Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 12 October 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 8 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Accidents This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the Aviation accident project. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Russian & Soviet This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Malaysia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Ukrainian place names are transliterated using the National system. Please see the guidelines on the romanization of Ukrainian on Misplaced Pages for more information.

A news item involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 July 2014.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 8 days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Malaysia didn't say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lead is still explicit about this issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Buk hypothesis, there are different escalation levels:

Level 1: shot down by a surface to air missile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well that's probably the most demonstrably false thing I've seen you say so far (the US intel). From the WaPost article you refer to: "the officials said the intelligence assembled in the five days since the attack points overwhelmingly to Russian-backed separatists in territory they control in eastern Ukraine. The senior intelligence officials said they have ruled out the possibility that Ukrainian forces were responsible for the attack." (). Stickee (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complaints of the Malaysian transport minister

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off-Wiki "Fan Page"

If anybody's interested, I've discovered that an obscure wiki has an "article" devoted to us, the editors of this page, complete with a ranking system in which we're assigned scores. For the record, I do know who is responsible and it will inevitably make me much less tolerant of his arguments here. Geogene (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How intriguing. By all means send me a link. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Emailed you. Stickee (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Awww, I only scored a 1. But great to see Brian scoring a 5. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. ok, found it. You know the existence of that page might actually explain why we're getting a lot of crazy users coming over from the war-in-Syria articles. One sketchy account after another. Apparently these two topics, MAF17 and the Syrian war are the hot button issues with the conspiracy folks right now. Volunteer Marek  00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

not just conspiracy theorists, but users paid by the Russian government to spread disinformation. http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america#1w83kfm

... that's just a conspiracy theory! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fascinating, but let's remember that all are obligated to assume good faith on behalf of other users, at least until it becomes absolutely impossible to do so. Conflict-of-interest editing is destructive, and so are ad hoc COI witch hunts, so let's not start any here. Of course, I'm confident that COI, sock puppetry, or other serious transgressions will be punished through the legitimate channels, if they are found. Geogene (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Mined crash site?

This does not make sense:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plenty of other sources reporting the same statements: , , , , . Stickee (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maximum number of passengers for this plane ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German families of MH17 victims suing Ukraine for negligence

An edit about this story keeps on getting reverted, with claims that this was discussed before, with consensus being reached that this is undue. But for the life of me, I can't find the discussion. There is no Talk section heading for this subject; I looked through Talk archives through when this story came out, on 21 September. Also, I searched for the string "sue", and nothing came up. Finally, I looked through the Talk page history, and didn't see any edit summaries which appeared to relate to this story.

Could someone please find the previous discussion and post a link to it? I want to see how a consensus was reached that a story which received wide coverage in reliable English language sources is not notable. Thanks in advance, and my apologies for my ineptness at finding this discussion myself. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has now been protected because of edit warring. – Herzen (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure we should add every speculative legal case they are not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree here. There hasn't been mention in the article of a potential lawsuit/legal action against Malaysia Airlines ("Malaysia Airlines could face a costly negligence lawsuit on top of a US$54.5 million compensation bill for the loss of 298 lives on MH17"), or a lawsuit against Russia/Putin ("British lawyers preparing multi-million pound suit against Putin for MH17 crash"). Stickee (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I didn't know about those. As for that English lawsuit, given how disinterested Western media have become in MH17, I really don't think that's going anywhere. – Herzen (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Herzen. Others acted by the rules. You need consensus to include any new information that causes objections for whatever reason. Offending another contributor, as you just did and providing link to stolen and possibly manufactured private correspondence of another person (in the diff) does not really help your cause. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this private lawsuit is not important enough to be mentioned here. --PM3 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. But it's interesting that nobody has shown when this was discussed before, in response to my request. The stories about this private lawsuit suggested it would be filed this month. If it does get filed, I think it would become noteworthy. For now, I take the discussion to be closed. – Herzen (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If a lawsuit is filed and reported on by reliable secondary sources, I think it's potentially noteworthy. What I don't want to see is it being used in a WP:SYNTH fashion to help construct a political argument supporting the Kremlin's finger-pointing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that there was any SYNTH going on. That edit just reported the argument made by the lawyer of the families, as reported in the cited source. That edit wasn't made by me btw, but by an editor who, as far as I know, has not made any other edits to this article. Then Volunteer Marek started an edit war, by falsely stating in his edit summary that this story had been discussed before and consensus was reached not to include it. (To repeat, I looked for a prior discussion and could not find it.) Discussion has now taken place and consensus reached. (To engage in a bit of OR, I would be surprised if this suit ever gets filed. If it were, that could lead to a public relations disaster.) – Herzen (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that was legitimate revert per WP:BRD. Then you started edit war without proper discussion. And we still do not have consensus to include this info right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Kangaroo Route and connecting destinations

