Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Protected edit request for air-to-air missile theory

I can't figure out why this edit was deleted in the Cause section. It cites published media sources. May I put it back, and can it be protected from being taken down again? Thank you, JP Leonard

/* Cause */ Russian sources, air to air missile possibility

The Russian news agency ITAR-TASS [1] reported that Ukraine moved a BUK system to the Donetsk area on July 16.

The air-to-air missile possibility has received less attention, although the day before the disaster, Kiev claimed a Russian MiG 29 shot down one of its fighters.[2] The Russian journal Politikus.ru[3] concluded the MH17 was downed by an air-to-air fragmented rod warhead [4]. Russia Today/RT posted an eyewitness report of a "Ukrainian air force plane that followed the Malaysian Boeing 777,"[5] and gave rise to speculation that the actual target could have been President Putin's jet, which was in the general area at the time, on its return trip from Brazil.[rt.com/news/173672-malaysia-plane-crash-putin/]

JPLeonard (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving trucks is not the cause of the crash - so no the first line does not fit.

The same goes to the MIG story by the BBC - the shooting down of a Ukrainian fighter is not the cause of this planes crash.

I do not know who in Politikus.ru concluded this, but to my knowledge no-one of any authority anywhere came up with a definitive conclusion although the SAM theory is supported by the vast majority of sources (including Ukrainian and Russian sources). Simply put, the evidence as is now is about 100:1 for SAM over AAM, so our reporting should reflect that. So no that cannot go in. (btw the howstuffworks references does not give anything specific on this case so that is an irrelevant reference).

Finally the old Putin's plane conspiracy theory is back. Well, it was never closer than about a 1000 km to the shootdown site, so that would be some confusion indeed. If we go there we can as well suggest Air Force 1 was the original target (also in the general area - ie Northern Hemisphere at the time).

So no do NOT put this mess in. Your request for immediate protection is also way out of line as that sounds like claiming ownership of part of the article , and some kind of sanctioned pushing of a specific point of view. Arnoutf (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

On July 21 Russian Defense Ministry reported, that Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash. “A Ukraine Air Force military jet was detected gaining height, it’s distance from the Malaysian Boeing was 3 to 5km,” said the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia’s military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov speaking at a media conference in Moscow on Monday. “The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.” [6] Vavilevskii (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, what can you say to the evidence brought out by the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman in the above link from RT? With Russia as the accused here, do you subscribe to the principle that accused persons have a right to defend themselves? BTW theR-60_(missile) is a fragmentation rod weapon -- as predicted in the analysis I cited from Politikus.ru, which they based on a photo of damage to the plane. JPLeonard (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence, I cannot read such photos. Please recall that similar photos were used to provide definitive evidence the Saddam Hussein was deploying chemical weapons (by the US in that case and proven false or at best misinterpreted since). Note that the cause of a SAM is phrased cautiously (likely) and not definitive. The Russian spokesperson does not even say that an AAM was fired, only implied it by suggesting a plane was near. We really need to wait for more definitive mainstream consensus what happened (if not all evidence has been destroyed by now). Arnoutf (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf these photos are from a projector screen, DM briefing was held in the open mode and press uploaded only video, but all materials promised would be provided to international organizations soon (radar data).— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

?? Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the above two posts which were in the wrong section --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Bias in Referring to Russian News Outlets

It is well known that the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News loyally follow Washington's lead when reporting on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to ramping up for war. Yet we do not refer to them as "Washington-backed news outlet".

This article refers to Russia Times (rt.com) and Itar-Tass as "Kremlin-backed outlet". To refer to Russian mainstream media as "Kremlin-backed" but not to say the same about American media, or UK media is bias. I suggest such bias be removed from the article.Cadwallader (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

RT is widely viewed as a government propaganda outlet, American media outlets generally are not and the specific publications mentioned are quite highly regarded. So your suggested course of action would not be appropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What a pointless, POV discussion. We have two posts. One says "It is well known that..." The other says "...is widely viewed as..." That's not good enough folks. Sources, please! Not just opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't article space. Check out the Russia Today article if you wish to read the extensive notable opinions regarding RT as Kremlin propaganda. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Even with reliable sources documenting or claiming the biases of other reliable sources, I don't see the point of including these as adjectives in front of all the reliable sources we use. The system of Western mainstream media biases is well-documented, and it looks like RT's very strong links to the Russian government are well-documented (I haven't checked in depth, but it's highly credible). But I don't see the point of overriding the consensus in the WP:LEAD of the articles about those journals. The WP:NPOV approach, given Radio Today and Washington Post could be, e.g.

• "according to the international multilingual Russian-based television network Radio Today ..."
• "according to the widely circulated United States daily newspaper The Washington Post ..."

where we take just the first few adjectives considered most important by the Wikipedians editing those articles. (The lack of mention that the Washington Post represent the US military–industrial complex POV in the lead there is presumably related to WP:BIAS, but the place to NPOV that is in that article or justify modification of the RT article lead, not here.) But aren't these descriptions distracting the reader from the main issue? All sources have biases (e.g. Wikipedia is biased towards reliable sources, NPOV, no original research, and structured content), but giving a source should enable the reader to search for more info or make a judgment based on his/her previous judgments of the source.

Another way of saying it: if the reader wants to know what biases to expect from RT or the Washington Post, the MH17 article should let the reader go to those articles to decide for him/herself, rather than imitating biases from reliable sources. The policy on WP:RS is about using the factual type of information from the sources, not the sources' style of hinting to the reader what to think.

Boud (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You neglect most obvious line of reasoning here: RT, ITAR-TASS, et al are owned by the Russian government. The examples given of the American press are not. --Simfan34 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In any event, NPOV essentially requires us not to lend equal weight to Russian media claims, precisely due to their lack of credibility. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have nothing but your mainstream American POV to tell you that Russian media are any less reliable than mainstream Anglophone media. This has been gone over and over. Many more examples can be given of the NY Times having to retract stories with major foreign policy implications than Russian media have ever had to retract after the breakup of the USSR. That means that when it comes to the Ukraine, Russian media are significantly more reliable than Western media. – Herzen (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite; we've got out mainstream American POV telling us that Russian media are less reliable than Western media, but there's also the crushing weight of world opinion; an oft-underestimated force of nature.

What "crushing weight of world opinion" -- who is the supposed authority of measuring and interpreting "world opinion"???? Or have you been appointed that job? Robheus (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's not the media's job to be neutral - that's our job. Assuming that American, British and Russian sources are biased, there's still plenty of sources out there in English we could use. including Al Jazeera, The Times of India and the Straits Times to name but three. It's just a question of finding the and using them. Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

" RT, ITAR-TASS, et al are owned by the Russian government." And the BBC is owned by the British government, and ABC is owned by the Australian, etc., yet I don't recall ever seeing anything like "the British government-owned BBC News reported..." printed on this article. Russian sources should not be singled out this way. --Tocino 06:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

BBS already replied your concerns in the past: "Although the BBC is funded by the UK government... a fundamental principle of its constitution and its regulatory regime is that it is editorially independent of the UK government.". RT meanwhile became famous for having journalists quit their job over propaganda lies pumped by the television. I hope you see the difference now.

LOL. BBC reports they may be funded by the government but they are editorially independent. Ha ha. I'm sure the Russian Times has an equally rosy view of their own neutrality.

