Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Ukrainian Su-25

Under Cause of the crash, there is a mention of a radar signature of "supposedly a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft [that] approached to within 3 to 5 kilometres (1.9 to 3.1 mi) of the Malaysian airliner". Could it be the same military aircraft that was reported by eye witnesses in this BBC report? Heptor (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been discussed in the past here [1]. I believe there's some mention in the Russian media coverage section. Stickee (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

BBC withdrew it first and then published an improved version... Are you saying that there are some reliability issues with this report? One of the witnesses they interviewed, the lady with the white hat, says that the military airplane was "flying lower than MH17 because it could be seen", the expert they cite says that "cruising altitude of the civilian airliners is higher". There don't seem to be any contradiction there at least. Heptor (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning since BBC is a mainstream media.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

See below section for why not. Stickee (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Heptor: @Red Rock Canyon: Why the exact time when Ukrainian Su-25 was detected by Russian radar was deleted?--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

One could argue that the exact time isn't too important. I don't immediately see how this impacts the rest of the article. Why do you think it should be there? In any case, it is important that the detection is mentioned, and that the time relative to the missile impact is also mentioned. Heptor (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, I really don't think that this is the best translation into English. Supposedly usually implies that something is only pretending to be something ... ( eg he sold me a suit, supposedly a Versace, but in fact a cheap fake) ... I suspect what you mean is that the Russians assumed (supposed), that it was a Ukrainian airforce Su-25. If that isn't what you mean I don't know what is meant, but I'm fairly sure that Russia didn't want to cast doubt on whether it was a real Su-25. Also there are other details in your edit that make it into a fact, rether than a Russian claim. Pincrete (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be right about the word "supposedly"--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Regarding your reverting [2] look at these books, for instance, please: "Radar Aids to Navigation" (1947), "Radar Aids to Navigation" (1964), "Radar Engineering" (2008) and this "Radar Systems and Radio Aids to Navigation" (2018) - as you said that "radar aids means nothing in English ..." Do you want to be a little more specific? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)

In context, wherever the radar data came from, must have been a receiver, a station, an installation, or possibly a type of radar equipment - I don't know which it was, but 'station' seemed safest. To analogise, a cooker, a saucepan, a fork, a mixer, a set of scales, a recipe book etc.etc.etc. are all "cooking aids", but "I made this meal with 3 cooking aids" would be so vague as to be almost meaningless, and would sound very odd indeed. Pincrete (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so "radar aids" in fact mean something in English. --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In the same sense that almost any two words put alongside each other can mean something in some contexts. Whether that informs the reader of where the radar data actually came from is another matter. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete, regarding this [3]: here is a book (page 28) which describe on-duty radars and their purpose [4]. These on-duty radars, as I said above, are being used by radio-technical troops as it said in the book. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you are accurately translating a term, but if this is not a term used in English, then it's pointless using it here. No one is going to understand except people with a detailed knowledge of Russian technical terms. I use DuckDuckGo as a search engine, not Google, but my search engine returned ONE use even close to this term, 'radar on-duty' - which turns out to be describing a piece of Russian equipment. I'm sure that there must be a way of describing this, but as MartinEvans points out, I don't know how that is to be done or even whether it is worth the effort. Why is describing the kind of radar important ? Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It is important since: 1. this was said that way 2. this makes it clear that those radar stations were not civilian. In addition, I added an explanatory note to that term.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so I've looked into this a lot further. Turns out Александр Мотин had this same big discussion about radar types over on ru.wiki (Talk:The crash of a Boeing 777 in the Donetsk region). He also argued it further at Project Discussion:Aviation (if any English editors want to read it, I suggest viewing in Chrome and using the built-in translator). The editors determine there that it was all original research and misrepresentation, and then he got indef blocked for failing to use reliable sources. Reverted the addition to the article accordingly. Stickee (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, then you should use Google Translator once again and translate this pending arbitration request in Russian Wikipedia [5]. If everything was as simple as you say, why is there still no decision on the arbitration request in RuWP for more than 8 months? --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the SU-25 angle has been thoroughly debunked as a conspiracy theory, though a significant one given all the noise around it. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Summing up

The following is the consensus wording which I propose to add to the article, since some significant and important details strongly need to be added in order to avoid further biased speculations (like this one):

The Russian MoD also claimed that, about one and a half minutes after the airliner began to break up, what they assumed to be a Ukrainian airforce Su-25, was detected by two Russian military radar stations and was tracked by those stations for four minutes. It was also claimed that the Su-25 aircraft became detectable only when it had breached an altitude of 5,000 m.

--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus between who? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No. You were blocked from editing the article for disruption. If you keep this up you will be blocked from this talk page as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ahunt: If I keep up what?--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: This wording takes into account the other editors' comments. That is why I propose it as consensus wording.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

All of the other editors here? Including those who don't want it added at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't want to add this, then just offer your reasons.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It's based on unverifiable sources, one of which is not English language, and borders on WP:FRINGE. It's also associated with the conspiracy theory that the 777 was brought down by missiles fired from the Su-25. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but sources do not have to be in English, that that (as an objection) is a non starter. Fringe is a different matter.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, non-English language sources are wholly permissible. But from the viewpoint of an English reader's comprehension, I'd argue that English sources might be much preferred, especially where technical material such as military radar is concerned. But the actual nature of the source might well be more important than the language in which it's written. A primary source written in a non-English language is unlikely to ever be acceptable here? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do you say "it based on unverifiable sources"? What do you mean by that? And why do you say "one of which is not English language" since those two sources are in English!--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Martin on the fringe point. It's unnecessary detail and the article already summarises the position of the Russian government. Stickee (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Only the Russian authorities have access to that radar data? It's unverifiable by anyone else? Or has the raw data been promulgated and evaluated in some way? The second source from Russia Today is in English. But the first source, to the official briefings, has an auto-translate feature which produces such contentious terms as "on-duty radar". I'm sorry but I'm not inclined to waste any more time discussing this with you. I think the consensus that has emerged, in the current discussion on this Talk page, is that the material you propose should not be added. What's currently in the article says all that is needed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Source 1 is not in English and is a primary source (being a "Speech by the Chief of the Main Operations Directorate - Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Andrei Kartapolov:").Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you just need secondary sources? Or if I provide you secondary sources you'll say then this is FRINGE, right? --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That depends on the source. However the fact you claimed a source was in English when it was not could be why you were told "if you continue", it is hard to even comment on that without it being a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Bellingcat [6]:

At 17.20 P.M. at the distance of 51 kilometers from the Russian Federation state boundary and the azimuth of 300 degrees the aircraft started to lose its speed obstructively which is quite distinctively to be seen on the table of the aircraft characteristics. At 17.21 35 seconds P.M. with the aircraft speed of 200 km/h at the point of the Boeing crash there is a new mark of the aircraft to be seen. The aircraft was steadily monitored by radar stations of Ust-Donetsk and Butirinskoe during 4 minutes period. Air control officer having enquired the characteristics of newly appeared aircraft couldn’t possibly get them because it is in all likelihood that the aircraft had no secondary deduction system amounted on it, which is put typically for military aircraft. The early detection of this aircraft appeared to be quite impossible because the air situation control is usually performed by radars working in a standby mode which detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude.

Is it okay for you? I summarised those significant and important details just into two lines.--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No in answer to fringe as that source is titled "How the Dutch Safety Board Proved Russia Faked MH17 Evidence", so whilst it supports the cl,aim the Russians claimed this, it does not support it as not being fringe (in fact it rather support this).Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Simply to register that I also think this is unnecessary detail that adds nothing to anyone's understanding, it is apparently attempting to reinvigorate a discredited theory, and the sources are piss-poor! What have I forgotten? Pincrete (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If it is FRINGE, why is nothing written in that paragraph about proved nonexistence of the Ukrainian Su-25 or any other military jet near MH17 at the time of the crash? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"the idea that a Su-25 could have downed the Boeing 777 with an air-to-air missile was dismissed by chief designer of the Su-25, Vladimir Babak".Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What are talking about? I've never said that Ukr Su-25 shot down MH17 airliner. The Russian military has not ever said this either. BBC stated that they found eyewitnesses who proved that they saw military airplanes shortly before the crash. So I ask again: why is it FRINGE since I never said that Su-25 shot down MH17 and didn't even try? Is BBC a mainstream media or what? --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You asked why we saying nothing about it being proven there was no SU-25, I provide the passage where we say it has been proven it was not an SU-15.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You provided passage that Su-25 could not have downed MH17 but not that there was no military aircraft at all, didn't you? So how can you refute eyewitness accounts (in a BBC report) of the presence of military aircraft shortly before the crash (since you believe it is FRINGE)? --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Also can we have some better arguments than "I do not like it", why is this unacceptable?Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

+1. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Why there is nothing said about SBU chief's press conference regarding MH17 held on 18 July 2014?