I would like to have a source that says explicitly that MH17 is on the Kangaroo route, which would explain the presence of so many Australians. Plus a source stating all of the connecting destinations of MH17 passengers may be useful in regards to discussing the Kangaroo route. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know the precise answer to that question (it's almost certainly true), but I can hopefully help a bit. Australia is a big country geographically. People like to get international flights from as close to home as possible. Within Australia, the state of Victoria was the one most heavily impacted by the crash. One of the limited number of international airlines servicing Victoria's international airport is Malaysia Airlines. The crash was also close to the end of a school holiday period, so people were returning from international holidays. That's a reason for the higher proportion of children, and the fact that a teacher I knew was one of the victims. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. One thing I'd like to do is build a background for the route, such as that of American Airlines Flight 587 (I added info about the cultural background related to the Dominican community in New York City and its use of the flight) and China Airlines Flight 611 (the Taipei to Hong Kong route is the "Golden Route"). WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

ICAO State Letter

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

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

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

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

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

One passenger had an oxygen mask on

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

BBC: Dutch minister says passenger 'wore oxygen mask'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Associated Press
• Agence France-Presse
• Reuters (not a full story)
• Australian Associated Press
• APN News & Media
• Indo-Asian News Service
• Bloomberg News agency
• Asian News International
• BNO News
• United Press International
• Xinhua News Agency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Article is not Neutral

Having never edited an article or the Talk section before, I'm relying on your good will to bear with my formatting errors. I've been following this article and especially the informative Talk section since the early days following the downing of MH17. It has been a controversial article since day 1, because the topic is very clearly influenced by political considerations, which do seem to be winning out on control of the article content.

-

However, there are other considerations which should outweigh mere political expedience, for example 1) Impartiality, objectivity and neutrality, 2) reputation of Misplaced Pages and it's editors and 3) due consideration to the justice for victims of MH17, their relatives and all the other current and future air passengers, who would prefer to see objective and impartial information. Therefore please welcome my comment as feedback from one of your readers!

-

Here are some comments which convince me that the article (and hence perhaps it's editors?) are NOT neutral:-

-

* 1) The article reads like the editors decided on the story line and then selected the sources to back up their version, and gave prominence to those sources which they preferred to see. For example, the last sentence of the Aftermath section "According to the Ukraine Security Council, preliminary information indicated that the missiles came from Russia". Another example is the last sentence of the Cause of Crash section "According to Ostanin, the markings on the specific launcher suspected of being used to shoot MH17, together with lorry registration plates suggest that it belongs to 53rd Kursk Brigade of Russian anti-aircraft defence troops.", the last sentence of reactions section where a Russian poet proclaims mea culpa "A controversial political poem on the subject of the disaster, "Requiem for MH-17" by Andrei Orlov, was broadcast on liberal Russian media outlets soon after the disaster.", etc. I could go on. The first and last sentences are more noteworthy than the rest of the body, and the last sentences in particular can carry the weight of a formal conclusion.