For the record, I have no doubt that Russian mainstream media are just as much in the pocket of their government as the America, British and Ukrainian media are in the pockets of their respective governments. My point was that prefixing "Kremlin-backed" prior to the Russian media outlets is a deliberate device to sow distrust in the mind of the Western reader, and thus fails NPOV. Cadwallader (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC) SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That is another biased conclusion, because other stations (like Al Jazeera) also had journalists quit their job. How is a journalist decission to quit her/his job a sign that a certain news station should be treated differently? Western media outlets (CNN, BBC, etc.) should be treated on equal footings as the russian media outlets, I don't think that factually speaking their reports are any less dependent and objective as those of for instance RT. Let's not be doing childish games here and pretend western media outlets are on a higher footing and standing as russian news agencies. Of course RT has a certain bias, but that does not differentiate it from western news sources that also have a certain bias, wether they admit it or not, wether they have written constitutions or not. So I agree with the statement that we should not make such differentation towards Russian news agencies. Robheus (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between just quitting the job and quitting the job because of propaganda. And it's not just individual case but rather multiple cases. There is a difference between "certain bias" as you call it and straight on propaganda that's aimed at nothing more than repeating official government line and doing everything possible to either discredit more objective sources or forbid them any access to the public down to straight on re-writing history (famous case of ITAR TASS removing news about "rebels" getting Buk launchers). What you are propose is putting government propaganda on an equal footing with other media. Total nonsense that is against everything that Wikipedia stands for. I'm fine with providing official Kremlin version of the events like it's already done in Media coverage but it should should not be taken into account when establishing objective facts. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera journalists have quit the job because of propaganda, right. There are no objective media outlets (what authority would deciode on that then?). The only way to be able to have a "more-or-less" objective worldview, is to consults different media, and draw one's own conclusions! And I think it is not up to Wikipedia to label media outlets such as RT as merely "kremlin propaganda" (such a statement, by the way, is itself a propaganda statement), I think people can make judgements on that themselves! One should never fully trust one source, that holds for RT but any other media outlet as well. Further, I think russians get more objective news from the world then here in the west, so the whole picture people are describing as if somehow russians are being brainwashed is just bogus! The only people being brainwashed are those that label sources that conflict with their own opinions as "propaganda", and then close their eyes on different interpretations of global events. I think that is what is happening, we have been lead into a war with russia for couple of years now, and this incident with flight MH17 is some decisive stage in that, but it has been prepared for years! (note all the specific anti-russian campaigns last couple of years, like the campaing about pussy riot, about laws on homosexuals, in the case of the different standpoint of russia on Syria, etc. etc. They all serve the same purpose: brainwash people into thinking that russia is the enemy, and to enable the western power, which are in a deep economic crisis, to wage a war against russia).

Causes

Am I the only one who thinks that 3 sentences for such a high-interest section is not enough? I agree that the gigantic section with all the aggressive suggestions/declarations was a bit much, but I do thin that readers coming here are curious at least of a summary of what do the Ukrainians or the Russians accuse each other of, or how do the explain the events. Nergaal (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view no section can be larger than the facts. So far there are hardly any facts, so expanding the section would be speculation in my view. It will be filled in once more definitive facts come to the table, but since the cause of this specific aircrash is fairly simple it may remain somewhat short; unless of course we want to integrate the whole Ukrainian insurgance as direct cause for this crash. It is not always that larger is better in such cases. Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want to turn this into a section where the claims of every player in the conflict are aired. That would add nothing to the article apart from POV bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, a reader of this article would most likely WANT to know, at least briefly, what does each side claim. This is not a forum, but an event where actual international players are expressing their opinions, be they blatant PC crap or not. Nergaal (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree the reader may want to know claims made by players. But as far as I know claims are not (direct) causes of a plane crash; so these should not be in this specific section. Arnoutf (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, these international players are arguing about the cause, so isn't that where their arguments go? It doesn't seem to bother anyone to have the US-Ukrainian claim about the cause of crash in the Cause section. If you agree that the views of the international players should be posted somewhere, then why not move the Russian viewpoint to that place, rather than just deleting it? Letting only one side have their say is going to give the article a disputed neutrality, isn't it? How about a section for the Russian standpoint. The 2nd paragraph of the article is devoted largely to the Ukrainian view. It is mentioned that the pro Russian rebels deny shooting it down, but the sources given (BBC and AP) lack any of the information that you deleted from my post. The BBC devotes most of its space to the US-Ukraine-BUK POV and only notes a denial by militia with no evidence, and the third source there is headlined "Malaysian plane was shot down by rebels, intercepted phone calls prove, Ukraine’s president says" so this is more of the same US-Ukraine view.

So I could put the Russian POV right after the US-Ukrainian case. The reason I posted air-to-air missile under Cause is that this is where it belongs, alongside the surface to air theory. Here I also put Ukraine's accusation of a Russian MIG shooting down their plane by an air to air missile the day before, which indicates the air to air missile theory can be used by either side.

You said to me the facts are 100 to 1 on the US Ukraine side, but to another person you said "So far there are hardly any facts," and the latter statement was true. All we had from the Americans and Kiev were assertions, which filled up the media with that 100 to 1 ratio. What I posted was more factual - the Politikus.ru article has a photo showing damage typical of an air to air missile.

Today, the Russian defense ministry also produced evidence, and challenged the Americans to show theirs. at http://rt.com/news/174412-malaysia-plane-russia-ukraine/ So we finally have some facts to work with, and they don't bode well for the US-Ukraine POV. JPLeonard (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sourced Material Repeatedly Removed

user:Fakirbakir has deleted the following sourced information from the article twice in last hour: [7]. Keep or delete? Geogene (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What? I deleted it only once.....Fakirbakir (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[8], [9]. Although the Ukrainians' claimed wiretap is unproven, the allegation appears to be well sourced. 23:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted then moved it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it should go to the "cause" subsection. These unverified allegations do not belong to the lead...I tried to move it but Volunteer Marek did not like the idea...Fakirbakir (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it looked like it disappeared, but there's a lot of editing going on. I think we can move the Ukrainians "wiretaps" to the "cause" subsection, along with the Ukrainian fighter jet. Agree, disagree? Geogene (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved the content in order to shorten the lead. I think it's important and well-sourced, but I think the leads should be short. Others with better understanding of policy may disagree but can always move it back. Geogene (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Vkontakte

Is there any reason why the story brought up by the Christian Science Monitor about Girkens alleged Vkontakte post stating that the rebels had downed a Ukrainian military airraft in the area is no longer mentioned in the article. Has this been debunked or is it not considered RS--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the source of all the reports. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0717/Web-evidence-points-to-pro-Russia-rebels-in-downing-of-MH17-video --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a big discussion about the "Cause" section, first with a lot more info added. But then they decided to dynamite it and start over or rather, hold off on writing the causes section until more definitive information is known from an independent investigation team.

It is quite clear that the separatists thought their guys had shot down an AN-26 and took credit for it in several venues before realizing it was an airliner. What is not clear is whether their taking credit for it was due to any specific knowledge of an AA battery firing from their side. There is a video of even a 4 year old boy seeing the plane falling from the sky and saying "look our soldiers shot down a fascist plane".

So the article you cited is interesting and relevant, but does not belong under the "cause" section, because it isn't does not prove that the separatists fired the missile.Cadwallader (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why were the social media posts deleted then if they aren't evidence of anything? I'll add that if it "is quite clear that the separatists thought their guys had shot down an AN-26 and took credit for it in several venues" why can't the article say that? You want a finger to continue to point at Ukraine until it is established whether the rebels shot down the airliner by accident or on purpose?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That one was a bold claim. There is no 'evidence', only 'speculation' about whether or not the rebels thought that. Maybe they were simply afraid of being chased down internationally after the incident, which may or may not even be their fault. This is all under investigation and still unclear. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to ask @Nyttend why he removed this after locking down the page despite the fact the U.S. government repeatedly refers to the social media posts as evidence.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because this article isn't about the US government. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Who said that it is? You don't think that NPOV means calling attention to what the U.S. calls attention to instead of solely calling attention to what the Kremlin calls attention to? Where is the problem in presenting both sides here as both sides want their cases presented? I will add that it isn't just the U.S. government, since many media outlets Wikipedians have deemed reliable sources call attention to many of the same things.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "both sides"? Russia is obviously directly and significantly involved. The US involvement should logically be small - only one fatality, etc. If there ARE other, more directly involved bodies making claims in this area, clearly attributed quotes may be appropriate, but they need to be discussed here first. This is NOT about the US. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, so the US government have used these social media posts as their sources for claiming that the rebels shot down the plane. That the State Dept. is even outright saying that it was the rebels (or separatists) is significant, and that they used Strelkovs posts as their evidence is also significant. I feel this should be included. Note, I am not saying that I know who shot down the plane myself, nor do I know that these social media posts are authentic. But they are being treated as so by the American govt. to justify their claim that the separatists are responsible. --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• No. Brian Dell, above, claims that this here basically says that the US bases its claim on social media--a ridiculous and prima facie false summary of a much more complicated account. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So... can someone summarize to me exactly why this isn't being mentioned at all in the article when its being reported/repeated in a lot of mainstream media? As long as its properly attributed to the sources, of which there are now quite a few? A google for "MH17 girkin airspace" (airspace being the trigger for the alleged VK quote/post) gets you a thousand plus hits for news sites alone. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The reference to the Vkontact site has been re-added in the revised lead, including the link to the CS Monitor article. See WP Lead discussion above. Cadwallader (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops. User:Stickee reverted the new lead, and chopped it out again. You can take it up with him. I've got to get back to my real life now... Cadwallader (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That information is well regarded amongst those in the media covering this incident. Sanitizing discredits this article and it is clear it is in the realm of what powers want to keep out relevant information. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the previous posts about what the US uses as sources....this is wikipedia, not the US Government. Wikipedia has its own rules about what constitutes a reliable source.12.11.127.253 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is got nothing to do with the US Government since the information was provided by independant media sources in different locations are the world. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Article too biased on western/ukranian intelligence sources -- update request to add russian intelligence sources too

The current state of the article (21st july 2014) shows some significant bias towards an Ukranian/US/Europe view on how this tragic incident, the shootdown of a civilian airliner above Ukranian airspace. The exact causes (what kind of missile, air-to-air and/or surface-to-air, launched by whom) and other important circumstances that can shed light on to what the exact series of events were that directly led to this shootdown of a civilian airplane, are not known yet known (besides the non-controversial facts) and are heavily disputed.