I wonder why the information from the SBU chief's (Valentyn Nalyvaichenko) press conference for the world's media is missing in the article? It was held on 18 July 2014 (Eng; Ukr), but instead, the article cites his subordinate, Vitaly Nayda, and his press-conference held on 19 July 2014. Why is that? At that press conference just after a day after the crash, Nalyvaichenko pointed out, inter alia, the exact site of the missile launch (Pervomaisky), which the Dutch-led investigators have been trying to find out for several years. I think that we should reflect the fact that the exact site of the missile launch (Pervomaisky) was established by Ukr SBU the day after the disaster (!), and a couple of years later confirmed by investigators from JIT. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I think it will probably be helpful if you participate in the discussion and then make some edits, since you blocked me and don't allow me to improve the article on my own.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not an article in which I feel like participating actively as an editor at this time. Note that myself having acted in my capacity as an uninvolved admin does not obligate me to do so. El_C 22:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So how do I improve the article since you don't want to unblock me? --Александр Мотин (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Make any proposals you see fit, here, on the article talk page. El_C 00:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I have already made. So what's next? --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You discus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (8 June 2020 version):

  "The responsibility for investigation was delegated to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) and the Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT), who concluded that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine"

Well, to my mind it is not correct to say this way because the Head of SBU said on the 18 July 2020 that Ukr SBU conducted their own investigation which concluded that (Nalyvaichenko's Facebook post and don't forget to watch a video I gave a link to)... So that means that initial investigation was conducted by Ukraine, and which formed the basis of the conclusions made by the Dutch-led investigators. But now it is said like there was no official investigation before JIT and DSB.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• In his Facebook post Nalyvaichenko says:

It took us less than a day to solve the crime of bandits who shot down a passenger plane on July 17, 2014 over the village of Grabovo, Donetsk region.

So the crime was solved by Ukraine (what a surprise) the next day! But there is nothing said about it in the article --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose 2016 is not 2020, nor is 2016 before 2015.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What? This discussion is not a vote --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I have stated I oppose your suggestion, and I have stated one objection to your material. I said I would not engage with you, but we also should not try and score points, check the damn date of your "source", and come back when you can at least get that right.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Check the damn date yourself, Slatersteven [7] (18 July 2014) --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What has that to do with that Facebook post?Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Rbc.ua [8], Lb.ua [9] --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said I do not think we need to add this, and that is my last word.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand why a press conference close to the shoot down is significant. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Donetsk People's Republic claimed possession of such a Buk missile system in a since-deleted tweet" ...

So the article claims:

The Donetsk People's Republic claimed possession of such a system [Buk missile launcher] in a since-deleted tweet.

References

My first question is: Was this tweet written in English or Russian? The source which was used in the article claims it was written in English (By the way what does DNI stand for?). But the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation claims the tweet to be in Russian. Each of these tweets (in Russian and English) on those screenshots has 279 retweets and 50 favs. So I wonder whether that means that the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation falsified that tweet because it was actually in English. Or not? --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

My second question is: Would you please provide a proof that this twitter account (@dnrpress) belongs to the "Donetsk People's Republic"? Thank you. --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Errr we do not source to the tweet, so I suggest you contact the sources we use and ask them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I suggest you to delete this speculation since you cannot prove the ownership and authencity of that tweet in English. Check WP:VERIFY. --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I ask your advice as you seem to be an expert in "propaganda bullshit". Is this the American propaganda bullshit? [10]:

A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession

So how this so-called "deleted tweet" could show a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession since this photo of the BUK missile launcher was posted on the internet in 2011? I mean how the photo which is made in 2011 could show a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession? --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

We do not (again) cite the tweet, so take it up with the sources we use.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Didn't I say it clearly? "The source which was used in the article claims it [the tweet] was written in English" --Александр Мотин (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahh sorry, I see, it does not matter what language it was written in, as we do not source to it, we source to RS saying it. NOw it is (dare I suggest it) possible that the DNR make announcements in more than one langage.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"It does not matter what language it was written in"?? Oh gosh, it's so funny. I'll give you a little clue - there is a different meaning of the "same" tweet in Russian.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will indulge this, what does the Russian text say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: So you want to say that DNR wrote two tweets in different languages but they were posted at the same time and have the same quantity of retweets and favs? You think they wrote that tweet in English in order to inform the British people? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to say anything, policy says we go with what RS say. So if RS say "this was the DNR, and this is what they said" so do we. Unless we have RS saying it is not true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I will cautiously assume that what you call a "reliable source" (The Diplomat) is just a bucket full of the American propaganda bullshit. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2020 (U

I will cautiously assume that what you call a "reliable source" (The Diplomat) is just a bucket full of the American propaganda bullshit. Harassment? Especially that "bullshit" part. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 23:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I will ask again, what does it say in Russian?Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Самоходные зенитно-ракетные комплексы "Бук" на территории зенитно-ракетного полка ПВО А1402 взятого под контроль ДНР.

--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It should be translated by a person who is fluent in English. Maybe Ymblanter will assist us? --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to know what you translate it as. What do YOU translate "взятого под контроль ДНР" as?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And I want someone who is fluent in English to translate it as precisely as possible. Let's wait a bit. "на территории зенитно-ракетного полка ПВО А1402 взятого под контроль ДНР" → In the territory of the regiment A1402 which (the regiment; NOT the Buk launchers according to the grammatical case) was seized by DNR. --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And its not DNI, its "Deleted DNR" tweet.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's just a translation of the original tweet in Russian. It isn't very helpful giving a Russian tweet to an English-reading audience, so the news agency translates to English. AFP translates it too with a slightly different wording: "@dnrpress: self-propelled Buk surface-to-air missiles systems have been seized by the DNR from (Ukrainian) surface-to-air missile regiment A1402," the Twitter post said. source Stickee (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but we do not know, nor does it matter, RS say it belongs to the Donetsk People's Republic, and say they posted it. That is all that concearns us.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AFP says: a Twitter account for the "Donetsk People's Republic". What are these quotation marks for? (: --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As we do not write for AFP how are we gong to know, I suggest you ask them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And I suggest you start reading WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." it does, so it does not fail that "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Well have any RS said this was not a tweet by the DNR?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Then at least it should be written like "Some twitter user @dnrpress claimed (...) in a since-deleted tweet" since you cannot prove that the twitter account belongs to the Donetsk People's Republic. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not what the source says it says 'a Twitter account for the "Donetsk People's Republic", wp:v means we say what the source says. I do not have to prove anything, I am not the source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If your goal is to write a propagandist article on Wikipedia, then, of course, you don't have to prove anything. --Александр Мотин (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my least word on this wp:v does not say I have to prove anything, all I have to do is say "here is an RS saying it, now does it?" You admit the source says it, so it does not fail wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Stickee. It's quite likely that one of the versions of the tweet is a machine translation. Given the nature of the screenshots, I think it's likely translated via a browser or similar rather than via Twitter. While I don't understand Russian, considering that the Russian version still has an English UI and that the English version has odd phrasing, I'm willing to bet the Russian version is misleading. It's misleading to claim a machine translation is fabrication.

Consider this example [11] [12] ([13]). You can see the original version here [14], it's in Russian as you may expect. Did I fabricate the first image? That seems to be a misleading or at least confusing claim. All I did was use Chrome's machine translation ability to translate the page and took a screenshot. If I claimed that the English translation was the original tweet that claim could reasonably be called a fabrication.

But AFAICT, no one source we use have ever said that. The Diplomat [15] "A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession.". Notice there is no comment on the tweet's language there or anywhere. They link to this tweet of that screenshot. But even that tweet says nothing about the language of the original tweet. I do think The Diplomat failure to make clear that they were linking to what appears to be a machine translation of the tweet rather than the tweet in it's original language was sloppy journalism or even misleading. Machine translations are known to be inaccurate so if you are going to link to them, you should make it clear this is what you're linking to. Further, it's not clear to me if they actually got someone who understood Russian to view the original tweet. Possibly they didn't realise it was a machine translation. That piece seems to be a live breaking news piece "Editor’s Note: The Diplomat is currently monitoring this rapidly developing event. This piece will be updated as more information becomes available." so frankly it was never a great source.