-

* 2) A whole section is devoted to "Russian Media Coverage", but as there are no equivalent Sections on UK media Coverage, US media Coverage, Netherlands Media Coverage, Ukranian Media Coverage, etc., and these countries media coverage is NOT excluded from the article, it is clear that the intention is to single out Russian media as being different and somehow less credible from the other media sources. Indeed, the article actually says so in the first paragraph, and immediately quotes a warning by an unnamed US official of Russian manipulation. Instead of actually stating what the Russian media says about the downing of MH17, majority of the section ignores what Russian media actually says, and instead selects only those sources which serve to reinforce the idea that Russian media coverage is manipulated, e.g. Sarah Forth, Russian liberal opposition, establishing links of ownership, e.g. "REN TV is part of the National Media Group (NMG) controlled by Bank Rossiya, whose largest shareholder, Yuriy Kovalchuk, is said to be a close associate of President Vladimir Putin". Doesn't it strike you as laughable to have to resort to a quote like that? If I said that I have an influence over the BBC editorial content because I shook the hand of a man who was a friend of a man who was the senior partner in the firm of accountants who audit BBC, wouldn't you find it ridiculous? I am quite sure that there many such links that could be made linking anyone in the world to anyone else in the world. This whole section strikes me as ridiculous and a blatant attempt at manipulating the Misplaced Pages reader. The editors are truly scraping the barrel!

-

* 3) The entire article is interspersed by references to BUK, in almost every section, from the introduction to the references, which is odd considering that almost a month ago Bundestag responded to a question from German MPs where it states that NATO AWACS identified signals from SA-3 surface to air missiles and a 3rd unidentified signal. No BUK! Further they go on to say that the full details of the answer will be kept secret for reasons of comprimising technical info of foreign intelligence services. Here's the link "http://www.bundestag.de/presse/hib/2014_09/-/329982" dated 19 Sept. Suddenly, all those references to sightings of BUK in rebel areas, BUK being clandestinely taken back across Russian border, intercepted phonecalls about ownership of BUK, etc. etc. become irrelevant to the article, except under the heading of "Misdirection", which alas doesn't exist in this article. The entire tone of the article hinges on BUK surface to air missile being the corpus delicti, and the entire article's credibility falls with that simple statement from Bundestag, backed up by absence of evidence in the more cautious Netherlands preliminary report. Misplaced Pages editors have been recklessly careless (or prejudiced) in this instance.

-

* 4) Inadequate citation of information which is published in the Dutch Safety Board's Preliminary report indicates a lack of professionalism at best, and deliberate ommission at worst on the part of the editors. The report, which is probably the best source which we have at the moment is poorly covered, the link in references section doesn't work (Here it is for those who want it - http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf) and the following extracts from the report should feature VERY prominently in the "Preliminary Report" section.

-

- Page 23 - "Figure 8: Forward fuselage skin from below the left cockpit window containing numerous small holes and indentations (above); enlarged image of the right upper corner of this skin (below) showing puncture holes (orange arrow) and pitting (red arrow)."

- Page 24 - "Around 1.7 km north of the position where the cockpit window structure was found, was a section of the cockpit roof also showing holes indicating penetration from outside (figure 9)."

- Page 25 - "Puncture holes identified in images of the cockpit floor suggested that small objects entered from above the level of the cockpit floor (figure 10)"

- State that the report does not once use the word "missile".

.

- There is no need to interpret these findings, simply include them. It's clear to anyone with the basic grasp of English that projectiles entered the cockpit from above, through the roof of the cockpit, exited through the floor of the cockpit, and there were additional projectiles from below the cockpit windows. Misplaced Pages readers can draw their own conclusions. Mine is that some of the projectiles came from above the cockpit, while others came from below left. Suddenly, a single blast from a surface to air missile appears less likely (unless the plane was travelling upside down). Also, it appears that there must have been at least two sources of projectiles (unless the plane was already spinning faster than the projectiles from an exploding missile could travel - in which case, what caused it to do that?).

-

- * 5) Finally, by deleting the Talk section "This Article seems to be one sided" since yesterday, the current editors have removed the last saving grace, just about the only merit in this article which showed that Misplaced Pages at least tries to be neutral and objective. What on earth possesed the editors to remove the very pertinent comments and criticism raised in that section? It is this which prompted me to register and publish these comments. By removing this perfectly valid Talk section, the editors made their intentions clear.

-

My recommendations would be as follows -

-

A. To the Administrators of Misplaced Pages: The Editors of this article appear to have highly suspect motivation which is not conducive to the good reputation of Misplaced Pages nor to it's stated objectives of neutrality and impartiality. It is time to get involved and appoint replacement editors who are able to exercise self-discipline in promoting Misplaced Pages and it's fundamental principles.