We only get much speculation from both sides. Ukrain blames it on the seperatists, that would have shot it with a BUK missile, with military support from Russia. Russia denies involvement and blames the Ukrain military. Also russian defense ministry today released some military intelligence information, that shows an Ukranian SU-25 was real close in the neigbourhood of flight MH17 (3-5 km distance) only minutes before the plane was shot down. This is important information. Also satelite information from russian ministry of defense show pictures of ukranian military air defense locations and acc. to this source, Ukranian military mobile airdefense systems have been moved into seperatists held areas shortly before the catastrophe. Source: RT [10]

Now, I don't want to go into speculations about the way the series of events unfolded, and/or which side is to be regarded as responsible for this tragic shootdown, but I think it can be clear that different scenarios are possible based on this information. At least it means the article should not (unless some objective investigation has taken place) write a one-sided story about what was the cause of this incident. Or stated differently: even when we do have good evidence for the location from where the surface-to-air missile was launched, one can not jump to the conclusion that the seperatists were the one launching that missile. That is some other part of the puzzle which needs seperate evidence.

In the article however, the only way to read this at this moment is that the Ukranian side of the story is put here as if that side of the story is true. We don't know that yet! There are still some missing pieces of the puzzle! For example: what did the Ukranian military plane do there so close to flight MH17 for instance? The released audio tapes of the Ukranian ministry of cell phone calls by seperatists, who allegedly talk about the shooting of flight MH17 is controversial information, since it is not one audio tape, but assembled from 3 seperate audio tracks. So even when the conversations themselves are genuine, they might be taken out of context (for example: it could have been assembled from unrelated military operations that went on earlier, the shooting of military planes), and should therefore not be used (as is done too prominently in the article) as some "evidence" of what happened, perhaps only as a footnote, but with the comment that the source is unreliable. Seperatists themselves have made statetements regarding this tape, to this effect.

I repeat: WHAT DID OR DID NOT HAPPEN TO FLIGHT MH17 WHICH CAUSED IT TO CRASH WE DO NOT YET KNOW IN DETAIL! No conclusion as of yet is possible given the information we have. We should leave room for international investigation to make such conclusions, and till then should be very considerate to not blame one side of this conflict or the other. Since the cause of the incident is disputed and both sides have presented evidence to their point of view, the article can not suggest one version of how the incident unfolded above the other, or regard them as fact, when they may not be facts. So till more conclusive information is established, the nature of that information is that either sides make allegations, and provides sources of information as evidence. Only the part of the story which is not controversial, and can be put in the article as fact.

Update request:

The link provided (RT/information from Russian Defense Ministry about Malaysia plane MH17) should be referenced in the text (have it a seperate section, where competing evidence of different entities involed in the conflict are presented, and split from sections which contain non-controversial facts). Currently only US and/or Ukranian intelligence souces are referenced with satelite and other intelligence information. And they are mixed into the text, and therefore regarded as factual, which they might not be, or only partial.

It should contain:

1. The evidence of Russian radar an Ukranian SU-25 was in close proximity to flight MH17 mintues before the crash.

2. The statement by Russian defense ministry that Ukranian mobile air defense units (BUK system) were placed into seperatist controlled area before the incident took place, accompanied with the satelite images

and cite the source for this information.

Further:

can we add some section in which new information regarding the causes of the incident, intelligence reports etc. can be placed together (so the part that contains the controversial information). That part must be seperated from the rest of the text which contain un-controversial parts of the story, and undisputed facts. Robheus (talk)

I agree with you, I added a sentence about Russian version a few minutes before your editLpele (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Robheus you contradict yourself. First you claim we do not yet know what exactly happened to MH17 so we should be careful in speculating about causes (I fully agree) then you suggest to fill out the causes sections with implications and speculations from the Russians which is the opposite of what you propose in this same post. Arnoutf (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf - No I clearly do not. My main point is that only western intelligence sources are put in and some controversial/disputed, as for instance the edited tape which is an effort to "put the blame on seperatists-Putin" and even when it is made from "authentic" source material, might still misprepresent the facts. It can go as a footnote, but does not belong into the article body!! And another example: we have now a section 'Causes' in the article - it only mentions western intelligence sources, none russian!!! Why is that? And apart from that, the causes are controversial and is heavily disputed, but as the article is structured now, controversial information is shattered throughout the text (and therefore are seen as 'facts'). I would propose editing that stuff our of the body, and put that in a section (or sections) containing all the controversial stuff, and by applying 'eutraility' it should list all the major entities intelligence sources, not just one side!!!!! Robheus (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that the Russian sources that discuss the Russian intelligence are more-or-less under the direct control of Putin&co. On the other hand, US intelligence is under the control of Obama&co, but BBC.com [which presents the US/Western intelligence] is not. Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with the gist of nergaal's statement..but...ahem..BBC is like RT a state owned enterprise. Ask say an Irishman about BBC objectivity. Just to say...think before you let your knee jerk Nergaal. Juan Riley (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason the article gives emphasis where it does is based on the number of reliable sources that are available. Most of them follow the Western line, so the article should also. We should include Russian sources, but we should not lose our focus on the sources from the rest of the world. There is no need to ignore what is adequately reflected by RS on the possibility that it might need revision later. There is no need to pretend like both "sides" should have equal coverage, in fact policy is against it. Everything else that seems to be floating around here, such as our responsibility toward world peace, etc., is WP:BEANS. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What Geogene says. As far as BBC and RT, it's been pointed out time and time again that actually whether a source is funded by a government is irrelevant to its reliability. You'll find nothing in WP:RS about that. There are government funded sources which are reliable (BBC). There are government funded sources which are not reliable (RT). There are non-government funded sources which are reliable (scholarly journals). There are non-government funded sources which are not reliable (wacky conspiracy websites). What matters is whether a source has standards for fact-checking and accuracy (which doesn't mean 100% track record, but at least a good one). BBC does have such a reputation, for better or worse, RT, Lifenews, Voice of Russia, etc don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree Marek...was just warning Nergaal about using BBC as a sole counter example..and that there are times when any media organization (oops american or oxford english here) should not be trusted. Don't make blanket statements about them.Juan Riley (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the reliability of a particular source does depend on the context (usually, some sources of course are never reliable). So in my above statement I was implicitly referring to the reliability of these sources in *this* particular context. There may very well be different topics where RT could be reliable (they're Science stories appear interesting) and there could be different topics where BBC is not reliable (maybe The Troubles, I don't know). But these are not the contexts under discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly be informed, that now in russian Medias an informational war began to blame Ukrainian government in this incident (I know what i am talking about). Be very carefull using russian Media sources and especially citing russian militaries. Dont forget how proffesional are Russian medias in propaganda. M.Karelin (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don´t see the relevance of your information as in respect to this Wikipedia article, since Wikipedia is not the arbiter of wether or not some statement in some media is true or not, but is only considering wether the source referred to was cited correctly. So your statement ads suspicion to 'russian sources' (and therefore jusitifies them not being cited) because you have some bias against them. If we cite a western newspaper that cites Obama making statement X, it is of no concern wether X is in accordance with the fact, but only if the source rightly attributes statement X to Obama. Same for russian sources. If some military spokesmen or Putin states Y, it is not up to wikipedia to judge wether Y is in accordance with fact, but only that that media source correctly represents statement Y attributed to that spokesmen. Do you understand? I think you just a looking for an argument to not give reference to russian sources, and eliminate them from the article. I don't think that is correct. RT also correctly attributes statements to non-russian leaders or spokesmen. Robheus (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I only started watching RT because of this event, and what I have seen is certainly enlightening, and not in a good way for the reputation of its journalism. It is obviously a propaganda mouthpiece. Personally I have no problem using it as a source for Russian official view (since that is its purpose, we can assume that it would reliably report official Russian position), but for everything else, no way can it be considered reliable. Hzh (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I have seen this added to all kinds of articles here (And some cases made into articles of their own) on Wikipedia and while I understand no-body wants to talk about it are there any notable conspiracy theories floating around about the crash? I can see the one about there being dead bodies in the plane pre-crash as being one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Not relevant per WP:FRINGE. But feel free to start an article; but please not here. Don't forget to add the Putin's plane was the original target conspiracy theory. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No there is no way any of the information could go in here but right now in Russia things such as the one I have said above are being treated as fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case: Don't forget that related to the non-fresh bodies theory there is of course the theory this is MH370 which was hi-jacked and stored somewhere for just this purpose (where the real MH17 went is never mentioned). Of course there is the CIA did this to incite WWIII theory (for what reason is not very clear though, but apparently the charter of the CIA demands them starting world wars). These seems to be most persistent ones so far.