So IMO we shouldn't use that particular diplomat source if possible, and we especially shouldn't use it for the tweet. But AFAICT, there are other sources which confirm what the tweet said and these seem to be using the Russian version. Ultimately human translations by reliable secondary sources is what we want so it's not clear to me there was ever a major issue here, more a minor one of sourcing. Again, AFAICT, we have never claimed, nor have any our sources actually claimed, that the original tweet was in English.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And we do use other sources.10:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

But as I said, I don't think we should be using that particular article at all especially for the tweet. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Apologies it seems my reply was partly mangled while I was editing. I meant to say "I'm willing to bet the Russian version is the original. However I don't agree with the way the now topic banned OP has approached this. For starters, IMO It's misleading to claim a machine translation is fabrication". Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I dug into replies to that tweet and found this from the original poster [16] which pretty much confirms what they original posted was a translation. They don't say machine translation, but frankly I don't see how a non machine translation would end up looking like an actual tweet. That is actually likely far closer to a fabrication. It is unfortunate that the original tweet didn't make it clear that it was a machine translation although to be fair, I don't think they expected it to blow up like it did [17]. The original tweet is on archive.org anyway [18] Frankly, now that it's clear this is just some random person, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with some random person on twitter tweeting a machine translated screenshot of a tweet without mentioning it's a machine translation, I won't even say it's misleading. But I stand by my earlier point, while not a fabrication, it is at a minimum confusing and I'd go further and say misleading for The Diplomat to publish a full article which links to a machine translation of the tweet and not make it clear this is what they were linking to. Whether this is because they didn't realise they were relying on a machine translation I don't know, but IMO we probably shouldn't use that particular article, and we especially shouldn't use it for anything to do with that tweet. Can some explain to me why we need to use that article for the tweet? If other sources say the same thing and appear to be using the original Russian version, that seems eminently better. Even sources in Norwegian (although someone mentioned AFP) seem to be better than an English source that is potentially relying on a machine translation. If there is some contradiction between what the sources say about the tweet then frankly sources like the AFP which have likely used a human translation of the Russian tweet seem to be more accurate than a source which may have used a machine translation. Yet for all the mess of this discussion, no one seems to have actually mentioned any difference between what those like AFP and the Norwegian source are saying about this tweet and The Diplomat. So I'm not clear what's with the insistence of keeping it for the tweet. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

None, but I would point out that the diplomat do not link to the translated tweet, but a tweet commenting on its deletion. It is sloppy yes. But (and this is the key) nothing the diplomat says seems to be incorrect (As other sources confirm the deletion). But by all means replace it with a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion over at wp:rsn about the RS status of the diplomat.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Александр Мотин has now been topic banned from this subject. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this is a long read. I don't think there is any doubt that the DNR's press office (or media relations) put out a tweet. I'm not sure that so significant now that we have so much other evidence on the Buk travels in Russia and Ukraine, in 2014 it was important. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Shoot down, shoot-down and shootdown

Many thanks to Pincrete for making me do some research on this. "Shoot down" is the verb in all forms of English. For the noun, "shootdown" is rare in British Englsh, and so "shoot-down" seems the best to use here. As I said in my edit summary, it isn't terribly important but it should be consistent throughout the article. "Shoot-down" seems to have been acceptable to the BBC and Alistair Cooke in 1989, for example. --84.64.249.140 (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As you say, it's not hugely important, but the more usual term in British English is "shooting down", i.e. "the shooting down of the plane". "Shooting-down" (noun, with hyphen, but without hyphen in one of the two examples given, is listed on Collins Dictionary and it says it's British English). Lexico (Oxford) has "shoot-down" (noun, with hyphen) but says it's North American. Personally I don't like "shootdown" (or "shoot-down" for that matter) but one argument against "shooting down" (or "shooting-down") is it's not easy to pluralise it. "There were two shootings down last week" sounds a bit odd and "there were two shooting downs" sounds just wrong. Perhaps it can't be pluralised. Dubmill (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur that the one-word form is less common in UK English. I have no strong feelings about whether the hyphenated/spaced form is better. There is I think a general tendency to be slower to drop the space/hyphen in UK English and I tend to think this is usually clearer. I'm old enough to remember when people co-operated and I still get confused when I read of people referring to their colleagues as female-bovine-orkers. What's an 'orker'? Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you go back a hundred years or so, "to-day" and "to-night" were common. As Dubmill says, other than "shootdown", it's hard to get a good word for the deliberate destruction of a flying machine in the air. "Shooting down" (or its hyphenated version) is awkward, especially when pluralised, and I don't like "downing" either. Maybe there are some instances which can be trimmed entirely and the context suffice. I couldn't help noticing the plodding repetition of the term, and the two different versions of it ("shoot down" and "shoot down"). We have 20 instances of shoot-down now and I reckon we could afford to lose about half of them. Without straying into elegant variation, we could perhaps also look at phrases like "airliner's destruction" which emphasise the particularity of this event; most shoot-downs are of military aircraft, not an airliner full of passengers. --84.64.249.140 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you think? I'll settle for seven fewer. --84.64.249.140 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, this blurs and euphemises the meaning in most - if not all - instances.Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How does it do that? --84.64.247.8 (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, whilst consistent spelling of the same term makes sense, I don't think that always using the same term is essential - English is like that, "shooting down of the aircraft" and "aircraft shoot down" mean the same thing - the former is more UK, but both are usable and structure of the whole sentence is more important than always using the identical term IMO. I had a closer look at your edits, I think that at times they make the info less specific eg (Russis's) "account of what caused the shoot-down has varied over time" becomes "account of what caused the airliner's destruction has varied over time", well Russia has never proposed a bomb nor an accident. There are ways out of this, but I believe it should be more, not less specific (to the extent that sources support of course) - in this instance perhaps "its account of how, and by whom, the aircraft was shot down …". Must go now, will continue later.Pincrete (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point, sentence cohesion and styling is often more important than keep one term throughout. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Background section; first paragraph

I want to trim the paragraph to make it more like a summary style text per WP:SUMMARY. The current version was copy pasted without thinking or contains minor details imho. I can explain why something was removed and want to know what do you think about it:
An armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine led some airlines to avoid eastern Ukrainian airspace in early March 2014 due to safety concerns. In the months prior to 17 July, reports circulated in the media on the presence of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, in the hands of the rebels that were fighting the Ukrainian government in eastern Ukraine. On 29 June the rebels had obtained a Buk missile system after having taken control of a Ukrainian military base. The Ukrainian authorities declared that this system was not operational. According to the statement of the Security Service of Ukraine three Buk missile systems were in the territory controlled by the rebels at the time that Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was shot down. On the night following the downing of MH17 three Buk missile launchers along with a Buk command vehicle were moved into Russia.--Renat (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

"Russian government holds the Ukrainian government at fault" in the lead

First of all, the cited source [19] tells nearly the opposite: "The Netherlands will not hold Ukraine accountable for decision not to close airspace over Donbas". Well, if they or official investigators would hold the Ukrainian government responsible, that needed to be included of course. But they "will NOT". As about the groundless accusations by the country-perpetrator, one could not care less. That can be included to the body of the page, but certainly not to the lead. I also do not see this specific claim by Russian government described in detail in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You are right that the source doesn't support the assertion that Russia holds Ukraine responsible because of Ukraine not closing its airspace. BUT, when last I examined this (a few years ago), the 'Kremlin line' was still that "it's Ukraine's fault anyway, since the plane should not have been there" - this was also almost the only thing that was consistent in Russian claims, and AFAIK is still their position. I'm not convinced that this should go - since the view of the accused country - which is also a 'global player' - is inherently important, even if it is a very thin defence. It also introduces the 'closing of airspace' issue which both Russia and some less partisan commentators deemed important at the time.

BUT I'm not going to 'push back' - I'll see what others think. I also note that MOST of the convoluted story of Russia's 'defence' is already covered very succinctly in the previous sentences. So maybe we don't need the 'airspace' claim, but if we do, we need to find a more explicit source. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it has a place in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't belong, especially in light of official investigation findings and statements. Stickee (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The lead

I think the lead is outdated and needs to be fixed as follows.