.

B. To the (hopefully competent future) editors of this article, I suggest that you start again, structuring the article appropriately. For example, as the cause is not known, create a section covering (1) the known information (e.g. from the Dutch Safety Board's Preliminary report and from all the other official sources, e.g. Malaysian Airlines, etc. Also create separate Sections on Analysis and Speculation, listing the different causes proposed by various parties (e.g. BUK missile hit, on board bomb, air to air missile, etc.) and different responsible parties (e.g. rebels, Ukraninan State, Ukraninan militias, Russians, etc), and in each section, list the organisations (governments and media) who subscribe, or predominantly publish statements which support that particular view. That should provide the Misplaced Pages reader with a neutral view of what the different entities are stating (e.g. US State Department, BBC, RT, whoever. By having such clear attribution of views and coverage, it will eventually become possible for the public to see how accurate or otherwise these sources have been, when eventually the full story comes to light. It may have the added benefit of encouraging these various sources to think twice before making hasty and rash statements.

.

C. To the current editor: I don't know whether your intentions are to skew this article in favour of a storyboard which you have come to believe in, or whether you are overworked, stubborn and therefore very reckless, but either way, consider that the neutrality of this article is abjectly compromised through your efforts so far and that you are not doing any favours to yourself, your cause or to Misplaced Pages. Either learn - and quickly - to do the job of editing with integrity and care, or give up the role to someone more skilled and self-disciplined.

.

- Good luck! Tennispompom (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re 1: Many editors want to present conclusions, that the official investigation has not yet yielded. That will indeed results in a storyline that may not be factual. This has indeed been a problem for long.

Re 2: There is indeed a group of editors who demand that the Russian media receives as much attention as that of "the western" countries, where the Western countries are the rest of the world . In fact Russia is only one of the about 200 countries in the world, and according to themselves Russia is in no way involved in this incident in any way so their media reporting should not count for more than that of any other uninvolved country. There are reasons to be wary of Russian media, as (like Ukranian media for that matter) the Freedom of the press in Russia is considered to be in a difficult position. The only way to keep control over Russian media to be everywhere was to create a special section for these media. Far from ideal indeed.

Re 3: BUK is still one of the theories, but as long as official investigation is not finished we should probably downscale that very much.

Re 4: I fully agree with you we should not over-interpret the preliminary report. Oddly, that is exactly what you yourself are doing in your post.

Re 5: It was not deleted, but moved to an archive as it is impossible to keep discussions on this page forever due to the sheer size of discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf, thanks for moving my comment to the end of the section, I'm not familiar with the conventions, so it's much appreciated. Let me respond to your replies in turn:

Re 1: You acknowledge it to be a problem, but that is no reason to stop trying to distinguish between fact and speculation/theory. So what are you going to do about it? This article is one of the worst examples I've seen.

.

Re 2: Three points here:

First, it is clear that Russia is very much involved by virtue of being one of the "accused", as numerous references point out. Had the article made no mention of Russia, one could argue that they are not involved, but that is not the case, the article is full of references to Russia's involvement.

Secondly, even though you say just now that Russia is not involved, you go on to say that "their media reporting should not count for more than that of any other uninvolved country", and yet the article clearly gives Russian media coverage undue prominence by giving them an entire Section. Therefore, please do as I recommend, either give a similar neutral prominence (their own section) to other countries media views, e.g. Ukraine media Coverage, Malaysian media Coverage, etc., etc. or restructure the Media coverage Section so as to avoid isolating any one country.

Thirdly, I really don't know which geographic part of the world you come from, but your assumption that Russia and possibly Ukraine, are the only unreliable press, is frankly naive, sorry to have to say so. I would guess that you're not from the UK, otherwise you would know about the recent scandals with the British press and media, journalists in cahoots with politicians, inventing stories, publishing lies, breaking the law, etc., and all these awful acts done by the highest echelons of the British establishment (just Google the Leveson Enquiry if you haven't heard of it). In fact I'm pretty sure that there is no country for whom one can give a blanket statement of reliability, or indeed unreliability. There are very few countries who don't have an axe to grind on this subject, most of them have an interest in a particular outcome, US, The Netherlands, Ukraine, Germany, all of Europe, I would guess. Perhaps China could be said to be truly neutral on the subject, but I haven't seen any references in the article to what the Chinese papers say on this topic.