This is outrageously ridiculous. Over 100 identified bodies are of Dutch passengers. The MH370 had only 1 Dutch passenger on board. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is outrageous and ridiculous - aren't all conspiracy theories? Just repeating what has been suggested on this page before though - don't belief in any of it myself. Arnoutf (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for aliens, Elvis or North Korea to be blamed. I would also like to see CIA owning up to having GoldenEye satellites (as in James Bond) and of course it may have been some kind of radioactive Godzilla type monster (Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant being also in Ukraine). Conspiracy people are taking it easy this time around it seems. Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP:FRINGE is more about who advocates a position rather than the oddness of it. The plane-full-of-dead-bodies conspiracy theory was championed by the leader of the militia that controls the crash site, so it is notable no matter how ridiculous it is. Internet conspiracy theories not attributed to stakeholders in the investigation should continue to be disregarded. Geogene (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this one. On the one hand, the conspiracy theories have been getting media attention. But I haven't yet seen a reliable source which is devoted to the conspiracy theories as a topic. I'd wait until such appears or until someone finds one. It might even be a good idea to not include the info here but write a split off article, if and when such sources are available.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Russians are apparently being deceived/confused by the conspiracy theories [11]. That part may be notable for mention somewhere in the article. (Especially the associated political implications.) 9kat (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: 'Credible evidence' quote misattribution

The article currently states 'U.S. President Barack Obama, citing U.S. intelligence officials, said the plane was shot down by a missile and that there was "credible evidence" it was fired from a location held by pro-Russian rebels'. One given source is the New York Times story U.S. Sees Evidence of Russian Links to Jet’s Downing. The article itself says 'He sent his United Nations ambassador, Samantha Power, to the Security Council to describe what she called “credible evidence” that the separatists were responsible.”' Ms. Power said this, not Barack Obama. Can we at least get the quotes marks taken off this please? - Crosbie 03:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I adjusted to make it a little better, although it may have not been exactly what you meant. United States Man (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of evidence is evidence of guilt.

¿Should not the article state that since ProRussian-Separatists destroy evidence, that is evidence of guilt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be original research. Dustin (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And more over: probably that statements is not even true. What is your source for that anyway? Biased reports have appeared about seperatists meddling with belongings (a photograph of a seperatist holding up a bear, for instance), which do not show the full reality. The RT report shows some more pictures and story, that shows they were not behaving disrespectfull. Some journalist however, did cross some line, when taking up passengers belongings during a media coverage. Why is Kiev not maintaining the cease-fire by the way (NOS/dutch state media report of military actions today in Donetsk).

"Ukraine had financial incentive to keep air space open" - Industry insider

Arnoutf - relinked from paper to IATA main page:

PLS, Add to the main article following:

Tony Tyler, the chief executive of the International Air Transport Association (IATA), says Ukraine bears responsibility for keeping its airspace open to flights like the doomed MH17. “Airlines depend on governments and air traffic control authorities to advise which air space is available for flight, and they plan within those limits” he said. Vavilevskii (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

References

________ ______

Interesting quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, July 20:

"However, an industry source said in this case, the “road” was more like a toll road, as the cash-strapped Ukrainian government was receiving overflight fees for each commercial flight above its territory and therefore had a financial incentive to keep the airspace open as long as possible."

The head of the IATA, Tony Tyler, also says that Ukraine is responsible for the decision to keep the airspace over a war-zone open to commercial traffic.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/ukraine-responsible-for-airspace-safety-iata-20140720-zuzmp.html#ixzz388H87JsB

Link - Ukraine responsible for airspace safety: IATA - Sydney Morning Herald, July 20

I believe that this should be incorporated into the article somehow. --Tocino 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems far too trivial for this article - perhaps in a spinoff. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

well its sourced and related to the subject at hand, and we already have several sections dealing with the overflight decisions of various airlines, and overflight restrictions made by the FAA... I'm going to add it72.35.149.153 (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 08:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Intercepted separatist talks confirmed authentic

Militia phone call intercepts is fake. “Experts have proved that they are a montage of several separate cuttings done much before the airliner was shot down...” - UN 21/07/2014 russian ambassador [12], [13] 194.186.5.202 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations..." -- US Embassy in Kyiv United States Assessment of the Downing of Flight MH17 and its Aftermath -- Nazar (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest adding this to the description of the intercepted calls. It's important in light of doubts about their authenticity. -- Nazar (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How can it be authentic, when the official video cited by everyone, on the official channel on Youtube, has the encoding date of 16 July 2014 in its metadata? I admit that the date set on the computer encoding this was wrong by 1 day, but how plausible is THAT explanation? The security service did not comment this in any way. Also, this is conflicting with the other data. The alleged conversation states that the missile was launched from a location situated 40km from the crash site. Then the US Embassy writes that the launch was from near the crash site because someone shot a video of a transport said to carry missiles (though I failed to identify any missiles).Capilleary (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Igor Bezler also confirmed their authenticity. [14] Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the encoding date is one day back -- [15] -- Nazar (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  WP: Original research ? --220 of ^Borg 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Stick to the official statements of the US embassy. These are the notable facts... -- Nazar (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha... You are joking mr. Nazar! Truth and US govt. are 2 separate things! The US embasy has no monopoly on 'truth' - we know the US govt. has put forwards lies that were later recognized as untruthfull.. Robheus (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I want to make the point that "conforming authenticity" and "telling the truth" are 2 different things, since it has also been noted that one audio track in fact consists of 3 separate tracks, and which means that even when the original recordings were authentic, the information of that tape may still be misleading or out of context (for example: some phone calls or comments may in fact refer to downing of other airplanes and unrelated to the incident of flight MH17). Presenting it as "evidence" of seperatists being culpit of downing flight MH17 is therefore disengenious. Official statements made by seperatists concerning these audio tapes should also be included in the text.

(and I still have the opinion that this whole incident has some stinking smell, and that the wikipedia article is not very neutral on this issue...) Robheus (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations not refecting the data presented in Wiki article

On 14 July a Ukrainian military An-26 transport aircraft flying at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) was shot down using a Buk missile system.[54][55]

One citation refers to the An-26 'apparently' being shot down by a BUK and the other is in Russian. It is still under debate how low the AN-26 was flying and what missile system was used to target it. Strela-10 or SAM-6 missiles could have been used if flying at a lower altitide as suggested here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28309034

203.153.227.17 (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Ansh666 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy with the addition of 'allegedly'. Thank you Ansh 666.

203.153.227.17 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, always happy to help! Ansh666 07:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

British or American English?