1. It has been reliably established by investigations (JIT and Bellingcat), essentially as a matter of fact, that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched by a Russian military team of 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade from the rebel territory. The team was dispatched on the orders from Moscow. This needs to be stated more clearly. Whatever Girkin (a GRU/FSB operative) was saying on his Facebook account should remain only in the body of the page. Whatever intelligence services were telling about it immediately after the event should probably also remain only in the body.
2. The promoting disinformation and obstruction by the Russian government should remain, but be more clearly phrased as such.
3. Add information about 4 people indicted by the court. My very best wishes (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Point 1 - the lead is very deliberately phrased cautiously. A mass of evidence, some strong, some circumstantial, points to Russia and Russian individuals having a case to answer, but we still live in a world where guilt or otherwise is not established by Bellingcat nor any news or internet site. Our cautious tone mirrors that of JIT/DSB findings, announcements and reports - and should continue to do so IMO. These charges still have the status of allegations regardless of how any of us might feel personally. The possibility, no matter how remote, that WP would contribute to an atmosphere in which a fair trial becomes impossible should be borne in mind. I don't know what Dutch law is on this matter, but in UK law, a paper or person declaring a person guilty before they have been tried is contempt of court and risks invalidating any subsequent trial. Therefore I would strongly caution against the change you propose. The simple fact is that these are still allegations, not established facts. You may be right about western Intelligence going, I think you are probably wrong about Girkin, but whatever remains should continue IMO to record the history of what unfolded immediately after the crash. There is a lot of 'catch-up' and back story to cover.

Point 2 - I don't have an opinion about the details of point two. This was reduced from a very long account of all the turns and twists of Russia's 'story'. Some balance between the present very succinct and the earlier overlong might be achievable.

Point 3 - probably include the 4 indictments, though maybe it isn't necessary to name them. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A cautionary approach in general - yes, I agree. Using Facebook and claims by Girkin in the lead - no, I think this should be fixed. We are not talking here about court convictions, and the 4 official suspects were not officially found guilty yet if I am not mistaken. We just describe what RS say on the subject. OK, I will try to fix something a little, just to make clear what exactly I suggest. My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say that Girkin's existing statement (as described by RS) definitely belongs in the lead. Stickee (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The end of 1st paragraph partly contradict 2nd paragraph and creates misleading impression that the MH17 was downed by DNR rebels, such as Girkin, and that Buk was operated by rebels. After all investigations, we know this is not the case [20]. They only assisted Russian military in transporting the Buk. In particular, the prosecutors tell the following about all the accused (including Girkin): The indictments do not say that the defendants personally pushed the launch button, nor that they identified a target or ordered the TELAR’s crew to fire. They are not being prosecuted as the individuals responsible for actually performing the launch process. the defendants ... instructed others with regard to its transportation; they directed the Buk-TELAR to the launch site; they had conversations after the crash about whether ‘their’ Buk had done its job; they expressed delight over the fact that an aircraft had been shot down; and they also made arrangements for the Buk-TELAR to be taken back to the Russian Federation.[21] Note word "their" Buk in "...". It was not their Buk. It was Buk of 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of Russian Federation, and it was operated and launched by military of Russian Federation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

So, I fixed it in the lead, but of course these claims by Girkin remain in the body of the page. More changes needed per above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The lead

I think the lead is outdated and needs to be fixed as follows.

1. It has been reliably established by investigations (JIT and Bellingcat), essentially as a matter of fact, that the airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched by a Russian military team of 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade from the rebel territory. The team was dispatched on the orders from Moscow. This needs to be stated more clearly. Whatever Girkin (a GRU/FSB operative) was saying on his Facebook account should remain only in the body of the page. Whatever intelligence services were telling about it immediately after the event should probably also remain only in the body.
2. The promoting disinformation and obstruction by the Russian government should remain, but be more clearly phrased as such.
3. Add information about 4 people indicted by the court. My very best wishes (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Point 1 - the lead is very deliberately phrased cautiously. A mass of evidence, some strong, some circumstantial, points to Russia and Russian individuals having a case to answer, but we still live in a world where guilt or otherwise is not established by Bellingcat nor any news or internet site. Our cautious tone mirrors that of JIT/DSB findings, announcements and reports - and should continue to do so IMO. These charges still have the status of allegations regardless of how any of us might feel personally. The possibility, no matter how remote, that WP would contribute to an atmosphere in which a fair trial becomes impossible should be borne in mind. I don't know what Dutch law is on this matter, but in UK law, a paper or person declaring a person guilty before they have been tried is contempt of court and risks invalidating any subsequent trial. Therefore I would strongly caution against the change you propose. The simple fact is that these are still allegations, not established facts. You may be right about western Intelligence going, I think you are probably wrong about Girkin, but whatever remains should continue IMO to record the history of what unfolded immediately after the crash. There is a lot of 'catch-up' and back story to cover.

Point 2 - I don't have an opinion about the details of point two. This was reduced from a very long account of all the turns and twists of Russia's 'story'. Some balance between the present very succinct and the earlier overlong might be achievable.

Point 3 - probably include the 4 indictments, though maybe it isn't necessary to name them. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A cautionary approach in general - yes, I agree. Using Facebook and claims by Girkin in the lead - no, I think this should be fixed. We are not talking here about court convictions, and the 4 official suspects were not officially found guilty yet if I am not mistaken. We just describe what RS say on the subject. OK, I will try to fix something a little, just to make clear what exactly I suggest. My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say that Girkin's existing statement (as described by RS) definitely belongs in the lead. Stickee (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The end of 1st paragraph partly contradict 2nd paragraph and creates misleading impression that the MH17 was downed by DNR rebels, such as Girkin, and that Buk was operated by rebels. After all investigations, we know this is not the case [22]. They only assisted Russian military in transporting the Buk. In particular, the prosecutors tell the following about all the accused (including Girkin): The indictments do not say that the defendants personally pushed the launch button, nor that they identified a target or ordered the TELAR’s crew to fire. They are not being prosecuted as the individuals responsible for actually performing the launch process. the defendants ... instructed others with regard to its transportation; they directed the Buk-TELAR to the launch site; they had conversations after the crash about whether ‘their’ Buk had done its job; they expressed delight over the fact that an aircraft had been shot down; and they also made arrangements for the Buk-TELAR to be taken back to the Russian Federation.[23] Note word "their" Buk in "...". It was not their Buk. It was Buk of 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of Russian Federation, and it was operated and launched by military of Russian Federation. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

So, I fixed it in the lead, but of course these claims by Girkin remain in the body of the page. More changes needed per above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing the title of the sub-section currently titled Crash

An IP changed the title to "Shoot Down" which sound odd to me. I changed it to "Missile attack", but Pincrete reverted that saying the "section isn't really about the attack". I have reverted it back to "Crash" for now. This has been the title for a long time. We should leave it there until some consensus is reached. The IP made the point that it should be made clear that the flight was shot down and did not just crash and I agree with that. The section's first three paragraphs are about the flight's departure from the airport and route. The fourth paragraph is about the missile attack and the immediate damage. The fifth paragraph is about the landing of debris and bodies. The last paragraph is about other known flights in the area at the time. Can we call it "Flight, attack and crash"? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard, the trouble about calling it 'attack' is that so much of the article is about the attack. I agree broadly with your analysis of the content but wonder if anybody can think of something simpler than your present proposal. I share your and the IP's reservations about the long-term title being ambiguous (crash) - the plane simply didn't crash except in the most generic sense. That title may be a 'hangover' from when the cause was unconfirmed. Pincrete (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the article is about the investigation and reactions and consequences of the attack. This section is what is factually confirmed to have happen. If the title of the article was "The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17" we could call this section simply "Incident". The section title should be a noun or noun phrase. Oxford says "shoot down" is a verbal phrase, however "shoot-down" or "shootdown" is a noun, but is particular to North American English. "Shoot-down" is used in the lead already, so if we use that it should be hyphenated and only the first word capitalized. We should wait and see if there are other suggestions. I agree that the current title was probably from before the attack was confirmed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the analysis. "Crash" is an overused term and a bit misleading here. "Accident" more misleading (although in line with the Categories). Perhaps there is advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Intended target controversy

That question aside, I think there is only one remaining controversy in this case. Here is it. As we know, the Buk was operated by a professional military team, and according to military/aviation experts (like Mark Solonin - [24]), there is no way they could accidentally confuse a passenger plane with a Ukrainian Su airplane(s) flying on much lower heights - with such advanced equipment! Furthermore, there were numerous passenger planes flying high through exactly same area during same day (and almost same time), most of them are operated by Russian airlines (that was well established by the official investigation). They did not try to hit any of them, obviously because they were easily identifiable as passenger planes. Which brings the question: what a hell they hit this plane? And the only possible explanation seem to be that one originally put forward by Ukarinian SBU [25], i.e. they wanted to hit a Russian passenger plane, which would serve as a casus belli for a much larger invasion to the Ukrainian territory planned at the time. That failed. They hit wrong plane. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