-

The way to deal with these risks to reliability is simple - add a section on Interests per country. MH17 tragedy has been the trigger and/or pretext (whichever you prefer) for a new cold war, sanctions on Russia, Europe and US, and it shouldn't be too difficult to include the various States Interests in the "Aftermath" Section. While we are on this topic, it might not be a bad idea to include a new Section on reasons why MH17 was shot down - even though nothing is known about it at the moment, because we don't know who/how yet, a listing of who gains / loses from initiating such an action could shed light on the matter. Can you do that please?

.

Re 3: I am by no means advocating the removal or downscaling on the content on BUK, I find it very telling in fact, as it shows just how far the various States have gone in providing evidence of a Theory which increasingly looks to be incorrect. My recommendation would be that all the BUK comments should be collected together in a single section on the BUK Theory (which is what it currently is), as long as other Theories are also listed and backed up by citations.

-

Re 4: You've misunderstood my point completely, please read my comment again. My point was that the Article should copiously cite the Dutch Safety Board's Preliminary Report, which is one of the very few authoritative sources currently available to us, by including quotes directly from it. I also said that it is unnecessary to provide an interpretation of the findings, because Misplaced Pages readers will be able to come-up with their own conclusion. Therefore please beef up the section on the Preliminary report, include the extracts from the Report which I have provided, and - if copyright doesn't prevent it, inclusion of the accompanying pictures from the same report would be a nice touch, and would add credibility to the Article.

-

Re 5: Thank you - noted. How do I find it again? I'd love a re-read.

-

Also, as you have lots of experience on editing, please let me know how to insert a blank line for readability, this would be much appreciated.

Tennispompom (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Re point 1-4 - I to some extent agree with your suggestion; and I would like to see speculation from all sides to be largely removed. However, this article is a bit of a wasps nest as there are many editors who all want their own pet theory / idea / opinion in. I appear to be one of a small minority that wants to remove the contentious stuff. There is a lot of discussion about changes, but sadly little happens. That is also why we need to archive so much. The Misplaced Pages model is a bit of a consensus seeking thing that is difficult to keep on track in many cases.

PS note that I do not say UK (or any other press) is necessarily high quality press, I was referring to freedom of press (i.e. their freedom to report what they want without fear for legal, financial or physical attack).

Re 5 - In the yellowish top box you will see a line that sais: Archive 1......18. By clicking a number you can access the archives. But be warned they are almost endless.

No very easy to add lines for readability in talk, especially when indented. In articles space (non indented) you can use </br>. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of this is tl;dr, although I actually made an attempt. But this is mostly the same ol', same ol'. To repeat, for the thousandth time. We follow what reliable sources say. If you don't agree with the reliable sources, if you want to insert your own conclusions based on your own research and interpretation, if you think that "neutral" means "present all sides of the story" (including wacky conspiracy theory sides), then Misplaced Pages isn't a place for you. There are other outlets for these kinds of endeavors, but an encyclopedia ain't it. Volunteer Marek  18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that User talk:Tennispompom has never before contributed and then today out of the blue contributes about 16kB to this talk-page (including this tirade "To the current editor: I don't know whether your intentions are to skew this article in favour of a storyboard which you have come to believe in, or whether you are overworked, stubborn and therefore very reckless, but either way, consider that the neutrality of this article is abjectly compromised through your efforts so far and that you are not doing any favours to yourself, your cause or to Misplaced Pages. Either learn - and quickly - to do the job of editing with integrity and care, or give up the role to someone more skilled and self-disciplined"), it must confess I smell yet another propagandist sockpuppet. Lklundin (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This personal attack against a new user flies in the face of Wiki policy. Feel free to report a sock puppet investigation in an appropriate admin place. This is not the right place for it. Shame on you! USchick (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have welcomed user:Tennispompom and exchanged some talk on their talk page. At this stage I have seen nothing that would not be new editor behavior. So please assume good faith and don't bite the newcomer. Arnoutf (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Lklundin (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Volunteer Marek. Do I detect irritation in your tone? Being forced to repeat "same old stuff a thousand times", "Misplaced Pages isn't the place for me", "an encyclopedia ain't it"? Here's my first ever comment on Misplaced Pages, and already you are suggesting that I should leave and go elsewhere? Wow! I couldn't have got a worse reaction if I'd stuck a thorn in your side.