Are we to use British or American spellings in this article (e.g. organise versus organize)? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

American (i.e. International) variant is usually preferred. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass: According to WP:ISE, there are three 'international' standards, one of which is British spellings with 'ise'. I think editors need to come to a consensus about which of the three to use. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, then why are you asking the question? The consensus touches everything, not just one article in particular. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is generally reached on an article-by-article basis. Anyway, see my comment below. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For European centred articles like this, British spelling is usually preferred. Arnoutf (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a brief look in the article and it seems to use Oxford spellings (WP:IZE) so I guess it's best to stick to that. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you British guys write "organization" but "organise"?.. That's kinda weird. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Most people in the UK would use "organisation" and "organise". Oxford spelling uses stuff like "colour", "labour", etc. but uses "organization" and "organize". That's the style currently employed in most of this article, and it's used by many international organisations. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are two types of British spelling, standard, and Oxford. Standard uses "ise". Oxford uses "ize". RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Per WP:ENGVAR, whichever national variety was first recognizably used when the article was created should be kept. Is the spelling in the article currently inconsistent? If yes, try to find out which spelling was there first, and then regularize towards that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fut.Perf. in following WP:ENGVAR and using the convention used when created. Bahooka (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It's been in British English since created, and is templated as such. --John (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, there's {{EngvarB}}, but that's non-specific. It looks like Oxford spellings are in usage, anyway. — Pingumeister^(talk) 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is Malaysian-Russian-Ukrainian related. It's not specifically American or British. Per MOS:RETAIN, I guess British English can be used at default since creation? --George Ho (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can establish one form of English considering the variation within this article. Dustin (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, things such as "dd-month-yyyy" have been established, but not usage in ways such as RGloucester suggests. Dustin (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I only made the change because of this discussion, and the template. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion does not yet have many contributors, but I can say that "organization" with a "z" appears to be the most common usage. Also, I believe that there is a Wikipedia guideline somewhere which prefers an international variant of a word rather than a specific variant. Dustin (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As has been seen above, British English very often uses Oxford spelling (ize). The international variant for the term I was changing is refrigerated van, which is the term used by the International Union of Railways. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first date format in the article was Month-Day-Year [16] in the infobox, but some other editor changes it. I will say more in a moment. Dustin (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No way in hell are we changing all 170 references back to that, surely? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the string "organization" exists in the article. Feel free to correct me. --John (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify on what you are saying? Dustin (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the section titled 'Organizations'? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. I corrected it. I don't know how I didn't see that. The article was written in British (not Oxford) English, and as been discussed should remain that way unless there is a compelling reason to change it. --John (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You do not have the right to single-handedly make that judgment and should be reverted. It's an international standard. Dustin (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No indeed. We use WP:RETAIN as explained just above. --John (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

...and the existing variety looked a lot more like Oxford than British to me. The only reason it looks British is that you changed prior to reaching any sort of reasonable consensus. Dustin (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It was definitely Oxford English. Note the usage of 'organiz-' throughout. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is some variation because of military positions and publications, e.g. defence and defense. But I had certainly assumed it was generally British spelling. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, every occurrence used the "z" spelling prior to that change. I do not wish to revert, however, as I do not want to take on an appearance of edit warring. Dustin (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've put it back to Oxford spelling, per WP:ENGVAR. RGloucester — ☎ 16:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, that is unfortunate. Here is an early version which clearly uses British English. Per RETAIN, that is how it should stay. Reversion really isn't very clever; you do know this article is under sanctions, right? —John (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to threaten, dear fellow. I'm well aware. However, WP:RETAIN says not to purposely change the style if it isn't necessary. It wasn't necessary to wholesale convert to "ise" spelling, when "ize" spelling was more predominant. RGloucester — ☎ 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

John, that version didn't use "organize" or "organise" anywhere. How are you making that judgment? Dustin (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus of usage here. Also, I am sensing upcoming inconsistent uses of various English types. Per RETAIN, the English variety used in one of non-stub revisions should be used. However, I cannot tell which one is the first non-stub. The first version wasn't tagged as stub when created. --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't about British vs American English any more. It's clear we're using British English, but now we're talking about whether to use Oxford spellings. The revision you pointed at doesn't have any words that are relevant to this discussion. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 17:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We can establish consistent usage now. The article was essentially British with Oxford-style prior to the tinkering, with some minor mixed-usage, as many posters above have noted. It makes most sense to retain that per WP:RETAIN, rather than trying to figure out the impossible. RGloucester — ☎ 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

At the time when I tagged the article as using British English on the 17th, there were no Oxford spellings in it. The fact that some were subsequently introduced does not invalidate that. RETAIN says leave the first spelling variant in place. The first spelling variant was not Oxford. --John (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

...because there was nothing to judge by! Without relevant words, Oxford and British look the same. Dustin (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The first spelling variant was neither Oxford nor "ISE", as no words were used that involved spelling a word that would use either variant style. What matters is what was subsequently introduced from a consistent standpoint. That was clearly Oxford spelling. RETAIN does not say to wholesale revert the style. It says to retain the existing variety. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care a huge amount about the dialect, but with the use of "organization" and "organize", standard British English is no longer an option the way I see it. There are certain guidelines which may require us to go back in the page history at some point and judge this sort of thing, but personally, I don't see the point of choosing this sort of thing until the "current aviation disaster" tag has been removed. Those are just my thoughts. Dustin (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How to keep useless editors busy for hours? I actually thought this section was a joke. And then realized it was. Juan Riley (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Australia is the English speaking country most impacted by this event. It's "organisation" there. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We established the "z" for the article a good while ago. Dustin (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding everything else, I don't really know how to compare Aus-English to other dialects. Dustin (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to. It is done. It is established as British with Oxford spelling. Let it be, and let this discussion die as it should. RGloucester — ☎ 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because you got your way, among a tiny group of editors, over a seven hour period, without any involvement from the English speaking country most impacted by this event? That's not consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am not accepting the flagrant rudeness and breach of policy here. But the article has other problems. We can fix up the spelling in a week or so. --John (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Countries, again

Well, it's time to get bold and trim that section some. I cut Germany ("sympathy, full investigation"), Turkey (ditto), Indonesia (ditto), and a rather meaningless sentence from Canada. Really, additions need to have content beyond the expected, and should come from a country that's actually actively involved in the aftermath one way or another. That a country has said something in response is not relevant--they all have. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Phil Kessel, don't just revert. Discuss it here. Present an argument: you haven't yet. You're new to this project, I understand, but one of the ground rules is that we don't just stick every single little factoid into an article just because there's a link to a newspaper report. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just monitoring your edits there and saw that you were reverted. I feel that that was unhelpful and agree in getting rid of some of these "ordinary" responses. United States Man (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Well, they just did it again: 95 edits here and they know how to write an article. I'm giving up--don't want to enter an edit war with this editor; it's like the Waco Kid being shot in the ass. Thanks, 03:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

--I understand this site completely. I'm a little surprised that someone as experienced as you are not aware that it's not appropriate to continually delete the work of others over and over until you get your way but rather to raise as part of "talk". Perhaps review the 'edit warring' page rather than repeatedly deleting. It's very arrogant of you to assume that just because you personally disagree with my edit it's because I believe that I should "stick every single little factoid into an article just because there's a link to a newspaper report." Phil Kessel (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, apparently I'm not the only one who wishes to see these boilerplate responses removed; as you may recall, there has already been discussion on this. I note also that you reverted twice, and were reverted by Tarc, before you saw fit to come here (I posted here immediately after my first edit). And you still have no argument for including these cliches, except for "someone wrote it", which isn't an argument at all. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Phil Kessel: Talking to an administrator in that manor is not helping matters. There is consensus to remove that text, so please don't revert again. United States Man (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• You're very convenient about what boiler plate responses you're willing to tolerate. I also did check here after the the first revision but didn't notice the section. The reason for the two statements was because together they formed what the Canadian government's response was. It was no grand plan on my part to add a sentence because I was bored and felt like it. Of course, rather than appreciating I might have had a reason for my edit, you insulted me instead. A Canadian died in the crash - there is nothing wrong with including the Canadian government's response - and in fact it had been up there for more than day before you decided it didn't warrant inclusion. Phil Kessel (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Chances are that government and other people from over 200 countries have made platitudinous comments about this event. We cannot include them all. The only sensible approach is to include only those from countries impacted in a major way, and those whose statements actually had some impact outside the political and tabloid media world in their own countries. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree as well, they do need to be trimmed. Canada, Romania and South Africa all need to go too.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. I'll be bold and remove them now. United States Man (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That looks good, let's see how long it lasts. There's probably a couple in the Organizations section that could be trimmed too. They looked like condolences/sympathy/support comments.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: I removed one from that section. The others were either involved and/or have released notable comments. United States Man (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a couple more could go as well. They only contain condolences and the other info is stale, like the EU which says: The EU officials also said that Ukraine has first claim on the plane's black boxes. The black boxes were turned over to the Malaysians already, so who cares what they said 4 or 5 days ago, things have changed since they said that. I don't consider it notable that they demanded a thorough investigation and offered an opinion on "first claim". The OSCE is the same, condolences and it also says: He also stated that "the OSCE stands ready to support Ukraine in this difficult rescue operation in every possible way." That's stale as well, in fact, they are already there and are mentioned in the first paragraph in the Investigation section as to what they are actually doing as opposed to announcing what they intended to do here in the Reactions section. I would also question the other one from ICAO, they are only announcing their intentions as well, "declaring that it was sending a team of experts to assist", so what, did they? Are they on the scene there doing something notable, if so, lets include that rather than their declaration. If no one complains, I'll remove them, or not.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good work Drmies, those were embarrassing. Once we get rid of all the empty platitudes the next step is to get rid of the stupid flags and write the section as a paragraph rather than bullet points. An invisible comment might be a good idea too. I've done that. I think it looks much better now. I wonder how long it will last? --John (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian military source

"Russian military sources state that a Ukrainian Su-25 jet was flying along with the passenger plane.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-mh17-crash-ukrainian-military-jet-was-flying-close-to-passenger-plane-before-it-was-shot-down-says-russian-officer-9619143.html|title=Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer |first=Natasha |last=Culzac |work=[[The Independent]] |date=21 July 2014 |accessdate=21 July 2014}}</ref>"

[rant redacted]

User:Volunteer Marek, why is it POV pushing? I dared to cite a British newspaper? Fakirbakir (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The source referred to in this section is: Culzac, Natasha (21 July 2014). "Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash: Ukrainian military jet was flying close to passenger plane before it was shot down, says Russian officer". The Independent. Retrieved 21 July 2014. [17]. Because of this talk page's formatting is now hovering at the bottom of the page. Geogene (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. I think my response to Fakirbakir got edit-conflicted out. Basically that claim is just insinuation. IF and WHEN the Russian government explicitly claims - not insinuated, suggests, spreads rumors about, hints, wink winks - that the MH17 was shot down by the Su-25 jet, THEN you can put that, as a claim by the Russian government, in the lede.

And your question, "(because) I dared to cite a British newspaper?" is obviously made in bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[rant redacted]

According to others I was right, read the lead. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in trying to remove the well sourced info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith of other editors..Fakirbakir (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please try to *act* in good faith. You did try to remove the info. Then you said "according to others I was right". The "others" actually reverted you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you should have gone to Specsavers. The Su-25 jet is still in the lead, and the unverified allegations (they were first deleted then moved) are in the "Cause" subsection.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)We heard this sort of song and dance once before. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Section

Why does the article state that Russia Today is Kremlin backed when it isn't, why does the article repeatedly attack a media outlet based on hearsay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.148.24 (talk)

poor Russia Today, - [18] - just because it is a fake news channel doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously or its various truths about the plane crash - putins plane was the target! Ukrainian jets hit the Malaysian plane! the rebels haven't got the means ! - btw -is it true putin has praised Goebbels saying 'After all, Goebbels had said, “The more improbable the lie, the faster people believe it.” And it worked out; he was a talented man.'putin praises joseph Goebbels - or is that hearsay - RT is propaganda crap and Wikipedia is plagued with editors pushing its fantastical propaganda and it risks infecting loads of articles imo. Sayerslle (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Arhh, where's good old solid journalism when you need it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

the news o't' screws versus RT - Murdoch/Putin - all the same to me. Sayerslle (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You folks don't know something. In Russia, many journalists are seen negatively because the media impact is ridiculous. They constantly screw up all their stories, like at the time of the recent Moscow metro derailment, they were saying that it has occurred at a completely different location and were seen interviewing a guy who was actually traveling in the opposite tunnel towards the opposite station, but for some reason, thought that his train was the target. Just like the metro construction workers who used chewing gum to block the switch, the journalists are very unprofessional.

Now the reason why this is so outrageous is simply because RT is the only Russia-based station to broadcast worldwide, with the same level of negligence. But that does certainly NOT mean that Putin backs them up. This is stupid. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

So what you say is that they are just unreliable because of incompetence, not non-neutral spokespeople for the Russian government? In either case we cannot use them Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree, however if they're documenting somebody's speech (not a current event itself), then I don't see the harm. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

RT (TV network) says "RT has often been accused of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government." with four rather sturdy sources in support? Are they all wrong? If so, case that article needs a bit of correcting. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to explain when you don't know the Russian mentality. Russians are very culturally diverse, in fact, it is nearly impossible to make out what "general direction" Russia is taking. It's not like Europe or America, where you might have some counterculture, but roughly 70% of the population are in favor of something. So when you take RT from a Western POV, it does look like it reflects most if not all of Putin's statements, and seems to bypass "the people". But in reality, it simply cannot make any point by itself, there isn't much opposition of divergence beside Putin, not because of Putin, but because this is how the Russians are. A non-caring mentality. And same goes for the medias, who simply do a half-assed job of delivering any information they can find, often contradict themselves, and instead of sourcing rephrase most of what the Kremlin is saying. Either they're being paid in rubles, or they simply care too much about their own ego, IMO. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely the "Kremlin backed" statement refers to the fact it is funded by them [19] Eckerslike (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian version of cause

• Comment: it should not be "russian version of cause" but about "russian inteligence sources about the cause" -- I don't know a 'seperate' version of the incident by Russia, they only added some pieces of intelligence information, and further, as Putin has made clear, they go for a thorough and objective international investigation of the cause. So I don't think that Russia has any intend of manufacturing a seperate version of the incident at all... Robheus (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I added Russian version of the crash "Russian officials said crash was due to a R-60 air-to-air missile fired by a SU-25 fighter, 5 km away from the MH-17 flight the post online 21 july 2014". It is worth considering because there were shrapnels on top of the cockpit (look at this picture) which is a bit odd if crash is due to a surface to air missile ! Lpele (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why should it be odd? SAM explosion near the front part of the plane -> shrapnel around the cockpit. No contradiction at all. 178.12.141.71 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you 178.121.141.71. Been thinking the same, also the plane fell for 10km through a cloud of debris (among which structural metal bits of the plane itself) which may have a similar effect as shrapnel. Arnoutf (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Because shrapnel don't cross the whole plane, missile explode before reaching the target. As you can see in this article experts remind that such Buk SAM missile is big and explode 20 meters before target and whole plane would ignite ("The SA-11 missile - known as a Grizzly - that hit the doomed Malaysian Airlines flight is designed to pulverize aircraft on impact. It will have perforated the plane at various points, ignited the fuel, and taken out the engines and the wings within a split second - meaning the people aboard will have been unconscious almost instantly" . in this article, expert found odd that plane only exploded when it crashed ground. R-60 missile is much smaller and attacks target horizontally.

It has been removed. An encyclopedia is not a venue for propaganda or nutbar conspiracy theory, sorry. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right. But my edit was not propaganda but Russian version as reported by secondary source. Wikipedia respect Neutrality of point of view. I'm surprised that you pretend knowing the truth as investigation was not started yet ! Lpele (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The russian sources that mention the proximity of Ukrainian military plane, does not make explicit statement that the plane crashed due to shooting by the Ukranian SU-25 figher (as far as I understand, but maybe you have a different source?), it only raises question as to what that fighther did there so close to flight MH17 (one way of interpreting this is that this might have causes the BUK radar to having mistaken flight MH17 for a military plane). Robheus (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that several sources explicitly state that it is most likely a BUK missile, while the Russian versions claims a plane carrying R-60 was in the neighborhood. The actual use of an R-60 is implied but in no report I have seen so far explicitly suggested by a relevant expert. Arnoutf (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What "russian version" -- In my understanding, russia does not have an official "version" -- it only DOES blame Ukraine govt. for this incident in the broad sense, because the Ukraine govt. caused the seperatist fighting against the illegal removal of the former president, and the military actions of the Ukrain army set the stage for this incident to happen. Further then that, I did not hear of any official russian story on how flight MH17 was downed -- they only added different inteligence information into the story (and all kinds of conspiracy theories -- already dead bodies, etc. -- we should not consider here of course) Robheus (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on whether or not their version is propaganda or conspiracy, but considering that the rest some of the world is basically alleging that Russia were co-conspirators in the murder of innocent civilians, I think at the very least a version of their events should be considered for inclusion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment on ´´'rest of the world´´' -- You are dead wrong there. This is not "russia against the rest of the world" -- russia has strong allies and is part of BRICS -- these countries represent 3 billion people!!!! You are a bit western-centered!!! (as if all countries outside of russia would have the same point of view on this incident!!!) Robheus (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Revised to "some" of the world, didn't mean to offend anyone, sorry if I did.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This isn't a trial, both "sides" don't get to have their day in court in a Wikipedia article. At some point when more is uncovered and confirmed regarding this incident, we'll probably have to spinout to something akin to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance theories. That's where the fringe "maybe they were shooting at Putin's plane!", "maybe the Ukrainians did it!", "maybe it was an air-to-air missile!" can go. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting that anyone be put on trial in this article. But from the sourcing I have seen and read, Russia has been assigned a huge role in this incident, therefore it stands to reason that their version of events (regardless of what you or I think about them) should be considered for inclusion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with explicit statements by relevant Russian authorities. However much of what the Russian authorities have said so far consists for the larger part out of implications rather than explicit claims/statements. Also note that the cause paragraph does not blame anyone. Arnoutf (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

certainly a Russian version of events is part of the story - perhaps examination of wreckage could determine more about ground to air or air to air or whatever caused the crash ( so why are the Russian proxies so hostile to outsders going to examine the wreckage?)-what is still true is that 'the main theory is that a Buk missile system shot MH17 out of the sky. The separatist at one point admitted that they had a Buk, though that tweet has since been deleted. - to the north and to the south there are three towns where the Buk system may have shot down MH17. They are as follows: Torez- Located near Snezhnoye, a geolocated picture placed the Buk in the town. nezhnoye - A video showing a Buk has been geolocated to the town. Two AP journalists and a Ukrainian journalist reported seeing a Buk in Snezhnoye on July 17th, the day that MH17 was shot down. This is conclusive evidence that at least one Buk traveled in the Torez/Snezhnoye area on the day that the airliner was shot down. [20] -(interpretermag) Sayerslle (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Conclusive proof huh? I didn't realize that an accusation posted to a live blog was 'conclusive proof'. The only source given in the live blog is an AP article which mentions neither Buk missiles nor Snezhnoye. In fact, I can find no evidence of any AP journalist reporting a Buk system in Snezhnoye except second hand reports. Please provide the original source... I would like to know which AP journalists supposedly made this claim. 74.96.209.189 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian authorities doesn't blame explicitly Ukraine see the independent for example : "Lieutenant-General Andrei Kartopolov said the Defence Ministry would like to know “why the military jet was flying along [the same civil aviation lines] at almost the same time and at the same level as a passenger plane.” "The SU-25 was, Mr Kartopolov says, gaining height and reached a distance of three to five kilometres from the Boeing 777." " the jets “can briefly climb up to 10,000metres [and are] regularly equipped with air-to-air missiles R-60 that can capture and destroy targets of a distance up to 12km and up to 5km as guaranteed.” "Russian officials say they have evidence of the jet’s presence following images taken by the Rostov monitoring centre, and has urged the US to release satellite images taken at the time of the crash" “Ukrainian officials reported that on the day of the Boeing 777 crash there were no military aircraft available in the region, so as you can see, this doesn’t appear to be true.” "He said that Ukraine had self-propelled, anti-aircraft BUK missile launchers 8km north-western from Lugansk, close to the territory controlled by the rebels and that images show it was present on 14 July, but absent on 17 July."Lpele (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

From the very start of the Ukraine vs Russia dispute, it's been portrayed in the western world as the rest of the world vs Russia. Russia has been portrayed by most of the world's media, especially the English language media, as the evil empire. That has continued in the reporting of this incident, and here on Wikipedia. It's not healthy. It's possible that Russia will turn out to be 100% to blame. We would report that when and if it's confirmed. Right now nothing is confirmed, and Wikipedia is being used as a massive propaganda tool by those who simply believe, or want the rest of the world to believe, that Russia is evil. It's sad. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No. It's been portrayed as "western world vs. Russia" in *Russian media*. Both media and politicians in the "western world", at least up until recently when the evidence just kept piling up, have actually been very very muted in assigning the blame to Russia. Ukraine of course is a different story, but that's not "western world". Western world leaders and media outlets have been very wary of saying that either the Russians or the rebels did it, although of course they do report on the evidence that's become available. What you - and some others - are actually complaining about is that the *evidence* suggests Russian/rebel involvement and responsibility, that the "western world" has reported on this evidence and that "Russian versions of the story" (i.e. wacky conspiracy theories) have only received passing attention.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I ll repeat it here too:kindly be informed, that now in russian Medias an informational war began to blame Ukrainian government in this incident (I know what i am talking about). Be very carefull using russian Media sources and especially citing russian militaries. Dont forget how proffesional are Russian medias in propaganda. M.Karelin (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we be careful with ANY media reporting on this. I'm in Australia, where sadly, our Prime Minister and his henchmen (and women) have been rabidly blaming the Russians right from the start, before virtually anything was known. The compliant media (Rupert Murdoch, to name the biggest) have been playing the same game. Our ABC has, as usual, been a lot better, but most media reporting has been more speculation than facts. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• And for your information: the "information war against russia" has started in the west about 3 years ago (if not earlier): Take the western campaigns of "pussy riot" and "homosexual laws" (as if russia is the only country that puts some restrictions on that kind of behaviour) and the issue of the war in Syria, where Russia was a ally of the Assad govt. in his fight against jihadist, and western govt. and SA and Qatar helping the terrorists groups, in all that cases, Russia was presented as an enemy here in the west..... You all know there is some 'hidden' western agenda to this, having the west clash into russia.... people following the international news media know what I'm talking about, and know how international politics work. From that perspective it should be no surprise that sooner or later the west would clash into russia, and why they are mixing in internal affairs of sovereign countries.... It's the western countries that clash with the rest of the world, not russia!!! See the devestation that western countries (with aid of Saudi arabia and Qatar) are causing and have caused in countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria (to name a few), and how many thousands of people have died because of such conflicts.... All the western world does is mourning about 300 people that died in a (perhaps mistaken) attack on a civilian plane, but western govts. don't mourn over all the other hundred thousands of civilian casualties in conflicts that were caused by or helped by western interventionists policies.... But ok, that's some different story here... Robheus (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX. I'm tempted to remove your rant from the talk page as inappropriate, but I'll leave it here just in case the question of credibility comes up at some point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

-why is it good if Iran and Hezbollah and Russia interfere in Syria anyhow/ would you be so pro-Russian if you were barrel bombed or gassed ? oh - I forgot - it wasn't assad who used sarin it was the rebels with Turkish or Saudi supplied sarin. of course. understanding the whole of human politics must be easy with putin glasses on - and you never have to think againSayerslle (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Answer: Iran and Hezbollah don't interfere in Syrian politics, the west and Qatar and Saudi arabia do by supporting extremist fighters there; they are very 'democratic' - if you don't follow their sectarian religion, they chop your head off. Robheus (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't get drawn into off topic discussions. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

some of the talk was off topic, but after this talk, russian version was added in the article by another contributor, which fits me. So this talk wasn't useless.Lpele (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Recovery of causalities

This section has the following three sentences in it:

1. 247 out of 298 bodies had been found as of 20 July.

2. On 21 July, pro-Russian rebels allowed Dutch investigators to examine the bodies. By this time, 272 bodies had been recovered.

3. It was reported on 21 July that with 282 bodies and 87 body fragments found, there were still 16 bodies left unrecovered.

Which is it - 247 or 272 or 282? Or are we keeping all of them?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If they're all reliably sourced, we can keep all of them - they show the progression of bodies found over time. Ansh666 03:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If we decide to keep them as a history, then let's reformat it into a more historical-list structure. At this point it looks as though editors have just been appending dates and numbers to the article. I had to read to the end to figure out what the current body count was. Let's put the list in a descending-date order?- dminnaar (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This is actually standard for current event articles on Wikipedia. With information and, more importantly, sources being released continuously by news and government agencies and such, information is added, day by day. After the media furor and corresponding editing furor die down, we go back and fix up the article, eliminate contradictions, that sort of thing. For the convenience of readers in the future (of which there will presumably be far more than current readers), we keep it in ascending order. I'd like to believe that most readers are smart enough to skip to the bottom for the "current picture" - not saying that you aren't, of course, body count-type info should ideally be included higher up. Ansh666 13:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I noticed that there were 2 different figures documented for the same date (21 July), which is obviously just a timing issue. I assume this is a result of the furor you're talking about.- dminnaar (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, conflicting and out-of-date information is also standard for current events, not only on Wikipedia, but between and even within major news agencies as well, especially in incidents like this where information is scarce and investigation is obstructed. There's nothing we can do about that except either reporting what the most reliable ones say or, if a single number is absolutely needed (which I don't think is really ever the case), probably finding a most common figure between reports. Ansh666 15:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Some other section I don't even know what to title (split off from previous)