In a word, conjecture. Also, if I recall properly, the first words said by the first men at the crash site strongly suggest that they were expecting to find a military plane. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I think we can leave out the conspiracy theories, this is not a wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is not my claim, it was described in RS, and this is hardly a conspiracy theory. It has not been reliably established why exactly they decided to shoot down this plane according to the official investigation [26]. They indicted 4 defendants: the prosecution accuses the defendants Girkin, Dubinskiy, Pulatov and Kharchenko of playing a commanding, organizing and supporting role in deploying the Buk-TELAR that shot down flight MH17. Girkin and Dubinskiy were leaders within the self-proclaimed DPR, an armed group. Pulatov and Kharchenko were their direct subordinates. And sure, these defendants could play exactly this role, they are probably guilty as charged, and they could believe whatever, but they were not the people who actually pulled the trigger, commanded to pull the trigger, and most importantly, did not plan and command the entire operation. According to the conclusion by the investigators, "As the case file shows, there were other people besides the four defendants in this trial who played a role in shooting down flight MH17 – first and foremost the crew of the TELAR, but presumably also individuals within the chain of command in the Russian Federation.". We do not really know what the Russian military commanders from Moscow were trying to accomplish. So whatever RS (such as the article by Andreas Umland linked above) are saying on this subject can be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

An enormous percentage of military and police 'cock-ups' - targetting and killing unintended targets - happen because of human error. Not because the human lacks the equipment or knowledge to make a correct assessment, but because in the 'heat of battle', they are so full of adrenalie that they make a wrong judgement - in everyday speech they are 'trigger happy'. Solonin can not possibly know more than that the crew SHOULD NOT have made an elementary error.

The official investigation only raises the issue of 'why this plane' or "why a civilian plane" to make the point that legally the answer is irrelevant :"Thus it is not necessary to provide any evidence that the defendants specifically intended to shoot down a civilian aircraft with their Buk-TELAR. Indeed, as we stated earlier, the case file contains various indications that the defendants did in fact intend to shoot down a military aircraft belonging to the Ukrainian air force. This can be deduced from intercepted conversations involving the defendants that took place after flight MH17 was shot down.

In WP terms, what you are proposing is distinctly FRINGE, and it also appears to be a SYNTH of various sources. Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course I read this text from the conclusion by investigators. They are very careful here saying that the actual motivation for the crime did not really matter that much, as far as the crime was committed, etc. They say it precisely because they do not really know the motivation, beyond "various indications" that ... They also say that the charges can be changed during the trial if new facts (about the Buk team and their military commanders) will be found. As about my suggestion, here is it in general. The shooting down this plane was obviously a crime (hence the international criminal investigation, etc.). Also, according to prosecution, that was not just an accident, but a murder. Which brings the obvious question: what was the motive for the crime? This is far from obvious. This needs to be included somewhere, possibly to a specific subsection, including the opinion by investigators you cited, along with other well sourced views. This is all I was thinking about. And, no, I believe such sourced view [27], [28], [29] is not FRINGE because: (a) it does not contradict any facts we know about this case, including findings by the official investigation, (b) it was officially claimed by Ukrainian government through Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, and (c) it was discussed and considered feasible by experts, such as Andreas Umland , Mark Solonin, and Andrei Piontkovsky. Sure, this suggested motive is not proven, but so are all other possible motives. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. More sources: [30],[31]. The young Bellingcat investigator Aric Toler (2nd ref) criticizes the arguments by Nalivaichenko, but his criticism is very amateurish at best. For example, he does not really address the argument that it was impossible to confuse the passenger and the military Ukrainian planes, especially by the professional military team, the point made by David Satter (1st ref), Piontkovskiy [32] and some others. Instead, Aric Toler misrepresents the argument as a claim that the Buk would be useless against Ukrainian military planes ("While some have argued ...", etc.). No one claimed that. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Other arguments by Aric Toler. Lastly, and perhaps most obviously, we can point to the intercepted private conversations between the Russian and DNR commanders from mid-July 2014, discussing how a Buk was coming to the area to provide protection from constant Ukrainian aerial strikes.. Oh yes, such conversations did took place. That's why people like Girkin (one of the accused) believed that the intended target was a Ukrainian military plane, at least at the time of the event (as noted by investigators). However, that is exactly what DNR commanders like Girkin would be told in the event of the actual false flag operation (once again, we do not know if it was in fact a false flag operation, only that experts discussed such a possibility and that their views can be reliably sourced). My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am talking only about this one posting by Aric Toler (which is fine and can/should be cited, but this is more like a personal opinion piece, rather than an official report by Bellingcat). Of course Bellingcat made phenomenal work to establish the actual perpetrators, and the actual chain of the Russian military command used in the operation (as described in this official report by Bellingcat: [33]). Based on that, people who gave an order for the Buk team to shoot were not DNR rebels [34],[35],[36]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

There may be individual elements here that warrant the briefest of mentions, but collectively it amounts to SYNTH advocacy of a FRINGE theory (ie one not given any coverage/much credence by most sources). Most of the sources you give here endorse the notion that targetting the missile on the day and decision to fire was taken by an officer 'on the ground', so human error is more likely than conspiracy. But regardless, this is fringe speculation. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course that was a human error. All these sources say it was a human error. No one intended to hit the MH17. The only question is why they have made this error, i.e. about the target they intended to hit. My very best wishes (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It might be possible to have one line about this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it could go in the section headed "conspiracy theories" underneath "Russian media coverage"? This is one of the many talking points their Firehose of falsehood has spewed in an effort to throw shade on their culpability.TiddiesTiddiesTiddies (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:21st-century mass murder in Ukraine

@Ahunt: reverted my addition of this category to the article with the edit summary “no reliable source backs this, cases still pending. The article supports the idea that it was an accidental targeting.”

The prosecution in a Netherlands court does assume that this was accidental targeting, but under Dutch law that constitutes the negligent murder of 298 people. The prosecution and court have rejected the alternate theories of the event presented by the defence. The current trial’s purpose is mainly to determine whether the four suspects are guilty of murder by their participation (none of them is suspected of pressing the button, and more trials of other suspects are anticipated).

As to sources, plenty of news sources[37] and books[38] call the act “mass murder”[39][40] and the trial a “mass murder trial.”[41][42]

So the category belongs here as this act is called a “mass murder” in reliable sources, even if it’s legally “unsolved” because no one has yet been brought to justice. —Michael Z. 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you might want to check some of those sources you list. They don't all describe it as "mass murder". And unless there is a legal verdict, we tend not to assume guilt for any crime. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As User:Martinevans123 said, yes that is normally how we proceed, it isn't up to Wikipedia editors to decide the case. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t say someone is guilty. I didn’t say we assume any guilt. Guilt is not at issue. I said the crime exists. —Michael Z. 00:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

All four refer to mass murder.

1. “Piet Ploeg has no expectation the accused will appear even via video link, or that they'll serve time if convicted of mass murder.”
2. “Lawyer Arlette Schijns was speaking at the resumption of the Dutch trial in absentia of three Russians and a Ukrainian charged with offenses including mass murder for their alleged involvement in the downing of MH17.”
3. “The missile launcher that shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was actually one of two deadly Buk-TELAR systems smuggled over the border from Russia into eastern Ukraine, prosecutors have revealed during the emotional opening day of a landmark mass murder trial.”
4. “He also asked judges in the mass murder trial of three Russians and a Ukrainian charged for their alleged role in downing Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 to spell out in clear terms in their final verdict — expected next year — about Russia's role in the downing of the plane.”

 —Michael Z. 00:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So there are four there, but you gave six sources above. Could you possibly indicate the source from which each of those four have been taken? Might be clearer for us all. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not until; RS make the link. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

News: PACE passes a resolution that MH17 was shot down over Ukraine in 2014 by a Buk missile made available to military units controlled by the Russian Federation, who has been engaged in a widespread and "appalling" campaign of disinformation and obstruction. [43] -- GreenC 16:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Overly definitive assertion in lead

Yesterday I removed the assertion that the airliner was shot down by Russian forces, from the first paragraph of the lead. I found this to be a rather unbalanced statement, especially since this is not repeated anywhere in the article or in the reliable sources, from what I can see. All that seems to be clear is that the weapon was supplied by Russian forces, and that they are being held criminally responsible. Nowhere does it say that the people actually firing the missile were Russian forces, and it would probably be a hard assertion to back up. I don't think it is appropriate to have such a bold and definite statement on a subject which is still somewhat up in the air. At best, I can see it being appropriate to say something like "members of the Russian military have been criminally charged with murder, for their involvement in supplying and readying the weapon used in the downing" or "investigations of the circumstances have indicated that the weapon was supplied by members of the Russian military." I might be wrong about this, but even if I am wrong, such a bold assertion should probably be backed up by credible sources where it is found.

A rather long-winded way of saying that I agree with what user:Pincrete said on August 10, 2021, in his comments on "the lead".

David12345 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the key thing that readers need to know in the first para is what happened and, as far as we know, who was responsible. How about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17)[a] was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down on 17 July 2014 by a Russian missile, while flying over eastern Ukraine.- Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably an improvement, but that completely leaves open who might have fired the missile. I think it's fair to present some speculation or suspicion, so long as it is fairly described as such. David12345 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I think that there is no doubt that it was "a Russian missile". The second para in the lede provides expanded detail on who fired it. Feel free to propose alternate wording. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on that first point, but merely indicating ownership of the weapon does not imply guilt. Here's my try: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17)[a] was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down on 17 July 2014 while flying over eastern Ukraine. The plane was shot down with a missile owned and provided by Russia, fired by either Russian-backed seperatists or Russian forces themselves. Just a shot, indicating that there is some ambiguity while clearly showing that it's not ayone's guess. David12345 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Only ambiguity here is whether it was pro Russian separatist forces that fired it or Russian military itself. “Russian forces” covers both. Volunteer Marek 18:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It most definitely does not. Russian forces clearly means members of the Russian Armed forces, whereas seperatists are people from outside Russia wishing to part of Russia. I think the distinction is well worth making. David12345 (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

We do now know who fired it, only that the missile belonged to russia, so maybe that is what we need to say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm very real-life busy at present, but I agree that neither we nor anyone knows who fired with certainty. A mass of circumstantial and concrete evidence - sufficient to charge a mix of Russians and separatists points to Russian forces working with separatists, but 99% likelihood isn't sufficient for WIKIVOICE - and no investigating board or similar has stated the charge as boldly as the recent addition. Why do we need to be so specific in sentence 1. I agree wholly that Russians and separatists are not the same thing and that we should not predecide the outcome of a possible trial. Pincrete (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It is doubtful separatist had full Buk crew on standby just for this operation, but if one wants to be pedantic then "Russian forces" could be replaced with "Russian or Russian-backed separatist forces".--Staberinde (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The main point is that no enquiry, no court, no authority has said who perpetrated this crime AS FACT. They have outlined a mass of evidence which points to certain people - some of whom have been named as being accused of involvement - even if it isn't possible to know with certainty who was in command, who ordered the firing or who actually fired the missile (which was almost certainly a Russian crew, since this is a hi-tech piece of equipment). Unless we are happy to go beyond what Dutch investigators and Dutch prosecutors have outlined, we cannot say AS FACT in WP:VOICE who carried this out - even though there is really only one group of suspects, that group is as yet untried. Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So then I think Staberinde's phrasing would work fine. It's certainly more to the point than my suggestion. It seems to reflect the conensus of the replies I've seen, so I'll implement it if no one objects in a while. David12345 (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I think that covers it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need - or advantage of saying 'by' anyone in sentence one - the current version has stood for a good many years. It states the evidence without coming to specific conclusions which inquiries, trials etc have not done so far AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the version that existed until a few days ago. This discussion was prompted by me reversing an edit which snuck in "by Russian forces" where it was previously absent. My reversion was reverted, and here we find ourselves. I would be fine with not mentioning it, but clearly some people feel it should be mentioned. If we do mention it, it should be clear but should not suggest that things are known which are not, in fact, known. David12345 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a question of what "some people feel". I think we ALL feel that there is masses of evidence, down to named individuals or groups as to who did this - it would be astonishing were it anyone other than Russian troops acting in conjunction/support of separatists. But no inquiry, no court, no RS has stated in clear terms who they say did it. They say who they want to interview etc., they outline much of the evidence that exists, all of which points in one fairly specific direction, but it is WP:OR to translate that into stating in WP:VOICE who did it. Judicial sources haven't said that AFAIK. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect coordinates & inconsistency within article

I decided to refrain from editing the article since it's a high interest page but the coordinates are clearly off. The crash site can be seen in numerous map graphics on the Internet as being 1 km southwest of Hrabove. Wikipedia also gives the crash location as Hrabove, but its incorrect coordinates are 10 km away and are closer to different villages (Petropavlivka, Pelahiivka, and Rozsypne).

Incorrect: Coord|48|07|38|N|38|31|35|E (this is what exists on the page right now)
Correct: Coord|48|08|18|N|38|38|20|E

If you go into Googe Earth to the correct coordinates, N48 08' 18" E038 38' 20" and dial back the history to July/August 2014 the you can see the wreckage as plain as day. Does anyone want to make this edit?

-Rolypolyman (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Perpetrators

The actual perpetrators were not rebels, but Russian Buk team who followed their military chain of command up to Putin. See this official report by Bellingcat: [44]). Based on that, people who gave an order for the Buk team to shoot were not DNR rebels [45],[46]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever thought that anyone other than a Russian crew actually 'pressed the button'. That Russian crew was acting in support of rebels and ultimately part of a Russian military abd political chain of command who authorised the passage of the vehicle into Ukraine. But how does that impact on our text? Pincrete (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I largely restored the long-term para 2 so as to not muddle the DSB and JIT findings with those of the recent trial. This preserves a 'historical progression'. I think that if we want to 'beef up' the 'Russia did it' element, we should do it other than by muddling the progression of inquiries/trials, perhaps in para 1 and/or later in the para covering the recent trial. Pincrete (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. Looking at the current version of the lead, I have no objections. It is just that the most common narrative in media was "it was shot down by DNR rebels", while this is a factually incorrect statement. The Buk team was a professional military team acting on the orders of their commanders from Russian Army (and possibly FSB), not DNR rebels. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Massacres committed by Russia

Does this article now belong in Category:Massacres committed by Russia?

The Dutch court that convicted three perpetrators of murder did find that “on 17 July 2014 an international armed conflict took place on the territory of Ukraine between Ukraine and the DPR, which was under the overall control of the Russian Federation” (4.4.3.1.3: “De rechtbank komt dan ook tot de conclusie dat op 17 juli 2014 op het grondgebied van Oekraïne een internationaal gewapend conflict heeft plaatsgevonden tussen Oekraïne en de DPR, die daarbij onder de overall control stond van de Russische Federatie.”)[47] —Michael Z. 22:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the court decision does add some weight to the argument to include this category. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the drift of Ahunt's remarks, but am not certain whether "Massacres committed by Russia=Cock-up killings committed by irregulars indirectly linked to and armed by Russia". Russia almost certainly facilitated this event, but was not in direct command of it.Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This was not a massacre, a crime yes, but massacre has certain conations. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Same as Slatersteven. Massacre implies a level of deliberateness that doesn't include this. It's already in |Category:Russian war crimes in Ukraine| which is sufficient. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Russia was in “overall control” of the people who committed the mass murder of 298 people, as determined in the verdict of a court of law. This is a dictionary massacre (“indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people”). The murderers deliberately ordered a weapon brought from their country, moved it to a field under air lanes, fired at the first aircraft they detected, then did everything they could to evade responsibility.

Categorization as a war crime is tangential to this question: most war crimes are not mass murder and most mass murders are not war crimes.  —Michael Z. 16:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It can also mean "deliberately and brutally kill (many people).", there is no evidence this was deliberate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Three (so far) have been convicted of murder (unlawful premeditated killing of a human being). 298 is mass murder. They deliberately aimed a missile at a plane to murder its occupants and succeeded. That they negligently declined to confirm which plane’s occupants they were about to massacre doesn’t change that – in fact the disregard for danger to civilians and indiscriminate killing of them makes it worse.  —Michael Z. 17:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, that three have been convicted is legal confirmation that murder exists, but other participants in the massacre include the Russian army crew that pressed the button without confirming their target was military, the military chain of command that sent a large missile under active air corridors without its normal target-identification and IFF radar unit, and the military–political chain of command that sent the missile in while simultaneously directing civilian air traffic into and through its own military area of operations (people on MH17 were murdered at the exact moment its control was being handed over from Ukraine’s Dnipro ATC to Russia’s Rostov-on-Don ATC).  —Michael Z. 17:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

Between August 2005 and June 2008, the aircraft was painted in an unique "Freedom of Space" livery. - 2600:1702:3B00:2C50:3569:FD36:51E8:9460 (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is mainly about the shooting down of this plane, rather than its individual history, so its past livery is fairly irrelevant. Pincrete (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree - this is not a history of that individual aircraft, it is an article on this accident. A history of past paint schemes is off-topic. - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Well look at this: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/5873542 75.25.144.119 (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Then look at this

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lutTwakAlL0/U8hXBCVEZbI/AAAAAAAARVY/rS7FRMe5SUs/s1600/Malaysia+Airlines+B777+9M-MRD.jpg 2600:1702:3B00:2C50:3569:FD36:51E8:9460 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Also look at this

https://web.archive.org/web/20140718013054/http://twitter.com/flightradar24 (its on the first post)

It says it carried the special livery from August 2005 to June 2008. 75.25.144.119 (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)]

So? and read wp:sps. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a copyrighted photo in that livery. So? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs)

and the aircraft was shot down in 2014, while not in that special livery. I still don't see how any of this is relevant to the article. Unless you can explain that, I think we can close this discussion under WP:DEADHORSE. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2023

PLEASE REPLACE THE FRAGMENT

On 17 November 2022, the court handed down life sentences to three defendants, Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinskiy and Leonid Kharchenko for the murder of 298 passengers and crew. A fourth defendant, Oleg Pulatov, was acquitted on grounds of insufficient involvement in the incident. The presiding judge, Hendrik Steenhuis

BY THE FRAGMENT

On 17 November 2022, the court handed down life sentences to three defendants, Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinskiy and Leonid Kharchenko for the murder of 298 passengers and crew. A fourth defendant, Oleg Pulatov, was acquitted on grounds of insufficient involvement in the incident. The presiding judge, Hendrik Steenhuis

References

COMMENT:

Compare with my updates in the corresponding Dutch and German articles

• https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines-vlucht_17
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia-Airlines-Flug_17

. Marc Schroeder (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So since no one has responded to this proposal, I'll give it my two cents: I don't think this change would be much of an improvement. The claim that these individuals were convicted is not especially controversial since it was widely reported, the current source is plenty to establish it. Adding individual sources to the names would clutter up the article, and few people reading this artice will be interested in the legal documents. If it is useful, it should be integrated as a footnote at the end of the paragraph or as a further reading. But I'm not too familiar, perhaps it is common practice to source convictions in this manner. David12345 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with David12345. In general terms anyway, on WP we prefer secondary sources (books or articles) to primary ones (in this instance court documents), because they give context and don't need interpretation. On this occasion, the verdicts were so widely reported that they fully satisfy the WP:V criteria and individual refs would simply clutter without adding information imo. Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the addition of 4 footnotes does not clutter up the article. It is obvious that few people reading this article will be interested in the legal documents. These few however will appreciate that by just clicking on a number, they do not need to sort out where rulings are published in The Netherlands. Mind that the English versions of the rulings are given by the very Court itself, which is unusual in The Netherlands.

Your opinion that on WP secondary sources are preferred to court documents is debatable. I checked this out. For example, the article Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization points to the Court ruling, next to 367 references to secondary information. Would you want to remove the link to No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)? Have a go! This is just one example of a direct reference to a court ruling.

Another point. I do not suggest any change of the text of the article, I only come up with ECLI's. Why does the Template:ECLI — or the Template:Cite court — exist anyway, if we do not want such confusing, but objective, legal information on WP?

The reference to the court ruling ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:12216 is already present in the article (footnote [273]). My proposal replaces this reference, in Dutch language, by its English translation ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:14036. Am I not making things easier by replacing a reference to a document in Dutch language by its official English translation? With hindsight, I do not mind if the references of only the English versions of the 4 rulings are added, and the "in Dutch" ECLI's are omitted.

Marc Schroeder (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Preferring secondary over primary sources is not Pincrete's opinion, but a guideline. Pointing out that something is done elsewhere is not a reason to do it here as well (that's also a guideline, but I can't find it right now). Of course, neither of these are hard rules, we can still deviate here if we feel it's the right choice. My objection wasn't so much to providing the links in principle, more to the way they cluttered up the pages by being right next to the names. A version that (as I suggested in my initial comment) would provide it as a footnote or in a further reading section. Would probably be better. David12345 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've now added in the English version of the links in a way that I think would work well. If you disagree, let me know and we'll work something out. David12345 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I did slightly misunderstand the intent of Marc's edit, for which I apologise to him. AFAI am concerened, David's edit is unobtrusive and I hope it achieves what Marc wanted.Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I like it. It is even more concise than my proposal. Marc Schroeder (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

An extremely confusing typo right in the summary

In the main "aircraft event" infobox, under "Summary" section, it says "Shot down by a Buk 9M83 surface-to-air missile". Do you see it? Yeah, "9M83" is wrong, it should be 9M38, as it is identified elsewhere in the article.

Curiously, if you google "9M83", a lot of the results seem to have copied the wrong missile designation from this exact page. This must be fixed. The "GRAU index" this designation is from is cryptic enough, no need to spread confusion about it all around the Web. Isgulkov (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

YouTube link is dead

The link which refers to an External Audio source containing wire-tapped conversations between rebels is dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.194.181.67 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Since your post was not clear, I tested all four YouTube videos that are used as refs and found one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olQNpTxSnTo that is now "private" and so not generally viewable. I also found an external media one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyZYgSXdyw that was "no longer available" and I fixed both using archive.org. If that was not the right issue then please post more info and I will see if it can be fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Putin's approval

A few important items from the latest JIT report

• "There are “strong indications” that Russian President Vladimir Putin approved the transfer of the Russian missile system that downed a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet in eastern Ukraine in 2014"
• “The investigation has now reached its limit” and it will be suspended (that's about the Dutch criminal investigation)
• Investigators published an audio intercept of call between Putin and Plotnitsky which was unrelated to MH17 but indicated Putin strictly controlled what's going on in DPR
• "The district court first established that, from mid-May 2014, the Russian authorities had such far-reaching involvement in the DPR conflict in eastern Ukraine that the Russian Federation exercised overall control over the DPR."

Sources:

• Secondary source https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-mh17-missile-dutch-prosecutor-digna-van-boetzelaer-ukraine-russia/
• Primary source Full report https://www.prosecutionservice.nl/documents/publications/mh17/map/2023/report-mh17

Santorini36 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A Ukrainian Air Force aviation armaments mechanic, who had fled to Russia, later said that he had overheard a visibly shaken pilot ...

The following text was reverted:

A Ukrainian Air Force aviation armaments mechanic, who had fled to Russia, later said that he had overheard a visibly shaken pilot, whose Su-25 plane had returned without its ammunition on the day of the crash, saying that the MH17 "was in the wrong place at the wrong time".

The preferred text of the reverting editor was:

A Ukrainian Air Force deserter later claimed that he had overheard pilots discuss flying close to MH17 when it crashed.

The reason given was:

not an improvement and his status is more important than his trade

Some comments:

• The reverted text is a more accurate summary of the source, so, in that sense, it is an improvement. In what other way is the original text better than the new text?
• Does the phrase "his status is more important than his trade" make any sense? The new text included both status and trade: "Ukrainian Air Force aviation armaments mechanic, who had fled to Russia".

Burrobert (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

His status as a deserter outside Ukraine is highly relevant, his trade isn't. I don't see how the added info is an improvement. I believe that no credence has ever been given to this story by RS anyhow, so the need to "flesh it out" is questionable AFAI can see. It is one of many mutually contradictory claims released by Russia and found implausible/impossible by investigating authorities. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection though to replacing "pilots discuss flying close to MH17 when it crashed" with "a pilot, saying that the MH17 had been in "the wrong place at the wrong time" but an unsupported claim doesn't need expansion IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, overheard a visibly shaken pilot mixes the senses. You cannot hear that something is visible. Must have been an audibly shaken pilot, but that would be pretty unconventional wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You could say " a"clearly shaken" or "obviously shaken", "evidently", "apparently"2600:6C50:800:2787:2D7F:E79D:A635:DE97 (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Shorter introduction

The introduction includes a lengthy discussion about who shot down MH17, which I think can be effectively summarized: although both the rebels and the Russian Federation deny involvement, an international investigation determined that MH17 was shot down by the rebels or by Russian armed forces, who likely misidentified it for a Ukrainian military aircraft. How does it sound? Heptor (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - short is better for the intro. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to see a concrete suggestion. I don't find it overlong, but agree in principle that the 'dust has largely settled' around who was responsible. Pincrete (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion below. One simple paragraph.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17/MAS17) was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down on 17 July 2014, while flying over eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew were killed. The shoot-down occurred during the war in Donbas over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatist forces. Although both the separatists and the Russian Federation deny involvement, an international investigation determined that MH17 was shot down by the separatists or by regular Russian armed forces, who likely misidentified it for a Ukrainian military aircraft.