Please calm down and and address my comments in a calm and rational manner. Don't put words in my mouth, be civil and don't assume that you have any more rights to make comments than anyone else, including me. Then we will get along just fine and get on with the business of creating a neutral article.

Please read my comments again and address them, even if you think that similar comments have been raised before. This is an evolving story, information is becoming available all the time, and comments need to be reconsidered rationally and in light of new info / events. Remember that centuries ago, most people thought that the earth was flat, but as evidence came out supporting a different view, the story-line was reversed and a lot of very authoritative people ended up with egg on their face. The way to avoid the egg on face fate in the future is to be much more cautious in making summary assumptions about who is reliable and who is not, and present the information and the source based on the merits of the argument / quote, for example in the same way that Members of Parliament are required to declare their interests in a particular discussion topic.

If you don't counter my arguments with rational counter-arguments (i.e. don't attack me personally and stop telling me to go away), then you are not doing justice to your own point of view. Therefore please have another go, and respond to my comments / suggestions with rational arguments, I'll stand by and wait for you to reply.

Hi Lklundin. I don't know what a sockpuppet is - does it mean someone who has a different view? Please explain. In any case, your sense of smell has little relevance here, especially when you go on to suggest that I stink! LOL! But no harm done, I'm not offended. I've raised what I think are valid points, please do me the courtesy of replying in kind.

Hi Arnoutf and USchick, thanks for the defence. I am new, and may well inadvertently break a rule, if so, please tell me on my user page, I'm more than willing to learn.

Tennispompom (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Russian Media Coverage Section

I propose this section should be changed to "International Media Coverage" and include media coverage from many different countries, since their reporting covers a variety of possibilities being considered by the investigators and not just one theory as outlined in this article. Any editors interested in reading them can use Goole translate: Czech , Vietnamese , Spanish , Italian , German . The theories being considered are 1. MAS theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. USchick (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For this suggestion to give a balanced view, the Russia media coverage should be reduced considerably. To make it a truly international section we should weigh media coverage from each country more or less equally heavily and since Russia is only one country it should not dominate the section in any way. I do not see this happening in the foreseeable future. If you manage to get this agreed upon before changing the title I would support this though. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this article is already very heavy on what each country said, and that's why people are complaining about the article not being balanced, because maybe their country is not being represented. We should focus more on actual events and the investigation, and less on what "he said she said" in each country. Like the fact that one reporter resigned somewhere is completely irrelevant to this story in my opinion. USchick (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Coverage in Russian media has been itself covered as a topic in reliable sources, quite extensively. Czech coverage, or Vietnamese coverage etc. has NOT been covered in reliable sources extensively. That's the difference and that's why it makes sense to have a "Russian Media Coverage" section rather than "International Media Coverage". And. One. More. Time. "Balanced view" is NOT. It is NOT. NOT NOT NOT. "Equally heavy" or "equal weight". Neutrality and balanced is achieved by following sources in both subject and extent of coverage. So if Russian media is talked about a lot in reliable sources, while Nepalese media is not, then we also have a section on Russian media, but not on Nepalese media. It's not that hard. Volunteer Marek  18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, please be careful of knee-jerk reactions! I was not proposing the reduction of the Russian media Coverage, but elimination of undue highlight being given to any one country. Also, I was strongly recommending that no country's media coverage should be prefixed with up front negative warnings about impartiality, or conversely, that every country's potential lack of objectivity should be treated equally, by listing their interests in the matter. I counter-propose that the following countries media coverage should be given their own section, because they have an interest in the outcome:- Ukraine (it happened on their turf, and they've been accused), Ukranian Rebels (it also happened on their turf and they've been accused), Malaysia (their plane), The Netherlands (the plane set off from there), Russia (their satellites and radar next door and they've been accused and suffered punishment for it already - sanctions, exclusion from G8), US (their satellites directly overhead, and initiation of Sanctions on Russia), Germany (as the dominant EU state, initiating sanctions on Russia and suffering sanctions from Russia) and UK, Australia, and other countries whose people were the victims of the MH17 tragedy. There should also be an additional section of Media Coverage in countries which were not impacted, where China, japan, etc. could be included. Tennispompom (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