What is wrong with allowing Russian, US etc governments to allow edits and create by them 'they official' POV , given it will be marked as such ? I propose to create sections or separate articles called somehow like Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by gov of USA , Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by gov of Russia ... Malasia, Ukraine, Germany ... and also organization like UN, WTO, and even if they will be reluctant to write they 'official desiformation' by grups like CIA, Mossad, KGB, MI, etc. I like to give them equal chance since sum of assigned POV's is (imo) the only neutral point of view. This will give the reader the best way to make his own point of view. Do we want the reader make his own point of view? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a strict policy here called WP:NPOV. It would not be in our best interest to violate that. United States Man (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I afride you didnt read carefuley (or willingly understand, project) what i did write just above. Where is a contradiction to NPOV - imo there is not. The proposal is a pragmatic enchancement to NPOV in case of conflicting information, war or infowar, where thruth is obvius casulty. The link you provided (to NPOV tree) do not prohibit but encourage the exhaution of theme up to it neutral enlightment. Whithouth neutrality Wikipedia may be acused e.g. of genocide, if let see appears the info presented is biased by hysterized memory (human factor of stuff) from which any contiusness is not free, more personal bias is an esence of cotiusness. Only if the palyers ( gov orgs..) can present uncripled information the information may be transmited and used to form individual (personal-reader) point of view, which then the whole article(or group of articles*1 may be not biased and thus neutral. Certainly space for those pages do not cost much, menagment is not expensive -the grups will manage each own section/article space. Tahat will be realy funto see it happening. Also hiden agentural influences wont be so important as any agency will be clearly visible in action. Given this explanation do you still see the pragmatic solution to make info more sumarialy neutral is against WPLNPOV? 99.90.196.227 (talk)

add *1 to be neutral require to pinpoint contradicting viewpoints. This particular frase sentence of course will represent a kind of biased POV but by presenting POVS of two side (or mmulti-side) neutralpresentationmay be created. another factor is a language. Th same eg event may described by different words , so assuming the event is described fully, but only words differ, quite differrent impresion reader will build . Allowing as proposed govs to edit they (proposed) pages both data and werbal form may be exposed for sumarial npov.

Is someone finally going to report this guy? Please? Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't even understand them well enough to figure out if there's anything reportable, and assuming there is, what to even report them for. As long as they don't touch the article (which IPs can't right now, thankfully) and aren't disruptive (well, beyond posting walls of barely-comprehensible text here), I say just ignore. Ansh666 15:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This individual (whomever their sex is) has been constantly trolling the Talk page with irrelevant and useless comments, clearly aimed at provoking others into aggressive arguing. That kind of nonsense is not well tolerated on WP, even in Talk pages, and represents abusive behavior, whether or not the IP vandalizes the article itself. I'm going to wait for just one more absurdity, and then I'm warning it, because this definitely has to stop. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you want. I honestly don't understand a word of what they're trying to say! Ansh666 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Reading the above was a nightmare. United States Man (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The other IP was a lot worse in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Just about all of them have been bad it seems. United States Man (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The Netherlands under a separate tiny flag icon under "Reactions"

I just noticed that the responses of Malaysia and the Netherlands have been put in the same paragraph concerning the reactions to the accident/incident/disaster/[insert preference here]. However, in this article they are apparently shared under the Malaysian flag, which is unambiguously incorrect. (Because, you know, the Netherlands uses another flag than Malaysia.) I don't myself know how to place these tiny flags into an article, but I propose that either (1) the Dutch reaction gets its own separate paragraph with a separate flag, (2) the Malaysian and Dutch reactions continue to share the same paragraph but that paragraph is introduced with [Malaysian tiny flag]/[Dutch tiny flag], or (3) the tiny flags are completely omitted. Whatever action is chosen, the two nations should at least be separated flag-wise. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It was fixed a moment ago. There's been a bit of tussling between the "write it out in paragraphs" crowd and the "bullet list with pretty pictures" crowd, so as they revert each others' edits, things get jumbled. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(aside): has anyone at Village Pump tech ever suggested admins having the ability to fully protect individual sections or sub-sections? Perhaps this is possible already, but I've never seen it. It would seem to offer a lot more flexibility where there are specific topic-related disputes going on. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely very impossible. I'll spare you the technical details (which, frankly, I don't even know all too well), but many are likely to be the same as the inability to watchlist sections, which is in WP:Perennial proposals or something of the sort. Ansh666 15:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, just a thought. Surprising, though. Perhaps because the whole article is always available for editing as well as all the sections? Is "Edit conflict" always mechanised on the basis of the whole article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Unimportant content added to Media coverage section

Volunteer Marek has now twice added the following text to the Media coverage section, without explanation:

"Other conspiracy theories propagated by Russian media, which after a few days replaced the original story about a failed assassination attempt on Putin, include; an allegation that the Ukrainians shot down the plane in a botched attempt at a mass murder of Russian citizens, that Ukrainian air traffic controllers purposefully redirected the flight to fly over the war zone, and that the Ukrainian government organized the attack on the plane to make the rebels look bad."

It's sourced, but I think it's trivial. I don't plan to Edit war, but an explanation for the addition would have been nice. I don't think it's important enough to belong anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that all these kind of 'conspiracy theories' should shift to another page or so. Take for example how 9/11 instigated lots of 'conspiracy theories' too. Many of these theories have been debunked anyway. The different flight route was due to bad weather. Putin's plane did not fly over Ukranian territory for months. Etc. These kind of dis-info should not go into the main article, but on a seperate page or so (conspiracy theories). What do need to be on the page is the facts considering how this drama unfolded, and the different intelligence reports by the entities involved (US, Ukraine, Russia) should be cited of course. Robheus (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What's "trivial" about it? There's plenty of other sources along the same lines: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. This is the "Media coverage" section so the info is perfectly appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, if there's one thing you certainly get right, it's sourcing, but you have to understand that being sourced is never enough justification for material to appear in an article. Hollywood romances and the subsequent babies are extensively sourced, but some of us work very hard to make sure that such trivia is minimised in Wikipedia. We simply do not include everything that's sourced. We always make judgements as whether content is significant enough to add to an article. One good measure is to ask oneself if something satisfies the ten year test. This stuff doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If this was not the "Media coverage" section you'd have a point. Or if this was about how the media of St. Lucia covered the story, you'd have a point. But it is the "Media coverage" section and this is about how Russian media covered the story. It's precisely what "Media coverage" section should contain.

I'm not so sure about your ten-year-test. You're doing a bit of crystal-ballin' there. My own guess is that when they write the history of this war in ten years or more, the propaganda war aspect of it will get its own chapter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

lets be clear here, the conspiracy references ARE sourced, ARE applicable, and ARE short enough that they don't really push much POV in my book. Frankly they might even meet the ten year test. However among the cadre of regular wp editors who handle these things, conspiracy references or any admission of alternate theories, are almost never allowed, due to the need some folks feel, to prove wp's mainstream legitimacy beyond all doubt. The explanation will always revolve around "trivia" or "undue weight" or "npov," or the like, however the real reason is simply that there is an unofficial gentlemen's agreement to avoid such topics in almost every case, and if the topic must be mentioned, to bury it in a subarticle. In short, you will add such info because it meets all encyclopedic standards, it will get deleted, you will add it again, and then be blocked for editing warring, and then you will stop using wp in a huff. This is all intentional. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

With proper research, we could even go further and add that Russian TV and government-sponsored Russian language media do not offer any other versions of the accident. They all claim the airplane was deliberately shot by the Ukrainian air forces.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

And all Russians are evil! This is ridiculous. I now see what the goal here has been all along. To prove that the Russian media is just a bunch of mean, nasty liars. Just drop the POV pushing. Without the anti-Russian objective, the content is insignificant. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

nothing POV about it, and the content certainly IS significant, imho 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

and just to add a note here, this an earlier comment I made that looks like it got accidentally deleted by an admin using rollback to deal with some editor conflict... for what it's worth, similar stories are now being run on wire-service websites even in the US (or especially in the US?)- here's one from CNN being distributed on my local NBC affiliate website [[29]]... not that the article seems to have much usable facts, reads like more of an editorial, but it at least provides pretty compelling RS for the existence of this debate/situation. 72.35.149.153 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can see both sides on the content issue. Can I remind folks that these are charged issues for some folks here and to be particularly careful with terms like "POV pushing" lest things get nasty and we lose good editors from this area? --John (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• And can I repeat that "the different intelligence reports by the entities involved (US, Ukraine, Russia) should be cited of course" is nonsense? We cite secondary sources, not (primary) intelligence reports. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)