Heptor (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

What source will you be using for the 'likely misidentified' claim? The JIT says for example [48]https://www.prosecutionservice.nl/latest/news/2023/02/08/jit-mh17-strong-indications-that-russian-president-decided-on-supplying-buk: "As it is currently not possible to prove the identity of crew members of the Buk TELAR, and other concrete information about this is lacking, it cannot be ascertained why they fired a Buk missile at MH17, what their assignment was and what information they had when they fired." Difool (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Difool: thanks for reviewing the proposal. The statement that the crew of the BUK Telar had likely misidentified MH17 is sourced in . Relevant citation: "The crew appears to have thought the missile was being fired not at a civilian but at a military aircraft." This is further supported by , which says that "The decision to altogether reject combatant status for the DPR, based on Russia’s denials that this group is fighting on its behalf is, in this respect, a pragmatic way out of this conundrum. It subsequently allowed the judges to find in the section discussing the criminal responsibility of the four accused that it is legally irrelevant that the direct perpetrators of the missile attack on MH17 – i.e. a DPR unit stationed nearby the town of Pervomaiskyi and under the direct command of Kharchenko (who was in turn subordinate to Dubinskiy) – thought that they were shooting at a Ukrainian aircraft."

My own understanding of the situation is that the crew of the BUK Telar had no discernible reason to target a civilian airliner, and apparently also did some -- obviously insufficient -- effort to avoid it.

Heptor (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Then I would say: "who likely thought it was a Ukrainian military aircraft.", same as your source 1 "appears to have thought" and your source 2 "thought that they were[..]".

Could you clarify "the crew [..] apparently did some effort to avoid it"? Because it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't do that at all and no identification was done. Difool (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would prefer the wording "who likely thought they fired at a Ukrainian military aircraft". This is more specific and self-contained; both sources say "fired/were shooting".

Due to the circumstances around the shootdown, I think it's plausible that the BUK operators did put some effort into avoiding civilian traffic. Several UAF aircraft were shot down before MH17 was hit, even as hundreds of civilian aircraft passed over the territory. Judging from the sources I could find (e.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-flaw-in-the-buk-missile-system-2014-7?r=US&IR=T, https://www.quora.com/How-hard-is-it-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-civilian-and-military-airplane-if-youre-firing-a-Buk-anti-aircraft-weapon), BUK TELAR has some ability to discriminate between civilian and military traffic, but it does not do it reliably. Furthermore, MH17 was re-directed from its intended course, which suggests that the operators of the BUK possibly made the effort to check which civilian aircraft were expected in the area, and managed to avoid those. Also, the shoot-down was a (predictable) political disaster for DPR, so they had every reason to make an effort to avoid civilian aircraft. This is obviously not a watertight argument, so I understand that other editors may hold different opinions. I mentioned it for the sake of disclosure about which point of view I have while editing. Russians do have a reputation, at least in the West, of not giving due regard to safety of others or themselves. Heptor (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The other UAF aircrafts were not shot down by an advanced missile system that could reach civilian aircrafts like the BUK.

That MH17 had been redirected out of its flight corridor is a debunked claim of the Russian Ministry of Defence. [49] It is briefly mentioned in the "Conspiracy theories" section here at this page.

It's indeed not a very strong argument: It might have been possible to do it [avoiding civilian traffic], it would have been better if they had done it [political disaster for DPR], so [your conclusion] they did it [put some effort into avoiding civilian traffic]. Meanwhile the BUK crew shot a civilian airline, on their first day, with the only rocket they fired. Difool (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Difool: it's always a good idea to verify one's assumptions. Let's check those you mention:

• The statement that MH17 deviated from it's intended flight path is stated in Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Cruise. Relevant excerpt: "at 16:00 local time (13:00 UTC), the crew asked for a deviation of 20 nautical miles (37 km) to the left (north) off course, on airway L980, due to weather conditions."
• According to List_of_aircraft_losses_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War, two UAF aircraft were shot down at altitudes above the reach of MANPADS: an Antonov An-26 on 14 July, and a Su-25 on 16 July.

I will be happy to dive deeper into the source material if you think those sections can be improved. I don't think I've seen that claim you mention from RF MD before. And yes, my POV still requires some faith in humanity in order to work, but I think we are allowed to have that as long as we use reliable sources for actual editing. Heptor (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• Ah okay, your wording "was redirected from its intended course" made me assume you were following the claim of the Russian Ministry of Defence, i.e. that Ukrainian air traffic controllers had deliberately redirected the flight to fly over the war zone. So you think, that the BUK operators knew the civilian airline corridors, could detect whether a plane was flying in such corridor, and wrongfully assumed that every civilian plane stays neatly in its corridor, so anything outside the corridors could be shot down? Could be, who knows?
• The Dutch Safety Board report mentions those planes. The Ukrainian authorities concluded that the planes were shot down by air-to-air missiles, fired from Russia. The Dutch Military Intelligence concluded that the An-26 must have been shot with MANPADS. Whatever the cause, the planes were shot down at an altitude where no civilian air-planes were flying.

Difool (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that throughout the various twists and turns of Russia and its proxies attempting to deflect criticism and deny responsibility, the bottom line has always been that Russia/DPR simply thought that no plane had any right to fly over a 'war zone' and that Ukraine had no right to profit from its own air space. The West has always taken the contrary position, that anyone involved in that dispute had an absolute moral and legal obligation to not harm those who were not party to this 'internal' dispute, and that no airline or aviation agency had any way of knowing, or reason to believe, that 'separatists' had acces to weapons capable of reaching such heights as MH17 was flying at. This doesn't affect our article, but is background info. Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose The suggestion is WAY TOO SHORT, the investigations and attempts to evade responsibility by RF and DPR forces are important parts of the narrative, as are the various inquests. The suggestion doesn't begin to cover that and yet finds time to pitch the 'excuse'. Whilst no one thinks the shoot-down of a civilian plane was deliberate, rather than simply criminally negligent, in the absence of acknowlegment of responsibility or access to the crew and their records/orders by investigators - any explanation is inevitably speculative and - in the last resort - relatively unimportant. Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC

@Pincrete: perhaps you would like to propose an expansion of my draft with the points you mentioned? The legal matter is very complicated, however the DPR commanders were not convicted or accused of criminal negligence. They were not given the legal status of combatants, so the fact that they intended to kill the occupants of a Ukrainian military aircraft constitutes an intent to kill. Did you have the chance to review message I wrote on your talk page, and references therein? I am glad that we agree that that the shoot-down was unlikely to have been deliberate. Heptor (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

PS: I do agree with you that the Russian/ DPR denials of involvement are deeply insensitive. The families who lost their loved ones on that flight have experienced a deep personal tragedy, and the denials compounded an additional and avoidable burden. I agree that this is an important part of the story about MH17, and should be prominently included in the article. The fact that it caused additional suffering should perhaps be stated explicitly. Heptor (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

What we have at present is a largely comprehensive and coherent, and largely chronological account. There may be individual parts which are no longer needed or which could be expanded or clarified, but I see no need to "re-invent the wheel". Why not suggest specific cuts or rephrasings? Pincrete (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Summary of the day in court: 17 November 2022 – Judgment". MH17 trial. 2022-11-17. Retrieved 2023-04-09.
• Yanev, Lachezar (2022-12-07). "The MH17 Judgment: An Interesting Take on the Nature of the Armed Conflict in Eastern Ukraine". EJIL: Talk!. Retrieved 2023-04-09.

References

Addition of "Russian war crimes in Ukraine" category

An editor has added the "Russian war crimes in Ukraine" category. That the shootdown was a crime is established, as is Russian complicity, but do RS describe it as a 'war crime'? Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The article contains two mentions of a 2014 investigation into a possible war crime. There is no mention that the investigation found that a war crime had been committed. An investigation wound up this month after the prosecution of 3 people. The prosecutor said "The investigation has now reached its limit. The findings are insufficient for the prosecution of new suspects". Again there was no mention of any war crime prosecutions. Burrobert (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the category. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The conviction heavily depends on the defendants not being considered lawful combatants. It is unlikely that MH17 was targeted intentionally. If the defendants had combat immunity that is normally granted to members of armed forces, they could only be convicted for not exercising due caution while operating the SAM battery, which would have been more difficult. So it appears that the defendants were in fact not convicted for a war crime. --Heptor (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please keep your personal opinions off the TP. The intentions of the Russian Federation in this incident have been discussed by Reliable Sources, and there is no generally agreed view that this was an accident.

HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

A crime is not necessarily a war crime. Pincrete (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)