vehicle. I don't know why you are insisting on 'lorry'. If you want to make changes from airplane to plane, aircraft or some other common term have at it. I don't actually care that much either, but I don't much appreciate being strong armed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You are once again using Daily Mail tripe, which isn't to your credit. Keep in mind that repeated WP:RS/N discussion have determined the Daily Mail is not RS. OED says no such thing. Of course, it does provide the definition you are speaking about, but labels it "American". Dictionaries are meant to be comprehensive. They are not going to exclude a definition of a word in another variety of English, just as Webster's doesn't exclude lorry (labels it "chiefly British"). RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge UK English dictionary has no problem with the word truck as far as I can see [29]. So if the Americans due to limited vocabulary have problems with understanding the word lorry, why not change it, as, as far as I can see the change of this single word doesn't change the language of this article. (In any case, can we stop this discussion and use our resources for content) Arnoutf (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I provided Webster's. It has a definition for lorry. If what you said is true, that means that Americans have no problem with the word "lorry". RGloucester — ☎ 14:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why we cant have "registration plate of the vehicle "? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, and I am sure we actually discussed and agreed on that days ago! MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It was revealed above that the "vehicle" in question was not a vehicle. It was a lorry, carrying the launcher vehicle. The change should not've been made, and seems to have been an attempt at trickery. RGloucester — ☎ 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

In my world a lorry is a type of vehicle, as is a truck. RGloucester, I think you may have "unresolved national language issues". Or maybe you're just insane. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A "vehicle" is a broad category. This particular item was not a "vehicle", but a "lorry", which is a narrow and precise category. If one says "vehicle", one could mean pushcart. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It is batshit-crazy nonsense like this that seriously makes me consider proposing the entire MoS for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I added this use of the word "lorry". If it is even slightly confusing, it really wouldn't hurt to change it to "truck" or "vehicle". Please, there are more serious matters to argue about. --John (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It isn't confusing. "Truck" refers to goods wagons, rendering it incorrect and confusing. "Vehicle" lacks specificity, and fails to differentiate between the launcher vehicle and the lorry carrying the launcher. RGloucester — ☎ 01:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. "Truck" has those meanings for you, but not for me. The word "lorry" was incomprehensible to me before I saw you add it into the article. I don't understand your problem with the word "vehicle". You say it lacks specificity, and I respond by saying "Why does that matter? In what way is the type of vehicle important so long as it is obvious that it is a land vehicle?" Dustin (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add it to the article. It was already there. That's what sparked this whole row. I can say the same thing to you: the word "truck" has that meaning for "you", but not for me. Coincidentally, the article is written in BrE. I do not go to AmE articles and ask "truck" to be changed to "lorry", or ask for "car" to be changed to "wagon", or ask for "garbage" to become "rubbish". My problem with the word "vehicle" in this instance is that there are two vehicles. One is the launcher, which is best described as a "vehicle", as it combines the traits of multiple kinds of vehicle. The other is the lorry that carried the launcher. If we call both "vehicle", the wording will be ambiguous, and it won't be clear what is being referred to. The word "vehicle" could refer to either vehicle, but "lorry" can only refer to the lorry that is carrying the launcher vehicle. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ostanin

Just as an aside to the number plate argument but is the "Ostanin" report that talks about trucks/lorries/vehicles a bit speculative, and doesnt appear to be a reliable source. If somebody here had made the analysis we would call it original research. So as a bit of speculative journalism it appears to be given a lot of weight in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I did some searching and found some reports which mentioned it:

• fired by... the 53rd Buk brigade, based in the city of Kursk - The Guardian
• operated by 53rd Russian Air Defence Brigade - Daily Mail
• The convoy was part of a unit dispatched by Russia’s 53rd Air Defense Brigade which is based in Kursk. - Quartz
• by the the 53rd Zrbr 'Buk' brigade which is based in Kursk - Mirror
• 53rd Buk brigade - The Irish Times

Stickee (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I already tried to quash this Bellingcat at RS/N, but I was wound up. RGloucester — ☎ 22:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Shame as it doesnt really stand-up to any sort scrutiny, most of the newspapers dont qualify the speculation but rather "look what this journalist has worked out". If it has to be included it should be toned down considerably per WP:WEIGHT if nobody can find a reliable source that actually backs up the claims. MilborneOne (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with MilborneOne on this: he probably should be mentioned in the article (given the excessive third-party coverage), but given much lesser weight. To me he seems more like an extensively pumped up media project than a truly independent investigator (to begin with, no one ever heard of him before the Ukrainian crisis, but he instantly became a celebrity after the MH17 crash). And by the way, he is not Igor, but Ignat. Buzz105 (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a fundamental difference between a source doing original research and Wikipedians doing original research. The latter is a no-no, the former exactly what a source should do, and what we want sources to do. So saying "if somebody here had made the analysis we would call it original research" is completely beside the point. If this was only published on his website or something then it would be a self published source or primary source, which would cast doubt on its reliability. However, if this is being covered in third party reliable sources, then that's a different matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Please see this old RS/N discussion, which is relevant. RGloucester — ☎ 17:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable edition

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some editor could verify this edit as to grammar and content? PauloMSimoes (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC) It's okay. Geogene (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Looks like an improvement to me. What was the reason for questioning it? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC) PauloMSimoes only has a basic level of English (as stated on his user page), so I guess he was wanting to check whether the grammar was right. Stickee (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Related AfD

Note that a closely related article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem for MH-17 (2nd nomination) for details. Stickee (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I missed it. Here is a better ref [30] about Liya Akhedzhakova reading this poem by Orlov at Echo of Moscow. I think it deserves inclusion here as the only poem written about the tragedy. It was written by a notable poet and broadcast by a famous actress on the Echo of Moscow. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Archives of DSB documents

• http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/fm/MH17/Transfer-of-the-wreckage-Malaysian-Airlines-flight-MH17-ondertekend-Engels_web.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6YTHYzgdE
• http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/fm/MH17/Removal-of-wreckage-of-Malaysian-Airlines-flight-MH17_web.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6YTHa7n0N

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In the Lead Bellingcat

Bellingcat has reported on buk in Russia then sziznhe then luhansk and so back to Russia [31], and in the lead it says bellingcat says the separatists were in control , but they seem open to it being a Russian crew, as in this report on joint investigation team video

'•The Buk had a crew with it, though it is not explicitly said where the crew originated from (Russia or Ukraine)'[32] - perhaps the sentence in the lead should be 'the seps/Russians were in control of a ..' - and Eliot Higgins says , at roughly 4:25 in this interview for Australian radio 'was it a Russian crew in a Russian buk- I believe it was' -[33]92.3.2.96 (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request by Dustin V. S.

It says expires April 13. It should say the protection expires June 6. Dustin (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

New Russian analysis

Novaya Gazeta has just leaked a new analysis[34] which has two key points: 1) this was "Buk" missile, 2) the missile came from area controlled by Ukrainian army. The fact that it has been leaked at all is almost a certain mark of an intended disinformation but I believe it's important it's added in the article just as we added other Russian statements. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, in particular since Novaya Gazeta is an opposition medium and is not controlled by the Russian government in any way.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not NG's own analysis, it's something that has been leaked to NG, perhaps on purpose. NG commentary is that they're publishing it mostly to cut all the conspiracy theories that are propagated in Russia about Ukraininan fighter jets etc. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

does the referenced article explain how from the damage traces on the wreckage they can deduce the launch place of the missile which is the claim being made. Unless it does this convincingly I suspect it is just another piece of Russian wishful thinking and is of questionable value.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It does provide some geometrical analysis on the projectile traces on the hull and then deduction what was the angle of the warhead at the time of the explosion. Based on that they build a hypothesis what was the missile angle relative to the airplane at the moment of the explosion. According to them the missile approached the airplane from right side (south) and not from the front (Snizhne). I have no expertise to assess validity of these claims as there are many assumptions there (for example, that the missile indeed explodes on a straight line from the launch site). Also, the report definitely doesn't look like an impartial analysis written by engineers (it contains statements like "separatists obviously did not have Buks", "so called investigation" etc). Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I rather like the 'dislocated' Ukrainian Buk site. The fuselage fragments in question are in Holland so I would await the Dutch findings. Meanwhile, although we should not be doing our own research, the pictures we have all seen clearly show a mass of impacts from the front immediately under the Port cockpit windows, that is on the left. Since the plane was travelling eastwards, that's coming from the north. Ex nihil ^(talk) 03:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The NG source basically just says that such a report exists. It says nothing about the credibility of its findings, although it notes that at the very least the existence of this report should put an end to at least some of the bullshit conspiracy theories (which, incidentally, numerous users have been trying to cram into this article). It was a BUK. For us, as encyclopedia editors, is about whether to include this and how to properly word it. I can see how it should be included. I want to see a proper warning which reflects the fact that this is not something which is "reported by NG" but rather NG saying that such a report exists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the publication [35] the journalists do not really know who authored this report. Neither they know the purpose of creating this report, beyond telling it supposed to be sent (by whom?) to investigators. Perhaps the purpose of this report was to disinform the investigators and readers? "Info" like that should not appear anywhere on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Vadim Lukashevich (whose interview I've just added yesterday) had exactly the same observations on the report as you. He also presented counterarguments against the missile trajectory hypothesis pointing to Ukrainian army, which, on their turn, offered a quite complete description of how the photos were falsified. So the report itself as published by NG isn't definitely very reliable itself. On the other hand, we do present Russian point of view in the article as well, regardless of it being valid or not. One important part of this report, as note by Lukashevich, is that it kind of finally denies all the previousl conspiracy theories propagated in Russia (such as Su-25). Kravietz (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

According to this [36], [37], the report might be included in this page as a notable fabrication, except this is hardly a notable fabrication, and there is no real evidence who created it (this is not "Russian view"). Hence this thing is probably "undue". My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability (as several Dutch mainstream news outlets reported) lies in the fact that this is the first Russian report that no longer talks about the Ukranian fighter idea, but acknowledges it was almost certainly a BUK missile. Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2 almaz antey press conference [38] - from Eliot Higgins twitter 'And this is yet more proof that the Russian Ministry of Defences July 21st press conference was a pack of lies and fabrications - It's obvious the report #MH17 leaked in Novaya Gazeta was from Almaz-Antey, matches everything they claimed -Though notably absent from the press conference were the Russian MoD satellite images @Bellingcat showed were fake' - from Shaun Walkers twitter 'Seems claimed launch site under *separatist* control. Russia now hanging seps out to dry over MH17 but claiming they used non-Russian BUK??' from marcel van den bergs twitter - 'have seen many recent pics showing Russian BUK TELARs using 9M38M1 missile. Almaz Antey suggests only in use by Ukraine' shaun walker twitter NB: The AP correspondents who saw a BUK in Snizhne on day of the attack said it was an M1 what happened the day flight 17 was downed' - veli kivimaka twitter - '9M38M1 was good enough for the 53rd brigade to train with in 2010. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [39] … evidence the Russian military supplied the type of missile used to shoot down mh17 92.3.5.81 (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The official designer & developer defense systems Buk stated that has been used and Buk-M1 missile 9M38M1 (data - 06.2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palma.palash.yandex. (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

article in theage - mh17 buk missile Russian weapons manufacturer and bbc [40]92.3.3.48 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Almaz-Antey, a manufacturer of missiles for Russian BUKs denies that it was their missile, and yes, they "leaked" this report to Novaya Gazeta. This is because they want all western sanctions against them be lifted (as they say). Obviously, no one trusts their claims... I am not sure if this is notable enough to be included in this page, but this should be definitely included on page Almaz-Antey. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

References

how from the damage traces on the wreckage they can deduce the launch place of the missile

Buk approaches its target at Mach-3. Its control surfaces are fairly small. It uses semi-active radar homing. ...Which means, the missile would not be turning circles around the far slower airliner. It stands to reason, the missile's angle at detonation relative to such a target, would have a predictable relationship with the location from which it had been launched, and can probably be consistently replicated in an experiment.Alex.K.NY (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a forum or social network for original research or any personal speculation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Dialect

I left for several months. Last time I checked, it was Oxford. Why is it now full-on En-UK? Dustin (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit months ago needs to largely be reverted as it changed the established spelling without consensus. Dustin (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont think the few changes make much difference mainly "ized" for "ised" endings so I would just leave it alone. To quote Oxford "In British English, it doesn’t matter which spelling convention is chosen: neither is right or wrong, and neither is ‘more right’ than the other." MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

If we let that kind of thing slip through the cracks, what's to keep vandals, imperialists, and nationalists from sneakily changing articles (especially obscure ones) to their preferred dialects and/or spelling? I'm not just trying to be dramatic or anything, by the way, I seriously don't like it when people just get away with this kind of behavior. Dustin (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

Please note that I've removed the WP:GEVAL, POV-WP:SYNTH of this article inserted by Buzz105. I would ask that other editors check what the source actually says, as opposed to the trashy, misleading representation tacked on here. In future, try actually sticking to the source, not refactoring it and introducing it as a WP:TROJAN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Huh, "trashy and misleading"? I've recounted exactly what Kriese and Krawetz said ("erroneous" and "subjective" are Kriese's own words; Krawetz described Bellingcat's investigation as "how not to do image analysis"). Let's wait what other users say, but it is ridiculous to accuse someone of "misrepresentation" without even checking what the original source says. Buzz105 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

How about the overall bent of the article? You've omitted the nuances of the interview which end with:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: What's your personal conclusion about the satellite images?
Kriese: The first thing to die in war is the truth. Each side likes to throw random smoke bombs. There is no way of knowing if the images show what Moscow is claiming."

"...no one would be reckless enough to use Photoshop of all things and then not clean up the metadata. There are very different variants, and I think the intelligence services know a few of them."

Aside from that, we are talking about an interview with one 'specialist'. Stop trying to insinuate your POV when you haven't bothered with engaging with other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed that Kriese supported Moscow's version of events, my wording was that "it was impossible to know for sure whether the photographs had been manipulated or not" (the piece quoted by you says basically the same). Buzz105 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for being WP:UNCIVIL, Buzz105. I've spent too many days/months/years trying to keep a lid on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM on controversial current affairs articles. I'm not an advocate for Bellingcat being used as an RS, full stop, but within the context other RS have used Bellingcat's diagnostics: meaning that it has been covered enough for usage here. One interview with an 'expert' (whose name I can't find via google scholar, and who hasn't been involved with analysing anything other than Bellingcat's analysis) and who is the one who stated that Neal Krawetz is distancing himself from Bellingcat's findings (Krawetz is not involved in the interview) does not make for more than your own reinterpretation of Kriese's comments: ergo, your representation read as:
"Jens Kriese, a German image forensics expert, criticized Bellingcat's analysis as "erroneous" and subjective, stating that it was impossible to know for sure whether the photographs had been manipulated or not. Dr. Neal Krawetz, the creator of Fotoforensics.com (the photo analysis tool employed by Bellingcat), also said that Bellingcat used his tool incorrectly."
Do we have anything from other 'experts' regarding the images? Are there conflicting 'expert' analyses to that of Kriese. Unless there exists further RS and experts dissecting the analysis, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, what you've appended smacks of TROJAN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

BUK Manufacturer press conference announcement

In June 2015 Mikhail Malisevskiy​, chief engineer at Moscow-headquartered Almaz-Antey, which has manufactured BUK missile systems since 2002, announced that the company's own analysis of the pattern of damage seen on pieces of MH17 wreckage, suggested that the aircraft had been shot down by a BUK missile.[41]. I think this should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually the more accurate statement is the following: "If the Boeing was downed with an air defence missile, it could be only Buk-M1 and this type of missile". Note the IF at the start of the sentence. See [42]118.210.228.51 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This is apparently the same analysis published earlier anonymously by Novaya Gazeta. It can be added just as a second ref.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It now seems to carry a little more weight with the direct attribution to the chief engineer of Almaz-Antey? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

But note, Mr Almaz-Antey also says: "the missile was out of production in Russia but the Ukraine army had 991 at the time of the attack." Which is quite a remarkable statement to just slip into a rigorous ballistics analysis like that. Perhaps it means that Ukraine were 991 times more likely than Russia to be the culprits? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You're WP:CHERRY picking, Martinevans123. The entire report is a they-said, the others-said. It also discusses rebuttals, therefore only provides the manufacturing company's so-called 'independent' analysis of who had what. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Good find Martievans. I've added this statement to the article.118.210.245.32 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Arnoutf, why did you revert my edit on this? We are already quoting the article about Malisevskiy. Why remove his quote about Ukraine having 991 BUKs? It is not NPOV, we are simply reporting what has been said. Otherwise it looks like cherry-picking to me.118.210.245.32 (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a misleading statement. More specifically, it would mislead a reader to think that only a single army has the 9M38M1, while other's have it too: [43] (simply being out of production doesn't mean they're not still being used). Stickee (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

But it was a statement made by the Maliservskiy you can't deny that. Our goal is not to interpret statements. Our goal is to report and summarize WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN TRUSTED SOURCES. If you want, we can say that "it is no longer in production in Russia, although it may still be used."118.210.228.51 (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No, our goal(s) is listed at the five pillars. Introducing misleading statements does not achieve that. Stickee (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

But how is it misleading? The statement says that one side is more likely to have fired the BUK. It is not misleading because it is the truth, whether you like it or not. A misleading statement would be one that is false or one that is bending the truth. The fact that you refuse to put it in looks like WP:POV to me.118.210.228.51 (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You're suggesting that the entire "analysis" is a waste of time because, at the same time, Almaz-Antey trots out some ridiculous political numerological mumbo-jumbo that rubbishes the whole thing? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that your interpretation of what was is meant (which you added in small letters after my comment - please update the time to reflect that fact) is exactly that: WP:OR. By the same token, I could add that he has omitted even knowing how many are still in existence, only knowing how many by his estimates are purportedly officially known to still be with the Ukrainian army: out of production doesn't mean there aren't 991+ more floating around in Russia or elsewhere, either. Perhaps an independent enquiry could go and count how many the Ukrainian army have left? If it's 990, whamo, we have the 'culprits' bang to rights! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I had to add that again, after I got an edit conflict with your "CHERRY PICKING" reply. But now you want me to go back and adjust my timestamp??? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No need (considering my slightly OTT song and dance routine about it!). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As you know, I never add anything in small letters after the event. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ymblanter, where does this appear already in the article? However we view the content, is an anonymous source really to be preferred to a source from a named individual, who is an employee of the missile system manufacturing company, at a press conference? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps modify the existing paragraph about this story (as of now, the last paragraph in the "Cause of crash" section) to attribute it to Almaz-Antey, rather than an "anonymous source". That paragraph is in need of a bit of a trim too. Stickee (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears at the beginning of the last paragraph in the section Cause of crash--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph that currently says "... anti-air unit was dislocated there." Is that a typo? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Have added a sentence with the source. I don't see how this is "cherry picking". Have also changed "dislocated" to "located". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Another important statement from that conference: "The company also claimed it could prove the missile was shot from a region controlled by Kiev's forces, not separatists. The Russian military has previously made similar claims." See [44] 118.210.228.51 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(Continued from the 13:58 comment) That's not what misleading means. A misleading statement is one that makes a reader draw a false conclusion, regardless of the veracity of the original statement. Some examples of a type of misleading content can be seen at Spurious Correlations. Stickee (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, half of this article is misleading! This is because it is trying to paint Russia's story of events in a bad light, while doing the opposite for the Western/Ukrainian BUK story. Let me remind you and other editors that the investigation is ongoing and the ONLY real unbiased evidence we have came from the official Dutch investigation. That investigation concluded that MH-17 was brought down by many high-velocity particles. That's it. That is all we can truly know at this stage. Everything else is speculation and WP:OR.118.210.228.51 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, we've all gone through that in previous discussions and would just lead to us going in circles. Stickee (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't we add the "out of production in Russia" statement to the criminal investigation section. After all Almaz-Antey are being sued and they want to shake off all responsibility for the event. I don't see how that statement would be misleading in that context.118.210.202.142 (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Government source and the text of the Almaz Antey

Government source and the text of the Almaz Antey http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/povrezhdeniya-samoleta/2023403

Official trolling http://tass.ru/politika/2017223 US must disclose monitoring data from satellites District Malaysian Boeing crash in Ukraine. It is said in comments released by the Department of Information and Press of the Russian Foreign Ministry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palma.palash.yandex. (talk • contribs) 08:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Evgeni Agapov

The Russian investigative committee released footage of Evgeni Agapov, who worked in the first squadron of the Ukrainian Air Force’s tactical aviation brigade. In his statement, Agapov reveals a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft left the Ukrainian air base and “set out for a military task”. The aircraft returned without its ammunition on the day of the crash, on July 17, 2014. I believe this story is significant and it has been picked by some international newspapers: [45] [46] 118.210.245.32 (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Old news, same story as in December 2014 (BBC), just this time around they've said his name. It's discussed at the end of Archive 22. Stickee (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes old news, but shouldn't we put it in the article if it is reported by reliable sources? 118.210.245.32 (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

And irrelevant anyway as most sources now agree it was a BUK. SU25 weapon bays do not allow for one of those. Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just your opinion. Our job is to update an encyclopaedia based on all reliable sources. MH-17 could have been shot down from air-to-air missile from SU25. While the investigation continues we must report on all possibilities not just the popular ones. 118.210.245.32 (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please check the archives for the arguments on the basis of which we reached consensus not to mention this. Arnoutf (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've checked archive 22. I do not see any consensus being reached on this topic. Hence I propose to reopen the discussion. 118.210.245.32 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

For reasons of WP:POV, WP:FRINGE I am against adding this. Without an explicit statement from me that I support adding it anyway, you will have no consensus to add it. Good luck with your discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

But there is no consensus on not adding this either. Who are you to say what goes into the article? Are you the God of Wikipedia? I propose a constructive discussion on this topic. Please give reasons why you think it is POV and FRINGE.118.210.245.32 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The onus of achieving consensus is with editor proposing to add new material. Read the policies. Arnoutf (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But that pretty much means that any report that supports the Russian's claims will be rejected, simply because most of the editors of this article don't like that point of view. To me this looks like WP:POV or am I missing something?118.210.245.32 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

POV, FRINGE, BULLSHIT, etc. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your statements. A witness has been identified who has given an official statement about the events. The witness is a real person. The witness worked at an air force base so he has the knowledge to make such statements. Reports have been published in reliable sources. Why can we not add this to the article?118.210.245.32 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

All I see is a reliable source which says, quote: "Moscow has stepped up a campaign denying any responsibility for the downing of the airliner on July 17, 2014, with the loss of all 298 people aboard. Several versions presented by various Russian officials, however, are contradictory.". If there was an article on Conspiracy theories about the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 it could go in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I don't understand. We have a section on Russian media coverage. This story appeared in Russian media and it has been quoted in reliable non-Russian media. So why can't we add it to the Russian media section? From WP:FRINGE: "Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources" also "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia". By adding the suggested content we are simply summarizing a secondary source, we are not making any claims about their truthfulness. 118.210.245.32 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You have not addressed the concerns about WP:POV WP:RS WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE; but rather are shedding doubt on the good faith of me and Volunteer Marek.

If you sincerely think this information should be considered you will have to address each of these concerns in detail; without being rude to other editors. Arnoutf (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely think this information needs to be added. Please tell me which part of the story is POV and FRINGE. Once you have done that I will address each of your points. If you choose not to do that then I will add the story to the article. If you revert my changes then I will add them again and report you. Just trying to make this article more neutral and unbiased.118.210.245.32 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Threatening to report someone after you've vowed to edit war ("If you revert my changes then I will add them again and report you") is a great way to get boomerang'ed. Stickee (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately these are the measures I need to use. I have been trying to edit this article from the beginning now (almost a year). I have had pages and pages of discussion on Talk, without making any progress. EVERY single suggestion I have made has been criticized and blocked by editors like you, Arnoutf and Volunteer Marek. Yet you guys think you are Gods of Wikipedia and do as you please. I am terribly sick of it and I am going to resort to other measures to get my message across118.210.228.51 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had provided reliable sources from mainstream outlets, from a neutral point of view that would not have happened. Regarding other measures. Don't forget to mention your own violation of WP:AGF evidenced by several remarks above. Good luck in avoiding the boomerang. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

118.210.228.51, you say that you've been trying to edit the article for almost a year, yet your contributions evidence that you've only been around since 8 June. Could it be that you're forgetting to log in? I suggest that you log in under your actual user account if you wish to discuss the details or changes you've been 'prevented' from making. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Iryna, it's a dynamic IP. They've been editing as far back as August last year. Stickee (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Stickee. Yeah, I know. Can't blame a gal for going on a fishing trip! You never know what you'll catch if you catch 'em unawares. There are times when even a minnow can provide temporary satisfaction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been around since about August last year. I don't have a Wikipedia account and I have been using a dynamic IP. I have only tried to edit the article once (a few days ago) and that edit was quickly reverted by Arnoutf. For a long time the article was blocked from anonymous edits. Before that I was actively discussing changes on Talk pages. If you find an anonymous IP from Australia then it is likely to be me. Now you ask me why I have not assumed good faith of the editors? The answer is very simple really - every single thing I suggested to be added was blocked and called OR, FRINGE, POV etc. I (and others) have tried many many times to have a reasonable, constructive conversation with you guys, but it never got anywhere. It is like a real war out here! I am quite surprised at the sheer stubbornness of some people, who have made up their mind during the first week of the event and refuse to budge even a tiny bit. All I ever really wanted was a fair and neutral coverage of different theories out there. Looks like this will never happen. Probably time I stop wasting my time... 118.210.228.51 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You discuss editors not content.

Content wise there are in my view several issues with the SU25 statement. First of all, this theory was deemed extremely unlikely from day 1, and is losing support every day. Secondly, the fact that a military plane takes off from a military base cannot be extrapolated to the plane has anything to do with the incident (which happened above the type operating ceiling anyway). Thirdly, Russian media and officials are by now infamous for disinformation about anything around the Ukranian conflict - which immediately raises the issue of reliability of sources, even if used secondhand by non Russian press. Fourthly, the recommendation for articles length (see WP:size is to limit articles at a maximum of 50kB. This article is currently over 160kB. So we should remove a considerable amount of the text (which you may have noticed I have argued for, for a long time now). In any case we should not add anything that is not central to the topic. The SU25 story is in my view not central even if the other 3 points were no problem. Therefore in my view it should not be added. Arnoutf (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

118.210.228.51 (etc.) - Further to Arnoutf's observations, in knowing that you have a dynamic IP you are doing yourself a disservice by not creating an account. Consensus as to articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine (or any subject being tackled at Wikipedia) has been formed across multiple articles, not merely on this article. You have precluded yourself from discussions and being informed as to issues of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS plus, plus, plus - essentially a plethora of discussions - as pertains to policy and guideline decisions made concerning everything from centralised, specific concerns regarding WP:RS decisions to the scope and size of related articles (and all matters in-between). These discussions have been highly analytical and painfully protracted. While you are not compelled to create an account, your desire to work of high traffic, controversial subject matter without an 'identity'/'moniker'/user account is bound to marginalise your input in that you are uninformed as to the machinations of how content has, and is, developed. Understandably, your perception of there being a discriminatory POV is going to be tainted if you're unaware of the complexity Wikipedia's structure. Your complaints, while subjectively understandable, are not objectively acceptable.

Please re-read all of the archived talk pages for this and other 'Ukrainian crisis' related articles and you may get a sense of why there's a lack of patience in explaining to every new contributor why and where decisions were discussed and consensus decisions were made: over and over, and over again. If you think you've been dismissed with unexplained POV, OR, UNDUE reverts, spare a thought for those of us that have had to dissect, discuss and justify decisions every day, day in day out, since the inception. This talk page, like all talk pages, is tagged at the top with very specific boxes pointing out unacceptable behaviour and instructions on how to contribute (including reading archived talk pages with care). Most notably, you are in breach of WP:EXHAUST (therefore, by extension, of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL). Further derision of other editors will be interpreted as WP:DE and WP:NOTHERE. If you wish to contribute constructively you have 23 pages of talk archives (not counting this page or the WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and other article talk pages) to read through diligently before approaching this talk page with something that hasn't already been thoroughly discussed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I've been here almost from the start, I've already read most of the Talk pages. I have also read the discussion on the Russian version of the article. Furthermore, I have read (translated) this article in other languages. I have even pointed out that this article in other languages is considerably more neutral and presents all the major theories, not just the Western one. I have seen experienced editors label this particular article as one of the worst. I have seen most of your POV, OR arguments and I don't agree with them. I didn't agree with them right from the start. I am giving up, I see no point trying to improve an article whose editors don't welcome the improvement. All the best.118.210.202.142 (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@118.210.202.142: Can you be specific about which language editions you consider 'considerably more neutral' than this one? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have already discussed this with you here [47]. Also see this discussion [48]] [[Special:Contributions/118.210.202.142|118.210.202.142]. By the way, there is nothing stopping SU-25 to fire upwards, above its flying ceiling. (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, which is why this is nothing but a pointless waste of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think these questions have really been settled or agreed upon. Discussion does not imply agreement. However, given your stance on this matter I agree that discussion is pointless. 118.210.202.142 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@118.210.202.142:Yet, I see nowhere your answer to my specific question. Lklundin (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles in the following languages present multiple theories of this event and are considerably more neutral: German, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, Dutch, Swedish, Ukrainian, Korean, Croatian, Czech, Bosnian and Urdu. In my opinion the best ones (most detailed) are the following: German, Spanish, French, Russian and Ukrainian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.202.142 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It is typical that the anon editor responds to content questions by ad hominem attacks against other editors, and rather than providing content arguments points to articles in non-English Wikipedia versions while the policies clearly state that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. This is indeed not helping the discussion, as no content is discussed. (Except perhaps the theory the SU25 has been pointing upwards and have been shooting above its ceiling - I am really interested in a reliable source claiming that, as I have never heard that theory before) Arnoutf (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, IP user 118*****, you are referencing the Russian version of the article without comprehending WP:WINARS. Firstly, I'm referencing discussion here at English Wikipedia at the WP:RSN, not other language versions. Secondly, we're all highly aware of the fact of there having been editors railing against policy and guidelines: it's known as WP:POV editing techniques to introduce WP:GEVAL, and is not a sign of anything outside of POV pushing. POV criticism is what it is, i.e., it is not a reflection of what RS are telling us, nor how we represent RS whatever our personal views may be. You are equating criticism with constructive RS-based discussion. Sorry, you've already lost us simply on the basis of not having bothered to read what you've been told properly. You haven't even checked policy links or links to noticeboards where discussions have taken place.

With regards to your ongoing inferences that there's a WP:CABAL regulating this article — and related articles — you're only raising a tired laugh. Strange cabal, indeed. It consists of editors who have engaged in fierce (but courteous) disputes over various matters over the years. A cabal of individual editors who often vehemently disagree with each other across manifold areas of Wikipedia? Wow, I didn't realise how brilliant we are at covering up our ultimate 'agenda' until your analytical prowess revealed us for what we are! Other language wiki articles are not our concern. In fact, if you know how to read article history and global contributions you may be 'astounded' to find that they're written and lead by multilingual editors, and that other wikis are not properly regulated due to a very, very small number of participant editors. End of correspondence. Trying to address your concerns has already proven to be an editor energy sinkhole. Please find yourself a blog/forum in order to express 'all points of view'. If you don't have the discipline to put aside all previous notions of expressing your personal perceptions freely, you're not made of the right stuff... This is an encyclopaedic resource, not a free-for-all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Range

Just gonna add this up here, sorry if I don't follow your "wikipedia rules". I have been reading the BUK MISSILE SYSTEM page. It indicates the Max Effective Range of 42km for the most advanced Anti-Air missile. The others are roughly 30km range. This aircraft was shot down, as stated, 40km from the border. Where did the missile originate from, and how far away from the airliner was it when fired?

Measured distance from apparent Pro-Russian separatist controlled A-1402 ППО(Anti-Air battery) [49] to Torez(Last known contact with MH17) and appears to be a whopping 65km as the crow flies(straight distance).

The article for the BUK missile system, when you look at the Operators, states Ukraine, but does not state which model they possess. Further reading indicates Georgia purchased SA-11 (Buk-1M, 9М38M1 missile, 3,3–35 km range) from Ukraine. Which would indicate this is what would have been in possession of forces in the region. Who knows the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.96.36 (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Speculation about the involvement of the Russian militia come from their relationship with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Great Russia. And, because of political differences with the Minister Mr. Lavrov. He wanted the <psycho - ex - president> Ukraine (the Name ...?) onto the court President of Eastern Ukraine. Got thanks be to - in vain. Head of the Foreign Intelligence FSB (Mr.Lavrov, born in 1960) angry. Gave a command for denigrations political discrediting.Tioger de Hoop (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting hatnotes

For the aircraft that was hijacked from Penang to Kuala Lumpur in 1977, see Malaysian Airline System Flight 653.

For the aircraft that disappeared over the Indian Ocean in 2014, see Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

Currently the article has two hatnotes, as can be seen just above my comment. What hatnotes should be included, if any? In total there are 4 other Malaysia Airline flight articles, so it would be impractical to have all 4.

• Malaysian Airline System Flight 684
• Malaysia Airlines Flight 2133
• Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
• Malaysian Airline System Flight 653

Personally I think just MH370 should be included, since it occurred at a similar time. Stickee (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. As a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, I'd only envisage that a reader might be looking for the other Malaysian Airlines flight from the same period. If, at a future point in time, it's deemed necessary to disambiguate the 4 events, the issue can be revisited. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've gone ahead and removed the MH653 hatnote leaving only the MH370 hatnote. Stickee (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed international tribunal

History

A sockpuppet added this text to the lead diff

The Netherlands is discussing an international tribunal to prosecute those suspected of downing the Malaysian airliner, hoping thereby to induce Russian cooperation. Russia's role in the process is considered critical.

I moved the text to the proper section rather than the lead because of WP:RECENTISM: the proposal is an ongoing story and shouldn't be in the lead until it is settled and/or shown to be important enough for the lead. I rewrote it to diff

The Netherlands is discussing with its allies creating an international tribunal to prosecute those suspected of downing the Malaysian airliner. This court, possibly backed by the U.N. Security Council, would take up the case after the closing of the current criminal investigation. The Dutch hope that an international tribunal would induce Russian cooperation, which is considered critical.

User:Kravietz added a sentence sourced to RT (waves red flag) diff

Russia has commented on this proposal as "counterproductive".

Then Volunteer Marek changed a few words ("its allies" to "other parties"; "possibly" to "to be" and "hope" to "hoped" and added diff

In late June, 2015, Russian government rejected calls by the five countries on the investigative committee which requested the formation of a UN tribunal which would try those responsible for the shooting down of the aircraft.

Well, besides the stilted prose, the word changes and this sentence didn't accurately reflect the articles cited. So I rewrote it to:

The Netherlands discussed with its allies a proposal to create an international tribunal to prosecute those suspected of downing the Malaysian airliner. This court would take up the case after the closing of the current criminal investigation. The Dutch hoped that an international tribunal would induce Russian cooperation, which is considered critical. Russia called this proposal hasty and counterproductive, saying the criminal investigation should be completed before they would accept any new proposals.

I removed the RT source. Edit summary: "more accurate summary of article text, added text was too much RECENTISM. Propose any further changes on talk first." Volunteer Marek reverted without talk page discussion.

References

Discussion

VM's edit summary: "no, previous text was outdated. Updating an article isn't "RECENTISM". Previous text also used unreliable sources"

I would like VM to explain what text was outdated and why. I never claimed that simply updating an article is recentism, but rather his particular edit. "Previous text also used unreliable sources" is hilarious because the only source change was him adding RT back into the article. :p

The relevant quotes from the sources. Reuters:

1. "The Netherlands is discussing with its allies an international tribunal to prosecute those suspected of downing a Malaysian airliner over rebel-held eastern Ukraine last year"
2. "The chance of a successful prosecution is considered slim at best but the Dutch still hope that, by pushing for a U.N.-style court with the backing of Western allies, they could pressure Russia, whose role in the process is critical, into cooperating."
3. "the legal and political complexities of the case had persuaded [the Netherlands] to focus on creating an international court backed by the U.N. Security Council, once a multinational investigation finishes and suspects are named."
4. "Other legal options are still being considered, the sources said, but an international tribunal, rather than a domestic court, is seen as providing the greatest chance of success. For now, the investigation into the crash continues, and Dutch prosecutors have said they do not expect to issue indictments until after the Dutch Safety Board releases a report in October detailing how the plane was downed."

Guardian/Agence France-Presse:

1. "The five countries of the joint investigation team – Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine – met last week in New York to discuss the proposed international tribunal."
2. Russian Deputy foreign minister "Gatilov insisted the continuing investigation should be completed before any further steps are taken. He said: 'Now we must wait until the end of the investigation rather than adopt hasty resolutions on creating a tribunal.' Gatilov added that 'the issue is very sensitive and serious and must be thoroughly studied'."

Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've changed "its Allies" to "the other JIT members" since the former was vague, while the latter gives specificity as to exactly who they're discussing with. The Guardian/AFP article names the 5 JIT members they discussed it with, as does this article by The Borneo Post. Stickee (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Just FYI for all, and I realize this is OR, I'm not trying to insert it into the text, but it is useful to provide context now and for the future. Since the talks were in New York (UN HQ) and involved a possible UNSC resolution, it is very likely that the U.S., France, and the U.K. participated. It is likely Germany was included for its significance to international sanctions against Russia. The more comprehensive and based-on-inside-sources Reuters report used "allies." But, I'm not arguing for its inclusion now, the JIT members is a good solution. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The previous text was referring to plans for a tribunal. You know, "discussion". Then in June, the actually made a proposal for such a tribunal. We should update the article to reflect the fact. And yes, the fact that Russia rejected it is significant. Restoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Was this proposal in writing? Was it submitted to the UNGA or UNSC? Still room for you at the Ghouta mediation. Mnnlaxer (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous text reflected all of those points you mentioned. I rewrote the sentence, using "rejected" from your text, mainly to improve style. Please just edit the article text when there is a cite template improvement. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Was this proposal in writing? - this is irrelevant. You're doing WP:OR. The source says what it says and the text reflects the sources. Please don't remove it based on spurious reasons.

If you want to improve something else, then improve something else, and leave well sourced text well enough alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about "The Netherlands is discussing" vs. "the Netherlands discussed," but since you put "Russian government rejected" in the past tense, then the beginning of the paragraph should be past tense as well. The date should be at the beginning of the paragraph, but fine. However,

In late June, 2015, [sic] Russian government rejected calls by the five countries on the investigative committee which requested the formation of a UN tribunal which would try those responsible for the shooting down of the aircraft, calling such a proposal "not timely and counterproductive".

is a poorly crafted sentence. It's too long, repeats text from earlier in the paragraph and has two "which" clauses, back to back, without punctuation. Not good. My version

The Russian government rejected this proposal, calling it "not timely and counterproductive."

says the same thing. Are you seriously saying it has to be your version, poor writing style and all, even when I have compromised several times already? You have an obligation to achieve WP:Consensus. I see no attempt at it here, which is typical of the pattern of edits I've seen from you. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer, first, please realize that "consensus" does not mean "I get to veto text according to any WP:IDONTLIKEIT I feel like". Until now, you have not articulated an argument as to why this well sourced sentence should be removed. You can't just keep demanding "consensus" while at the same time trying your best to subvert its formation. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who's objecting to this sentence.

As to style issues. I guess "Netherlands discussed" is acceptable. My understanding is that the discussion is still ongoing (hence "-ing") although it has been rejected (hence "-ed") by Russia. But whatever.

However, as to the sentence you are removing, the sentence is fine. Sure, you can remove that comma after "June". You can also remove the "calling such a proposal..." part - that was added to placate you, it's not necessary. It does not repeat text from earlier in the paragraph (which text exactly?).

You have not "compromised several times already" - not on the issue of substance. You might have made some changes somewhere else but that's not "compromise" that's... something else.

If it's about style issues then "In late June 2015, the Russian government rejected a request by the five countries on the investigative committee to form a UN tribunal which would try those responsible for the shooting down of the aircraft.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You have illustrated how superficial your understanding of Wiki policy is, in this case about consensus. In most cases, it is not a number of editors game. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." So one person can achieve consensus, and it fact, it is assumed until disputed. Once I disputed this edit [50], the two of us can settle on consensus through editing and discussion. I suggested a different wording and you reverted [51]. Another editor helped by suggesting a compromise text [52]. Even though the source said "allies", not "the other JIT members", I agreed. So just because a source says something isn't a reason for that wording to be used in an article. I explained my edits extensively at the Talk page. You reverted the final sentence again [53] From there, I only improved the style of the sentence, which is a perfectly valid reason for changing it. We completely agreed on the meaning of the sentence, your objection was "don't remove sourced text". Well, I wasn't removing the meaning of the text and just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it should remain in an article. Again, numbers aren't important. "As far as I can tell, you are the only one who's objecting to this sentence." That is an invalid reason for disputing an edit. Thank you for finally engaging in legitimate discussion on the wording. I will make the change. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, "The Netherlands discussed with the other JIT members a proposal to create an international tribunal to prosecute those suspected of downing the Malaysian airliner" is repeated with "a request by the five countries on the investigative committee to form a UN tribunal which would try those responsible for the shooting down of the aircraft". It's not good writing and I still cannot see what your point is about disputing any difference between your sentence and mine. Other than "I just don't like it" of course.

Finally, I am still hoping you will engage in a discussion about WP FRINGE and WEIGHT at the mediation for the Ghouta chemical attack article. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

First, please stop it with the personal attacks. Second, chill. I'm actually fine with the latest compromise version you came up with so we're good here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

When will the Dutch Publish their Investigation?

According to the intro: "The Dutch Safety Board is currently leading an investigation into the incident and issued a preliminary report on 9 September 2014; a final accident report is expected in October 2015."

According to the Investigation section: "The investigation is expected to continue until August 2015."

--173.66.74.186 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, fixed now. Stickee (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

---I actually do not think that the investigation ending in August with a report issued in October is at all unreasonable or particularly wrong, especially if that is what the sources say. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that complicates matters further, since the criminal investigation (not the DSB investigation/report) could extend all the way into 2016, according to the chief prosecutor (source). I've now tried to clarify that the two investigations don't have the same timeline in the body text. Stickee (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - That seems good to me. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Ukrainian Bias

This article is a freaking joke. Linking to a sit at home blogger like Eliot Higgins who claims to have solved the whole mystery and claims to have so much evidence against Russia and Putin. This article is using terms like "report correctly admits that the "Buk" missile was cause of the crash", what kind of nonsense is that? "correctly admits"? This is written by an amateur. Mentions of a supposed "vapour trail" by an unnamed local who took photos of it. Supposed pictures emerge 5 months after the crash. Igor Girkin on his supposed VK page is reporting of what he thinks is an AN-26 has crashed, not admitting to shooting it down himself. So much biased crap that this is why Wikipedia will probably never really work as a reliable source of information for people. Teachers at my former school have said that Wikipedia has gotten better over the years, I'm really questioning that statement when I see articles like these. When it comes to historical reliability, Wikipedia is not to be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.71.216.13 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

While the notice is not particularly civil to the editors of the article, there are a few points related to the content of the article, so, I have restored it. I have addressed "report correctly admits" complain. Have not looked the other ones yet Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"The vapour trail photograph" is reported according to the source. BTW, the photograph appeared in blogs a couple of days after downing of the plane, it just took months for the investigators to request it. Please suggest additional edits if you feels they are needed.

Regarding Strelkov. His meesage:

Сводки от Стрелкова Игоря Ивановича

17.07.2014 17:50 (мск) Сообщение от ополчения.

"В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26, валяется где-то за шахтой "Прогресс".

Предупреждали же - не летать в "нашем небе".

А вот и видео-подтверждение очередного "птичкопада".

Difficult to interpret any other way as taking responsibility on behalf of the "opolcheniye", not personally for the "ptichkopad". Suggest another formulation if you think this one is biased Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the whole "correctly admits" thing. Stickee (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of this article by investigative journalist and author Eric Zuesse

Eric Zuesse, who writes for Huffington Post, Business Insider and other outlets (as well as his own books), wrote a critique of this Wikipedia page, accusing it of exactly following the US government's position while ignoring evidence and concerns raised by other parties: [54] and here. Perhaps his critiques could be mentioned in this Wikipedia article? Esn (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

meh -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

His main points seem to be that this article is CIA propaganda because it doesn't agree with his theories. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Russia Insider: Crowdfunded Media Criticism" = No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

His criticism is also that "Wikipedia is no more reliable than" ... New York Times, Washington Post, Telegraph, Mirror, Guardian, and Newsweek. Right. I wish it was so. Anyway, obviously, the guy has different... "standards" for what makes a source reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Mmm this guy seems to be controversial in his opinion at best. Let's not take this too seriously Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing more to add here to what folks have already said. Notability is suspect; his claims are politically motivated rubbish; this doesn't need to be dignified with a "response" in this article. Although I'm sure RT appreciates Mr. Zuesse giving them something to natter on about now that the whole Greece thing doesn't look like it's going to work out for them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is just another guy who claims that US government are Nazi [55]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

" I was stunned, because Obama had hid his nazism until he was re-elected, and because no U.S. President until Obama was a nazi". Hehe. He also says "I have edited some wikipedia articles, but I won’t edit the one on MH17 ".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Russian side, specifically the Buk missile manufacturer Almaz-Antey itself already acknowledged that the aircraft had been downed by a Buk missile (and our article mentions that). Yet Zuesse, Haisenko and the like continue to shout different things. Last year I added sources on defence analyst Reed Foster and ballistics specialist Stephan Fruhling, both agreed the contour of the aluminium and the blistering of the paint indicate that those holes were made by "small pieces of high-velocity shrapnel". So until the final report is out, Zuesse is WP:FRINGE. Brandmeister^talk 14:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with the assessment of Zuesse as a fringe source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Last edit by Brandmeister [56] has nothing to do with Zuesse. No, "Russian side" (meaning Russian government) did did not admit anything, and did not changed its position. The leaked report by Almaz-Antey is not even an official position by Almaz-Antey. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI Almaz held a press conference after the leaked report, repeating all the claims in the report (source). Stickee (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Dutch Safety Board report blames Russia

[57].Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the CNN report we cannot say more than that one of two unnamed sources, claiming to have seen the draft report, claims that pro-Russian rebels (not the same as Russians) are to blame. The headline "Russian" missile can mean Russian produced as well as Russian owned. We do not blame the Russians for being responsible for every Kalashnikov (A Russian rifle) kill either. Let's wait for the formal report, or at least more sources from more media stations. Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I put this on talk page rather than added to the article. It has been picked up by several other media but it's still new (and RT is already trying to bullshit it) so some of it should probably go into the article shortly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Dutch quality newspaper Volkskrant claims there are no explicit conclusions towards whom to blame according and that sources in the Dutch government deny there is an explicit party named as responsible in the draft report (sorry in but only in Dutch[58] ) Arnoutf (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not surprising that they didn't explicitly name someone, since naming someone is outside the DSB's scope anyway. Stickee (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It tells: "Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17". With all due respect, the rebels could not do it, because they had no their own Buk systems and no skills to shot down the plane using Buks. Someone provided them the Buk and the crew. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yet even that claim of CNN is contradicted by the Volkskrant sources. In any case we are not discussing what happened in this thread but what is in the report. Arnoutf (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, now there's more in Washington Times [59], quote: "two separate sources have confirmed that the report determined pro-Russian rebels were responsible for bringing down the Boeing 777 with a “Buk” surface-to-air missile. The chief public prosecutor of the Netherlands, Fred Westerbecke, has since publicly backed that conclusion as well."Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Did China support the tribunal?

In relation to Kravietz's insertion of this text, I'm not sure China actually did support the tribunal, nor does the citation make any mention of a tribunal. The quote from China is:

"The catastrophe of the passenger plane Malaysian Airlines MH-17 is a real tragedy. The Chinese side stands for the independent, fair and objective investigation in accordance with the Security Council Resolution No 2166 and bringing to justice all perpetrators"

Resolution 2166 was a year ago and doesn't mention a tribunal. Stickee (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I gave it a second read and the relevant citation from Chinese MFA commenting on the initiative to establish the tribunal:

Chinese supports an independent, fair and objective investigation based on the resolution 2166 of the Security Council of UN and bring the guilty to justice. (Китайская сторона выступает за то, чтобы провести независимое, справедливое и объективное расследование в соответствии с резолюцией 2166 Совета Безопасности ООН и привлечь к ответственности виновных)

Not being a diplomacy expert I can't really judge whether they support the tribunal or not - this statement can be understood as both frankly.... I will just replace the current version in article with paraphrase of this statement so that we're not pushing any specific interpretation. Kravietz (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat reliability and lead text

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bellingcat for a discussion on Bellingcat's reliability.

I took out the text recently added "/Russian armed forces" from the lead that was inserted with the recent Newsweek article citation. That article says "For Higgins, the only credible theory of what happened is Kiev’s version of events—that a Russian-supplied, Russian-operated Buk missile launcher shot down MH17." However, there are two problems with using this source to insert the claim that Russian armed forces were operating the Buk missile launcher that was tracked on social media.

1) Bellingcat's report does not claim that Russian armed forces were operating the Buk. Higgins says the upcoming report will document the soldiers operating the Buk in question, but that is just his say-so at this point.

2) From the RS discussion above, if Bellingcat is to be used as a source, it should be accompanied by a RS that corroborates it. The Newsweek article simply attributes the claim of Russian operation to Higgins. So that is not corroboration. There is no original reporting in the article, which is written as a feature on Higgins.

I believe I am being more than fair to Bellingcat and Higgins based on the RS noticeboard discussion. A reasonable person could read the consensus to be that Bellingcat is not a RS period and shouldn't be used at all as a source. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the BBC, referencing the official criminal investigation:

In the video, investigators involved in the criminal investigation show photographs and footage of the launcher being moved around areas of eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russian rebels. In the first conversation, separatists are heard [saying] "It needs to be unloaded somewhere in order to hide it." (link)

Stickee (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

the trouble with your text mnnnnlaxxer is that it indicates bellingcat think it was manned by separatists when the team clearly thinks it was likely manned by Russians. inside Russia controlled by Russian troops - 92.3.4.35 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by IP. In the Cited Belingcat report they clerily say: It is the opinion of the Bellingcat MH17 investigation team that there is undeniable evidence that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher , There is strong evidence indicating that the Russian military provided separatists in eastern Ukraine with the Buk missile launcher filmed and photographed in eastern Ukraine on July 17 ..., etc. This report does not say anything about the possibility that Buk was directly controlled by Russian military not by separatists (that, I agree, could be a possibility). If you have an access to another Bellingcat report, please provide references. Besides the edit introduced a bad English (with this "\" between the alleged parties) and removes quite useful cite template from the reference. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

you are mentioning only one of the cites - theres Eliot Higgins view mentioned in the newsweek article , but you slur over that,( just plain ignore it in other words) and theres this - 'New evidence has been found that shows the Buk missile system that was used to shoot down MH17 on the 17th of July came from Russia, and was most likely operated by Russian soldiers controlled by Russian troops - the whole tenor of their reporting lately has been it was operated by Russian soldiers - 53rd Regiment mentioned in particular. Eliot Higgins says , at roughly 4:25 in this interview for Australian radio was it a Russian crew in a Russian buk- I believe it was -[60] - ( the point is surely to indicate to readers what is believed by bellingcat , accurately , based on their meticulous researches - surely even an admin can grasp that) 92.3.4.212 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point that Bellingcat and Eliot Higgins are not RS. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bellingcat You need an independent RS to report on its own, not simply repeating what Higgins says, to insert the claim that the Buk claimed to be the one which shot down MH17 was operated by Russian soldiers. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat is quoted widely in RS - you don't like it that's all - the reader should be informed accurately of the teams opinions based on their research and so I cited one of their reports - you are distorting the results of the teams investigations with your edit - like at ghouta you are pushing a miasma ahead of clarity - putinist troll really . stop whining 'its not RS' , when the discussion did not say that, and concentrate on conveying views accurately - do you deny the accuracy of the edits - or is it just a whine 'I don't like bellingcat, its not RS' 92.3.4.212 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Mnnlaxer Is this yours, or Savushkin Street 55's, opinion? --Pudeo' 03:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat is a notorious propagandist with dubious credentials. I am amazed that he is quoted here in what claims to be an encyclopedia. Acorn897 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree as they quote Bellingcat and report their findings. Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, CBC's The National program also cited Billingcat last night (see 11:25 of the video).[61] It seems that Billingcat's investigative journalism on the MH17 attack has largely been accepted by MSM.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of my own (positive) opinion of the Bellingcat report: If it indeed does not meet RS criteria, its position this high up in the lead text can appear to give it undue weight. It should be clear why Bellingcat is so prominently cited. I suggest either a) to corroborate the Bellingcat claim about separatists controlling this BUK with further RS that have checked it or b) to move this to the other investigations, e.g. under "Cause of crash". Alternatively, it could make sense to introduce a subchapter on the BUK, the involvement of Russia or similar to bring together all the investigations. Anetek (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessing available Intelligence

Former intelligence professionals have sent Obama a memorandum calling for the US to release intel on MH 17, citing the need "to counter the fuzzy and flimsy evidence that has over the past year been served up – some of it based on “social media.”" http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/23/obama-should-release-mh-17-intel/ This article cites much of that "fuzzy and flimsy evidence." Maybe it would be good to mention that some intelligence professionals have publicly called it such. I don't have a Wiki account and wouldn't know how to approach editing this huge article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.150.26 (talk) 23 July 2015

As "former" professionals they probably have no idea what information the Americans have supplied to the Dutch team so probably not relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian media coverage

The section is, mildly speaking, not neutral. It portrays Russian media coverage in a very biased way. It also implies non-neutral assessment of the Russians as a nation. I don't for one second hope that the brain-washed (mostly American) editing public will let this tag stay, but I have to try. Will be fun to see the excuses they'll use to remove it. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it took me six minutes to remove an inappropriate template, and, for the record, I am still a Russian citizen.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have to substantiate the removal. The neutrality IS disputed and you gave no reason to remove it. You may be a Russian citizen, but you definitely know very little about WP rules. You also lack logic. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Has been discussed zillions of times at this talk page. Pls stop edit-warring, otherwise you are going to be blocked swiftly. You are not the first pro-Russian POV pusher at this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Then you'll have to discuss it yet again because I dispute it. Stop the edit war and start the discussion. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not need to discuss this with every POV pusher who has no time to read the discussion. You will be now discussing it with the blocking administrator. I will not even block you myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the discussion and I don't see any discussion about Russian media coverage in this article. And yes, you NEED to discuss it with every person who disputes neutrality. I know you're not used to it being a Russian citizen, but this is how things are done here. Get used to it. If I have to discuss it with the administrators, I will. And you will not block me yourself because the rules you haven't read directly forbid that, Russian citizen. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

3RRN report is filed. You are apparently just out of 48h block. Good luck with the next one.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You are a typical Russian bully admin. I definitely recognize the style. We'll see what administrators decide. I believe you don't deserve your flag. In a space of 15 minutes you broke all possible WP rules concerning behavior, editing, administration, etc. And with that, I'm done talking to you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record. The bully above is trying to present me as "pro-Russian POV pusher". My position is simple. Wikipedia should be neutral - that's one of the basic rules. I don't care if the bias is pro or contra Russia. I just don't think it's a fair description of the situation. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

First, it doesn't exactly help if you go around groundlessly accusing people of being "bullies". It also doesn't help you if you refuse to read previous discussion on the topic. And you can't just say "I think this section is biased!" and demand that you get to put in a talk. A tag has to be justified. You have to explain and support with sources not just slap it in per some willy-nilly WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Finally, there's been several editors who have disagreed with you and you persist in "fighting" them. This is a pretty clear indication of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude. AND this on top of a 48 hr block you just came off of!Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• There seems to be consensus not to include the sensationalized wording of that paragraph. Only appears to be still being pushed by a single editor who inserted it this morning. Time to remove it and move on.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  What paragraph do you mean? The Russian coverage paragraph was not edited in the last three days except for the notice include by the now blocking editor. (I did not check when it was edited last, might be very well be months ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think JOJ is referring to this edit [62]. It is not in the section being discussed here (although Le Grand Bleu shouts at people in their edit summary it should be). But as the editor is now blocked I am not sure it makes sense to continue this thread. Arnoutf (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Why nobody wants to talk!?

WHY everyone is just pushing the undo button and nothing else! You people don't even bother explain it in the edit description! Whatever happened to finding consensus? Are you so politicized that you don't see just how biased this article is becoming!? Why all the anger!? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion right above. You're just not listening.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh my! You finally found the Talk page. Only took you three reverts! I see the discussion above. But I don't see any consensus there. Could you please show me where the disputing parties agreed to not include the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry in the article. Or did you even notice you were removing that as well as the tag you hate so much? I also don't see any discussion of the Russian media position. Could you please point me in the right direction and show me the consensus on those matters. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Having read this more closely, I can see the reason why you try to present me as a POV pushing weasel. You do that to anyone who contradicts the theory that this plane was downed by Russia. Your best phrased arguments are "=No" and "meh". Not the best way to argue your position. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well you have to be fair, there are some 23 pages of archive on this discussionpage. When you´ve read all those - or have even participated in those discussions, the idea for doing the same stuff over and over again - is not very tempting. Alexpl (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

When 5 different editors remove a new addition by a single editor it is clear there is no consensus to add that section. The editor who wants to add the section should than aim to change consensus on talk, based on a detailed and balanced argumentation why the article would improve with the inclusion of that specific text. Since that has not been forthcoming, it is the editor introducing the text who has failed to talk, more so than the reverting editors. But as the editor is now blocked I am not sure it makes sense to continue this thread. Arnoutf (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

May be need change information about Buk manufacturer

In June 2015, Buk manufacturer, the Russian concern Almaz-Antey announced that MH17 had been downed by a 9М38М1 Buk-M1 missile.

correct Buk manufacturer, the Russian concern Almaz-Antey, said if this missile was built this concern(or some company which included this concern) than it's Buk-M1 missile which started from Zarochenskoe (or near Zarochenskoe ).

Almaz-Antey, said that did n't analyze production another company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.53.193.18 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That is, of course, only relevant if there are indeed other manufacturers of BUK or highly similar missiles deployed in the region at the time of the shootdown. I have heard of no such alternative systems. Arnoutf (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The official developer. Officially announced.Showing all the materials taken directly with from the crash site. A real + a statement. IF was used BUK, only rocket 9М38М1. http://www.almaz-antey.ru/about/press/news/1975.html

real § http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/tip-rakety/2023205 IF was used BUK, only rocket 9М38М1 195.218.182.76 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not understand what you are saying and what the relevance of this could be. Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Official Commission (are investigating) = possible been used rocket air to air

http://ria.ru/world/20150825/1206386301.html

Official Commission (are investigating) = possible been used rocketair to air Представитель Генпрокуратуры Нидерландов Вим де Брюн отмечает, что наиболее вероятным следователи считают, что рейс MH17 был сбит ракетой "земля-воздух". Он подчеркнул, что криминальное расследование по-прежнему продолжается.

РИА Новости http://ria.ru/world/20150825/1206386301.html#ixzz3jpvBqfEe

The representative of the Prosecutor General of the Netherlands Wim de Brun said that the most likely investigators believe that the flight MH17 was hit by a missile "surface-to-air." He stressed that the criminal investigation is still ongoing.

RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/world/20150825/1206386301.html#ixzz3jpvBqfEe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.76 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That the recruiting at Internet Research is scraping the bottom. Lklundin (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh. Maybe Internet Research deserves their own article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

Please link the word "separation conflict" in "Crash" to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_(aeronautics)#Conflicts

Dnipropetrovsk Air Control (Dnipro Control) asked MH17 if they could climb to FL 350 as planned, and also to avoid a potential separation conflict with another flight Dbinoj (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for your suggestion! Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Article needs urgent pruning after final report

This article has long been far beyond the maximum readable article size - which is set at about 100,000 characters - the article is at about 166,000 - so we need to get rid of at least 40% of the current length. Now that the final cause (as in things happening before the shootdown and resulting in the shootdown) is announced by the Dutch safety board we can and should do away with, now irrelevant, speculation. My suggestion would be to take out a substantial portion of the cause section (which is at medium article length of its own at about 20,000 chars), while the cause is simple: BUK warhead. Arnoutf (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it can be simplified and shortened now. - Ahunt (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've got concern about the duplication of the DSB's results. Arnoutf, you added this content, but are you aware there was already a section on it here? Stickee (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact I was not in part because of the unreadable length of the article and the odd place of the section. I agree these sections should be merged. But considering the length of the article and the mandate of the Dutch safety board to determine the cause, the cause section is the one where it should be. But those few hundred characters is off topic compared to my observation that the article is about 70,000 characters over the maximum readable length. Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

'The board does not have the authority to apportion blame, under the rules governing international crash investigations. But speaking to reporters after the news conference, Mr Joustra said pro-Russian rebels were in charge of the area from where the missile that hit MH17 had been fired. - this should be added.mr joustra said pro-russian rebels were in charge of the area— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.8.84 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps under media reporting or criminal investigation as these sections are already bloated but definitely not with the conclusions of the final official report. The report seems fairly factual and neutral, let's not add non proven suggestions, not even by a senior investigator like Joustra. In any case, this edit request was insufficiently concrete and specific to act upon. Please give the exact text, and exact location within the existing text that we would add this. Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This little "aside" was also featured in the BBC News at Six tonight. And has just given even more emphasis on BBC News at Ten. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've made a mention with this edit. Stickee (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

'according to al jazeera' ,is not the same as ,' Joustra said pro-Russian rebels controlled the area from where the missile was fired', is it? Really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.12.134 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Including into categories Category:Mass murder in 2014 and Category:Murder in Ukraine

• I have added the article into categories: Category:Mass murder in 2014 and Category:Murder in Ukraine. 298 people were murdered per sources: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] etc, etc, etc. Note, the related articles of the Donbass War (Novosvitlivka refugee convoy attack and Volnovakha bus attack) with similar air attacks already included in this categories. But involved administator Ymblanter (talk · contribs) reverted my edit [69] saying: "because this is not murder - go and read the dictionary. Next revert will get you blocked", violating WP:INVOLVED and getting the advantage over ip user. Please source from "dictionary" about "shootdown is not murder"? Here, the press release said: The crash of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 was caused by the detonation of a 9N314M-type warhead launched from the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system. [70] 95.133.218.118 (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The press release does not say anythng about murder, and there is a good reason for that. You should look up the difference between "to kill" and "to murder".--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Btw you need to do your homework and prove that I am involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Ukrainian IP. I suggest not to spend any time on this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You are Russian, of course! How much sources you need? 10, 25 or 40? See above many sources with phrase "298 people were murdered". Even if not "murder", it must be in parent Category:Crime in Ukraine (Category:2014 crimes in Ukraine) and Category:Death in Ukraine. 95.133.218.118 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You can not know anything about my nationality. Death in Ukraine is fine with me; Crime will be there after the court decides it was crime. Btw edit-warring in Novosvitlivka refugee convoy attack in order to prove your point does not reflect on you well.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You can try to remove all articles from this category Category:Mass murder in 2014 with such description ("killed, not murdered"). All killings/murders are present in it (and in 2013, 2012 branches etc.) as of now. Try to discuss the renaming to Category:Mass killings in 2014 (if you want) instead of removing only some items of thousand similar. Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse. Killings = murder, if we say about attack on airlines (no justification or valid excuse). 95.133.218.118 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Dutch investigation has concluded that a Buk missile hit the aircraft, so I would say the inclusion of the "mass murder" categories is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Cla68: you are making the assumption that this aircraft was the intended target and that it was not an accidental targeting, something we do not know at this point in time.. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• The perpetrators (separatists, regular Russian troops or whoever did it) almost certainly expected to strike a military target. This is similar to e.g. Kunduz hospital airstrike that is not in the murder category. Support putting the article in Category:Attacks in 2014. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Or, well, to stretch it a bit, Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 is certainly not considered mass murder, and is not included into the categories.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• We should follow what the majority of reliable sources say (not Twitter, blogs, or opinion pieces). As far as I can see, the big news organisations aren't mentioning murder or mass murder. Rather they talk about how people "died" or "were killed". For example, see CNN, the BBC and The Guardian. This is probably because the most likely explanation for the incident is that whoever fired the missile thought the plane was military, not civilian, a fact which is difficult to reconcile with traditional definitions of "murder" that require malice aforethought. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the above user Mr. Stradivarius in that we should follow what the majority of reliable sources say. There is a difference between "to kill" and "to murder." We are not 100% sure that the Ukrainian missile was intended for the plane, therefore murder is automatically ruled out of the situation. I would feel more comfortable using a category saying "major attacks" or "attacks in 2014." Hope this helps. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with Comatmebro and Mr. Stradivarius. The sources (mostly) aren't referring to it as "murder", so the article's categories shouldn't either. Stickee (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

upcoming report - major revision cause section probably needed

On Tuesday 13 October the first formal investigation report will be released[71]. It is expected that at that time a conclusive statement about the cause (albeit not responsibility) will be made.

This report should eliminate many speculations. As a consequence I think the current, lengthy and speculative cause section should be seriously revised and shortened - removing all speculations that goes beyond conclusion of the official findings. In practice this means the cause section is likely in for a reduction of about 80%. I hope everyone agrees this is long overdue - but not really possible prior to presentation of formal outcomes of the official investigators. If I can find the time I might pitch in and be blunt in stripping the then falsified speculation from the section. Arnoutf (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's not jump the gun. Wait for the report and then we'll decide what to do. Volunteer Marek  17:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

My intention with this post was to announce the edits while we do not know the contents yet. That should at least make clear that my intention is to be neutral (as I do not know what I will be writing in a few days). Of course if the report is inconclusive that would not give much grounds for editing. Arnoutf (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

According to AFP, the DSB has said its report will not say who pulled the trigger, instead leaving that to the JIT: But as the board has pointed out many times, it will not assign blame nor say who pulled the trigger. “It is the purpose of the criminal investigation to answer those (questions),” it said. (source). Stickee (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. Dutch newspaper Volkskrant is saying "[according to sources] the report contains maps with large squares to mark locations where the missile must be fired. The Russian theory that a BUK missile is fired from another place" (source). From the second sentence it can be inferred that those locations will be areas that were rebel-controlled (but we'll find out for sure in a few hours). Stickee (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

crash report ukraine live updates 92.3.8.84 (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

was shot down by 9N314M warhead part of a BUK missile buk warhead exploded a metre away independent.co.uk from twitter 'Almaz-Antey report [72] … insists no bow-tie shaped pieces found; yet DSB says they were in bodies of crew!' 92.3.8.84 (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In the final report "a number" of bow-tie fragments was found in the wreckage. Autopsy is not mentioned in report and no pictures of bowtie entry holes as Almaz-Antey points out. Warhead is determined solely on finding of bow-tie. Godvad (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Page 92 of the DSB report identifies a bow-tie fragment inside human remains. Size 12x12x5mm, weight 5.7grams. The autopsy starts page 84. Anyway, this is not a forum. Stickee (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source.

Article: "The Russian government-funded[279] outlet RT initially said that the plane may have been shot down by Ukraine in a failed attempt to assassinate Vladimir Putin, in a plot which was organised by Ukraine's "Western backers".[280][281] "

This is the actual coverage citing Interfax.

https://www.rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/

Godvad (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

News Corp source and conclusions are not accurate

Article Aftermath: "One eye-witness observed that valuable items like shoes and bottles of alcohol were untouched in the wreckage,[83] while a video published by News Corp Australia in July 2015 recorded at the scene shortly after the crash shows militants described as "Russian-backed rebels" arriving and ransacking the wreckage.[84]"

The Rupert Murdoch owned News Corp Australia published part of video as "disturbing new footage" that was "smuggled out" and a "world exclusive" so it was aired all around the world. In fact the video was handed over by rebels commander and published by the BBC shortly after the crash. From the video and transcript it is clear they are searching for black boxes and preventing civilians from entering the crash site. Using "Russian-backed rebels" and "ransacking the wreckage" wording is not accurate or neutral in comparison to the original BBC footage.

https://imgur.com/4Z0v24p

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28396638

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jul/17/bbc-correspondent-disputes-news-corp-claims-over-mh17-footage

Godvad (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OR. Volunteer Marek  15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that fake news is cited and used as source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godvad (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Was a Ukrainian AN-26 shot down on 2014-07-1417 ?

The article says that shortly after the crash a separatist leader reportedly took credit for downing a Ukrainian AN-26. The Background section goes on to say "A Ukrainian An-26 was actually scheduled to deliver paratroopers to the battle arena on 17 July".

Was a Ukrainian AN-26 actually shot down that day, or was one not ? I think this piece of information would be a very relevant addition to the quoted paragraph from the Background section. Any WP:RS, whether a Ukrainian AN-26 was lost on 2014-07-1417 ?

PS. I did try to check the extensive archive for a previous discussion of this, I apologize in advance if I missed one.

Lklundin (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it was not.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. In accordance with that, I failed to find any source stating that a Ukrainian AN-26 had been downed on that day. Is there a source supporting the statement, that no Ukrainian AN-26 was shot down that day? If so, we should add that to the Background section. (The reason being that the claim of having downed a AN-26 would then appear even more mistaken). Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is easy to find a source that smth has NOT been done.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. Except in this case, since the separatists reportedly claimed that they shot down a Ukrainian AN-26, a Ukrainian official could justifiably have stated: We did not actually lose a AN-26 that day. So I think in this case, it is a useful question. Lklundin (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The day before an Su-25 was downed but this news was first reported on July 17th before the MH17 crash, i.e. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28345039.

Ukraine says no airplanes were flying on July 17th and DSB Final report concludes that there is no evidence of any other planes, as all Ukrainian primary radars was under maintenance or switched off and did not record data.

Godvad (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Ukrainian Air Force inventory is surely modest enough that they would notice missing one of their An-26 even without radar. Perhaps more on point I have used your advice and am now citing the final DSB report, that no Ukrainian An-26 was downed in Eastern Ukraine that day. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mass archive of Dutch Safety Board MH17 related material

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have mass-archived primary source material from the Dutch Safety Board about the MH17 crash. I have done so to keep the materials available for future generations of Wikipedia editors and for the international public.

I will post this list to the MH17 talk pages of the following language edition Wikipedias: English, Ukrainian, Russian, Dutch, Malay, Mandarin Chinese, and Tamil.

• English is the international auxiliary language
• Ukrainian and Russian are the languages of the location of the crash: Hrabove (Grabovo), Ukraine - These documents are also helpful for readers based in the Russian Federation
• Dutch is the language of the flight's origin (Amsterdam) and of most of the passengers
• Malay is the official language of Malaysia (the country of the airline, Malaysia Airlines), as well as the primary language of the destination (Kuala Lumpur). Along with Malay and English, Mandarin Chinese and Tamil are Malaysia's other significant languages as they are used by the country's Chinese and Indian minorities.

Material in English:

• Final report: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXhujEUQ
  • On page 3/279 the report says "If there is a difference in interpretation between the English and Dutch versions, the English text will prevail." (emphasis mine) - In consideration of this text, on all language Wikipedia editions, please use the English version of the text in case of any difference between it and the Dutch version
  • Report appendices:
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendices-au-mh17-crash-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXjFQjmz
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXjHnV6i
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-w-consultation-part-b.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXjf0BGo
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXjiEtv8
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-y-tno-report-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXjxHsbn
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-z-tno-report-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXkDtNh1
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/brochure-mh17-crash-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXiqttSC
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-passengerinformation-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXkfu4tj
  • Note: p. 3/98 says: "NB: This report is published in the Dutch and English languages. If there is a difference in interpretation between the Dutch and English versions, the Dutch text will prevail." - However the Dutch version says that the English version is to be preferred in case of differences between the two
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-b-passengerinformation.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXkn3YM5
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/brochure-mh17-passengerinformation-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXlBpphd
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXlH0O3K
• Videos:
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video01-crashmh17-en.mp4 (unable to be archived on webcitation, but is available on the Internet Archive) - http://wayback.archive.org/*/http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video01-crashmh17-en.mp4
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video02-causes-en.mp4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXmhsvmB
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video03-flyingconflictzones-en.mp4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXmZ7RPc
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video04-reconstrucion-en.mp4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXmqT5Q3
• DSB index page: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/ - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXhy9Fqc
• Press release: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/pressrelease-mh17-en.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXiHwItV

Material in Dutch:

• Final report (Dutch version): http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/rapport-mh17-crash-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXn6vVbI
  • p. 3/297 states: "N.B. Dit rapport is zowel in het Engels als in het Nederlands verschenen. Indien er verschil bestaat in de interpretatie van het Nederlandse en Engelse rapport, is het Engelse rapport leidend." - The Dutch report also says that the text in English prevails if there is any difference between the English and Dutch versions
  • Appendices:
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/bijlagen-au-mh17-crash-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXpKAr40
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/bijlage-v-inzage-deel-a.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXpPFMox
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/bijlage-w-inzage-deel-b.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXpaXzar
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/bijlage-x-nlr-rapport-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXpbL3Uk
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/bijlage-y-tno-rapport-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXqXyzZZ
    • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/bijlage-z-tno-rapport-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXqkiMri
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/publieksversie-mh17-crash-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXrxZea5
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/rapport-mh17-passagiersinformatie-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXsOQFW7
  • Note: p. 3/102 says: "N.B. Dit rapport is zowel in het Engels als in het Nederlands verschenen. Indien er verschil bestaat in de interpretatie van het Engelse en Nederlandse rapport, is het Engelse rapport leidend." - However the English report says the Dutch report has supremacy
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/bijlage-b-passagiersinformatie-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXsSoJWT
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/publieksversie-mh17-passagiersinformatie-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXsVEHzq
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/rapport-mh17-onderzoeksverantwoording-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXsXm9go
• Videos:
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video01-crashmh17-nl.mp4 - Too large to be on webcitation, but archived at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video01-crashmh17-nl.mp4
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video02-oorzaken-nl.mp4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXtGQxX6
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video03-vliegenconflictgebieden-nl.mp4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXtOLo8E
  • http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video04-reconstructie-nl.mp4 - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXtWAUTA
• DSB index page: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/nl.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXiElxCS
• Press release: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/persbericht-mh17-nl.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXmyOrHW

Material in Russian:

• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/brochure-mh17-crash-ru.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXiyINZu
• Video in English with Russian subtitles: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video01-crashmh17-ru.mp4 (unable to be archived on webcitation, but is available on the Internet Archive) http://wayback.archive.org/*/http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video01-crashmh17-ru.mp4

Material in Ukrainian:

• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/brochure-mh17-crash-uk.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXj2Cf5Q
• Video in English with Ukrainian subtitles: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video01-crashmh17-ukr.mp4 (unable to be archived on webcitation, but is available on the Internet Archive) http://wayback.archive.org/*/http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/movies/video01-crashmh17-ukr.mp4

Photographs:

• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig01-reconstructie.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXtnrh6t
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig02-reconstructie.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXtqR6pe
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig03-reconstructie.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXtuJT3v
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig04-reconstructie.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXtwunkT
• figure 5
  • English: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig05-crash-fig12-en.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXtzh3Z6
  • Dutch: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig05-crash-fig12-nl.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXu3NYRM
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig06-crash-fig19.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXu8whkV
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig07-crash-fig33.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXuGMJkz
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig08-crash-fig37.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXuKukSh
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig09-crash-fig45.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXubYED0
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig10-crash-fig48.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXudtQxC
• figure 11
  • English: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig11-crash-fig61-en.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXugbZ0W
  • Dutch: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig11-crash-fig61-nl.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXuj1q6Y
• http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/fig-12.jpg - http://www.webcitation.org/6cXulMtVS

As far as I know, no material from the DSB has been published in the other languages of Malaysia (Malay, Chinese, or Tamil). WhisperToMe (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A lot of cool illustrations for the article

The Dutch Safety Board has published a video about the investigation. And the video is under a free license, so we can use it in Wikipedia (please correct me if I'm wrong). We can upload the video to the Commons and we can use the most interesting frames from the video as excellent illustrations for the article.

Unfortunately, I'm still a novice in Wikipedia, and don't know the technical side of the task. Could someone do it? --Thereisnous (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe an excerpt from 10:22 to 11minute-ish would be a good part to add? Stickee (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added with this edit. Thanks for the suggestion Thereisnous. Stickee (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Could you please upload the full version of the video too? We can take some very useful images from it (for example, the launch site map) --Thereisnous (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thereisnous: if somebody gives me evidence that the videos are freely licensed I can upload them. There are four different videos: one is available in Dutch, English, English with Russian subtitles, and English with Ukrainian subtitles; the other three only have English and Dutch versions. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: On the DSB's official YouTube they've uploaded them. If you click on "details" on a video they've got the copyright as CC. Stickee (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Dutch Safety Board Report is in public domain

According to Auteurswet (Dutch copyright law), §15b, works produced by state agencies are not copyrighted, unless there is an explicit copyright stated.

The text of the law is here (search for Artikel 15b).

Furthermore, according to §11 (Artikel 11), Dutch laws, regulations, ordinances, judicial and administrative decisions issued by the public authorities are not copyrighted.

I think we can safely upload the report to Commons and use it to illustrate the article--Thereisnous (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you would want to upload the report itself to commons it is not the right place for documents, wiki-source may be better but I still not sure why we need to as User:WhisperToMe has already posted archive links above. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK The guys on Wikisource want you to put the source files on the Commons before writing the Wikisource page. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, wiki-source is probably better.

There are many important illustrations in the report. For example, the map of the possible BUK positions, images of the missile and more. We can make the article a lot more informative --Thereisnous (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting images in the report:

Flight data recorder of the MH17 (p.47)

Overview of wreckage sites (p.56)

damaged left engine intake ring (p.60)

Part of the right hand side of the cockpit (p.63)

Image of 9M38M1 surface-to-air missile (p.81)

Weapon parts recovered (p.82)

Four distinctly shaped fragments of the warhead (p.89)

Impression of stringing of the cockpit (p.124)

Sample 9N314M warhead (p.132)

A typical Buk surface-to-air missile system (p.133)

Image of the damage pattern produced by the model IIb in the warhead simulation model (p.140)

Simplified representation of the volume of space of the warhead detonation location (p.143)

Combination sketch of the calculated areas (p.146)

Timeline of downed aircraft above the eastern part of Ukraine (p.182) --Thereisnous (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Thereisnous: Please upload the full PDFs and from there a Wikisource version can be made. The images can be separated and used in both a Wikisource version and on Wikipedia itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I was unable to upload the PDF of the report to Commons. It says "Unknown error: unknown" during the process of uploading. I've tried it multiple times on different browsers.

Could you please check if you have the same problem? --Thereisnous (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulty too... but I'm going to try again WhisperToMe (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree there are some really good illustrations in the report that would benefit this article. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why there are only a Section about the Russian media coverage?

The Ukrainian or American Media coverage would be also a very interesting subject too.--Jürgen Berg (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Because several editors demanded that Russian media coverage would get fairly much exposure, while others critisised this due to issues with independence and freedom of Russian press. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The Ukrainian press is also not really free, so it would be good to create a section about the Ukrainian media coverage.--Björn Kärtner (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Article of Novaya Gazeta?

Why the Headline of the Article of Novaya Gazeta was "Nederland for give us"? At first there are until now no evidence for the Theory that the Rebels were the originators. And secondly the Rebels are Ukrainians too, they are supported but not controlled by Russia.--Jürgen Berg (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You should ask the editor of Novaya Gazeta why they printed that. In any case, without Russian support there would be no rebel insurgence and without that no missile would have been fired in the region. Arnoutf (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No you are wrong they would be Rebels without russian support because not all Ukrainians supported the Maidan movement, which was not a Revolution by the way. The Rebels in the Donbass Region are just Oppoisitonists.--Björn Kärtner (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141113092937/http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/570175/20141021/mh-17-crash-germany-bnd-ukraine-russia.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/570175/20141021/mh-17-crash-germany-bnd-ukraine-russia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141009123439/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-happened-day-flight-17-was-downed to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/what-happened-day-flight-17-was-downed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141118080619/http://bigstory.ap.org:80/article/dutch-premier-halts-search-ukraine-victims to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dutch-premier-halts-search-ukraine-victims
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141129041421/http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/573400/ to http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/en/148/573400/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140717190514/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/official-malaysian-plane-shot-down-over-ukraine to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/official-malaysian-plane-shot-down-over-ukraine

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Plane altered course over active warzone.

It should be mentioned in the introduction that Ukrainian air trafic control allegedly ordered the flight to change course over an active warzone knowing that the Pro-Russians had weapons capable of shooting down the plane. Generic User (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry we dont add fringe theories to the article, have a read of the article and related material to find out what was the cause of normal air traffic requests to change height and direction. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole point is that nobody actually knows why the plane changed hight and direction. That is why I am asking for the some theories to be stated as 'theories' of what might have happened not fact. Generic User (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We discussed this in considerable detail 2 years ago, when this report was first made. We decided not to include it as there was no real evidence the so-called course change was anything special. Based on a number of reports that were both later in time (ie after more information became known) and published in a host of journals and outlets with a higher reputation than Daily Mail we concluded this should be labelled a fringe theory (as MilborneOne states above). If you want to reopen this, make sure you first read in detail the previous discussion (see the archives of this talk) and more importantly bring in recent, highly reputably sources that unambiguously support such theories. I doubt you will do the first (due to the gigantic size of the archives) or can do the second (due to the lack of such sources). Can we close this? Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason it's not included is because it simply didn't happen. The DSB final report has a detailed account of the exact ATC communication that occurred. A summary of that is in this article under the "Crash" section (second paragraph).

Only 1 course deviation occurred (at 13:00UTC, between waypoints PEKIT and TAMAK), and that was requested by the flight crew, not ATC (MH17 flight crew requested this to avoid a cumulonimbus cloud). Stickee (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Recommended additions. Criticism on not closing airspace. New info on international investigation.

Therefore another evidence indicates that a Ukrainian fighter jet may have shot down the aircraft. Ukraine was internationally criticised for not closing airspace above warzone. International investigation results will be available in months.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitashi (talk • contribs)

This is not another version, this is a propaganda fake fabricated by the administration of the President of Russia, which was around for about a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

We certainly can't use the Express or the Mail as sources. --John (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not new, these are old claims from 2014, not 'evidence' and are already in the article. The only new thing might be that the criminal inquiry expects to complete soon but they are still waiting for info from Moscow about BUK missile installations. Criticism of all parties for using the airspace is already stated twice, but that has nothing to do with who is responsible for downing the aircraft. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi is now blocked indef, so we can consider this closed. Pincrete (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Current state of lead

The long, lengthy introduction would drag readers on or drive them away. Ideally, four paragraphs is enough, even when the article is getting longer. The intro needs some reediting. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The number of seperate paras is my fault, but the number of words not, I was hoping someone would find logical linking phrases to merge the paras. At present IMO, there is little dating and seemingly little clear logic to the sequencing or paragraphing .

P1 Minimal account of the event. Fine

P2 Americans and Germans thought this In 2015 safety board said this.

P3 The Russians blamed the Ukranians but Bellingcat proved something else and the BBC found some locals who thought the shooters 'seemed Russian', (lead worthy?), - at present, more lead space is devoted to Bellingcat than to any other subject area.

P3 The Ukranians blamed the Russians. In October 2014, German Intell reportedly said something different from what was said in para 2,(stolen from Ukr not given by Rus, ) Malaysia went to the UN. … … … Suitably short final 'worst shoot down'.

Can someone explain to me what the logic of present sequencing and paragraphing is intended to be? Because creating a small number of paras that follow no chronological nor thematic logic may make things look better on the page, but doesn't make the lead 'absorbable'. I acknowledge that endlessly reading 'In June 2014', 'In July 2014'etc can get tedious, but is it not important that someone can read when each of these things happened? Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The matter isn't dating whatever happened. The airplane crash happened two years ago. I don't know why the introduction tries to make the airplane crash more complicated than it should be. The current revision would bore readers to death... unless it drag me on only. Per MOS:LEAD, readers could read the just the whole introduction and then move on. If they would like to know more about the crash in-depth, readers have an option to read beyond the intro but want a catchy, concise introduction that make them well hooked into the aircraft. Somehow, the title is solely the name of the aircraft, not the disaster. Perhaps the introduction should tell readers a little more about the aircraft itself before the crash. Also, three paragraphs might do for something that happened two years ago, not 100 years. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Dating doesn't matter (in the sense of DD/MM/YY), but sequence and timescale does. Otherwise it is a random list of events. The name is the name of the flight, not the aircraft, per Pan Am Flight 103. The subject is, and clearly should be about nothing but the 'downing' and its aftermath. I understand what you are saying about retaining 'readability' though. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rusvesna.su/news/1405676334
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ria.ru/world/20140717/1016409306.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Need for the information from the official report

Good time of day,

I've noticed a lack of the official information in the article. For example, in the end of the page there is a strange map of the crash site created by The New York Times. Could you please insert the map used in the official Dutch Report? Current map provides readers with false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.9.27.86 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The map(s) in the "Crash" section are based on the DSB reports (created after the DSB preliminary report, but nothing changed regarding the map in the final DSB report). Stickee (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

RUE report

@156.62.10.21: We've discussed the Russian Union of Engineers report here at least twice; I think consensus was against including it. Its conclusions are Fringe, in other words, substantially different from those of the rest of the world. In order to include it we need reliable secondary sources that indicate it's of enough WP:Weight to justify mentioning it. The sources you've given so far are both, unsurprisingly, conspiracy theorist websites (Globalresearch and [73]). I say it's unsurprising, because last time we found that outside of Russia, virtually nobody takes those conclusions seriously except for the same kinds of places where you also hear that 9/11 was an inside job and/or that ebola is a CIA plot. I'm opposed to giving sources like that a link from the article. Geogene (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I concur. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Unreliable source. Ex nihil ^(talk) 23:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Concur. The discussion has been WP:EXHAUSTed. It would be appreciated if all new editors (IP editors included) took the time to read talk pages thoroughly before trying to edit war content into an article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Over and above the 'RS' question, (with which I concur with others), text which simply says a report has been published (without any indication of content), is fairly pointless. Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, even if there were any speculation as to what it may or may not say, alluding to it is a breach of WP:CRYSTAL... and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert Parry

What about Parry's article and the CIA whistleblower? Why isn't this mentioned here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.60.209.192 (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mostly, WP:PROFRINGE. See the Archive. Geogene (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

List of all Ukraine (Kiev aligned) army plane downings?

Is there a list showing the dates of all the planes shot down in Ukraine during the civil war?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.38.9 (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Background" section of this article lists some, but I'm not sure it's an exhaustive list. Alternatively, section 5.3 (page 181) of the DSB's final report goes into much further detail. Stickee (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that such a list would be relevant to the War in Donbass article or similar, but not this one. Arnoutf (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves correctly, a 'list' of this nature became redundant to the War in Donbass article as there was far too much to cover in the umbrella article. Project Military History took on these aspects quickly, and there is also comprehensive coverage of all reported events in the timelines of the war. As it stands, there haven't been very many planes, helicopters, etc. shot down, full stop. The majority of the war has, unfortunately, been conventional warfare in solidly inhabited areas. As a side note, only a few sources call it a 'civil war' for good reason. It may serve G well to read the main article in order to understand the complexities, and why it is simplistic to consider it to be such. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING, serving as a numbers cruncher for all aspects of events is not a good idea. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for a complete list in this article. Stickee (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just a note to all editors not to edit war and stick to the neutral point of view. I've just blocked Александр Мотин for a week for edit warring. Hopefully we can now resume construcive editing. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)