These are suggestions for WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. Where it happened, how it happened, whether it's a "stakeholder" or not, doesn't matter. The only question that matters is "is the media coverage of a particular country a subject of extensive coverage by reliable sources". Volunteer Marek  18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In my view the article, and especially the media speculation, is currently already very long. So I would suggest to reduce those sections relying heavily on media speculation (Reaction, Cause and Russian media) anyway (regardless of country of origin). For that reason alone I would not support adding even more. We could however split of "daughter articles" where the media attention is more completely listed. Arnoutf (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A section about "Stakeholders" would address the concerns outlined by Tennispompom, where each involved country's position can be explained calmly and rationally without any qualifying phrases that imply "this is what someone said happened, but that's not really what happened, because someone else said something different." USchick (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It would address their concerns, but it would also be original research. Volunteer Marek  18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm snot sure what you're saying. What if it's well written and supported by sources? You haven't seen it yet, how can you already be against it? USchick (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The OP's proposal clearly conveys the intent to insert original research and synthesis into the article. Feel free to propose text on talk, but what is being discussed above does not sound like it would be in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies. Volunteer Marek  20:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigation

What's missing in this section are the theories being considered by investigators: 1. MAS theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. This section could be developed more and then spin off into a separate article on the investigation itself. It sounds like it will take a year, and a lot can happen during that time. To have the entire investigation in this article is probably undue weight, but for people who want to examine things more closely, a separate article about the investigation may be useful. USchick (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To do something like that we would first need a reliable source that list which theories are indeed considered by the (official) investigators. I have not yet seen such a list. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Czeck article does a good job of explaining it all in one place . This Misplaced Pages article reads like there's only one version of the story, the Buk version, like that's already been determined, and it hasn't, that's why there's an investigation going on. USchick (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand the google translation, the article indeed summarises all theories. However, it also claims that spokesperson of the Dutch Safety Office did not tell what the official investigators were investigating (at least that is what I made up from the translation by Google). Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because all information related to the investigation is classified. This also needs to be explained in the article. USchick (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources. Reliable sources. Not original research and theories about theories that may or may not be "considered by investigators". Otherwise no go. Volunteer Marek  18:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources are reporting about three possibilities. 1. MAS theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. This article only addressed one of those. USchick (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources. Reliable sources. Where?  Volunteer Marek  20:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You are obviously not listening. Lklundin (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean they're not listening. You seem to ignore every objection on this talk page from anyone with an opinion different from yours. You may want to consider toning it down a bit. USchick (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to prove that I am listening: 'MAS' is the ICAO designator for 'Malaysia Airlines'. So what do you mean by investigators having a 'MAS theory'? (and it appears that I must remind you to provide reliable sources). Lklundin (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, thank you for listening. I may be dyslexic, because I meant SAMs theory. USchick (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Social media from Igor Girkin

VKontakte social media attributed to Igor Girkin, is highly speculative and is refuted by other sources. Another person also claimed responsibility, also VKontakte. This is undue weight and certainly does not belong in the lede. USchick (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe this has already been discussed. Please see archives. It received wide spread coverage in multiple reliable sources. Please do not remove well sourced info. Volunteer Marek  20:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It has also been reported in reliable sources that he is not the one managing his VKontakte profile. "Some of these pages are maintained by Strelkov’s sincere fans. Others are run by Ukrainian activists, still others just by pranksters. As a result, it can sometimes be difficult to divine authentic quotes from fabrications." So again, this is speculation that doesn't belong in the lede. If it's not appropriate to talk about international media coverage, why is this bit of trivia relevant and in the lede? USchick (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the archives first. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class aviation articles
• B-Class Aviation accident articles
• Aviation accident task force articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• Mid-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class Malaysia articles
• Mid-importance Malaysia articles
• WikiProject Malaysia articles
• B-Class Netherlands articles
• All WikiProject Netherlands pages
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles