Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:09, 21 April 2020

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: 2 months

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 High‑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 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. 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 Mid‑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 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. 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.

A news item involving Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates: 17 July 2014 30 May 2018

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.

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

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: 2 months

Consensus

It looks like there is a consensus on this page to remove anything that would suggest that Ukraine could be responsible for this disaster. For the sake of the record, I'd like to state that this recent addition by Arturolorioli should remain in the article, despite the objections and reverts by Ahunt and MilborneOne. Heptor (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OR and WP:TE. Geogene (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

My concern wasn't that it shouldn't be in the article, just that it should be further down, which Arturolorioli agreed with. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ahunt:. In this case I agree as well. Heptor (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Heptor, thanks for the post. The edit does *not* suggest in any way that Ukraine could be responsible for the disaster. It is a fully not-POV, neutral statement about the availability of the weapon in the area. That's all. The section about the international investigations provides more than ample factual items to address the responsibility issue. Kindest regards --Arturolorioli (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This makes no difference. But good luck. Heptor (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does it matter that both countries have Buks? Geogene (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe it is true that the Ukr Buks are different. The info is only neutral/non-OR if other sources make the argument that both countries possess Buks in this context - and what the relevance of that info is. Otherwise, it looks an awful lot like an attempt to give credibility to the possibility that Ukr could have been the guilty party - without actually exploring whether that is actually credible/possible. It is WP:OR imo as it is currently used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs)

In the news nomination

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 9 March 2020. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

--MrClog (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Radar integration

I want to get straight the technical details about Buk's ability to differentiate between aircraft. There seems some level of disagreement in the sources. Buk can be integrated with other air defence systems, which increases its detection capabilities, including the capability to distinguish between civilian and military aircraft. Technology review says that "The system has to be tied into the national air traffic control system to use that information effectively". They do not seem to say that Buk ha no ability to identify civilian planes without it, only that it becomes very difficult. Business Insider says something similar, "unless linked to other weapons or an air traffic control system, are almost incapable of telling the difference between military and civilian aircraft". This article in Washington Post seem to suggest that a highly trained operator would be able to distinguish between civilian and military most of the times (which they did for a while, until they didn't).. So it seems a bit too assertive to suggest, as is presently stated in the article, that "such systems have no capacity to distinguish between military and civilian airplanes" when operated outside national networks, or, on the opposite end, that they can safely ignore civilian traffic when connected to such systems. I would suggest that the sentence in question should be phrased more defensively. Heptor (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is an article in The Aviationist, which states that "provided the operators are trained enough, they’ll be able to distinguish between a Ukrainian transport plane and a large airliner. If not, they will simply shoot". See also this quora discussion, although not a reliable source. The statement that "Buk has no ability to identify civilian aircraft" is untrue, and should be fixed. Heptor (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I made the change and didn't get reverted, so these posts now appear almost gratuitous. Anyway, if the edit was somehow incorrect, then I hope to hear about it on the talk page. Thanks. Heptor (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: about this. I couldn't find a definite answer to the question that you asked. The rebels had claimed to have captured a BUK sam from the Ukrainian army. If true, it would apparently mean more than one BUK involved in the conflict. There were shootdowns of Ukrainian military aircraft that were consistent with a BUK system: An-26 on July 14th, Su-25 on July 16th, Su-25 on August 29. The Ukr govt say that Russians did it, the rebels say they did it themselves. For now I'm pretty much giving up finding out what actually happened. Heptor (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Majumdar, Dave. "Design of Surface-to-Air Missile Systems Makes Accidents Far from Improbable". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2020-03-12.
2. Rosen, Armin. "This Flaw In The Buk Missile System Makes It Really Easy To Accidentally Shoot Down A Passenger Jet". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-03-12.
3. Fung, Brian. "Did the Ukrainian rebels even know they were shooting at a civilian aircraft?". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-03-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
4. Cenciotti, David (19 July 2014). "What it's like to be sitting behind a radar screen of an SA-11 Buk SAM system". Retrieved 2020-03-13.
5. Lister, Tim (2014-07-20). "How rebels in Ukraine built up their arsenal". CNN. Retrieved 2020-04-12.

Denies involvement .... responsibility ..... being responsible for....?

I am posting here because I'm unsure as to how best to express what Russia denies/has previously denied - all of the ways of phrasing have a degree of subtext, and I'm not sure which way of expresssion most accurately expresses the totality of Russia's past/present position. The phrasing has been amended slightly lately.

Some of the sources actively say Russia "denied involvement", which as far as I know was certainly their initial position … ie total denial, not us nor those acting with us, nor even our missile.

Some sources speak of "denied responsibility". This is often a standard form of phrasing for certain kinds of violent act - the "IRA claimed/denied responsibility" = "we, or those acting for us, did/did not do this".

The present text says "The Russian government does not consider itself responsible for shooting down the plane, and holds the Ukrainian government at fault for allowing civilian flights in a war zone". I'm not sure whether Russia has changed its position, I think not (officially at least) - but present text, especially linking to the notion of "Ukrainian airspace" - could easily be construed as meaning that Russia is saying that "whether we did it or not is academic, since Ukr should not have been allowing overflight in a war zone".

Reactions? What should the text say about what exactly Russia was or is now denying? Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for a well-stated interpretation of this phrasing. My understanding of the official position of Russia is that they say both that they were not involved and that the moral responsibility lies with Ukraine for allowing overflights.

• A comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press says that "Russia declassified for the first time ever documents on the Buk surface-to-air missile complex, proved that the missile that downed the aircraft, according to the JIT, belonged to Ukraine", and many other things.
• Answering a question about Russia's responsibility for the disaster, Putin first says that there is no evidence supporting the conclusion of the JIT, and then says "we need to return to the question we talked about earlier, about who allowed flights over a war zone? Not Russia". Another comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department says "It is outrageous that the Netherlands essentially absolved Kiev of blame for failing to close the airspace over the area of hostilities in the eastern part of the country".

Also, Igor Girkin, one of the four persons who are accused by the JIT, said that "whoever brought down MH17, the Ukrainian side is to blame because only a moron or a criminal would send an airliner into a zone of active hostilities". This is interestingly similar to how Pincrete interpreted the phrasing currently used to present Russia's position in the article, although with a less academic angle. I hope that these references will be helpful in finding a good summary for the Russian position. Heptor (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "Comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry's Information and Press Department on five years since MH17 crash". 2019-07-17.
2. "Revisiting Flight MH17: Will West Ever Apologize For Bogus Accusations!?".
3. "Comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department on the fourth anniversary of the of MH17 plane crash in eastern Ukraine". 2018-07-17.
4. "MH17: Igor Girkin / Strelkov Response to MH17 Accusations".

Update: for the benefit of others, and having thought about it, I've phrased as "denied involvement in the shooting down" (past tense intentional, but explicit, unequivocal denial of involvement) … "and holds the Ukrainian government at fault for allowing civilian flights in a war zone" (present tense intentional, since this remains their position). I hope this summarises matters to everyone's satisfaction. Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Dont think we should be mixing the two together, clearly the deny involvement is OK but I dont think we should then add but we are not the bad guys in the same sentence which is clearly designed to move focus on the non-relevance of the airspace being open. They dont seem to note that Aeroflot aircraft thought it was safe to use the airspace 86 time that week including a flight on the same day. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You saying that airspace remaining open is irrelevant? Heptor (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly has nothing to do with the fact Russia is denying involvement, its just smoke and mirrors. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

They are denying involvement, and they say that the airpaace should have been closed. I don't see the mirrors. Heptor (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The airspace being open and russian involvement have nothing to do with each other. Although it is a change of tact as they are now not blaming the Ukrainians for firing or even owning the missile (and we need to remember the original and absurd Su-25 story), that might be worth exploring with reliable sources on how the Russian blame game seems to evolve as the facts are discovered. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Quote mining and possible lying by omission

• MH17#Background: <...> On 14 July 2014, a Ukrainian Air Force An-26 transport airplane flying at 6,500 m (21,300 ft) was shot down. The militia reportedly claimed via social media that a Buk missile launcher had been used to bring down the aircraft.
  • Without quote mining: The militia reportedly claimed via social media that one of the captured and repaired a few weeks earlier Buk missile launchers had been used to bring down the aircraft. The seizure by militia of the Buk missile launchers from the military unit A-1402 of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was also reported by the media on June 29.
  • Commentary: I believe that it is very important to clarify whose Buk missile launchers were mentioned in the alleged reports of the militia since this source is used in the article.
• MH17#Cause of the crash: <...> On 19 July 2014, Vitaly Nayda, the chief of the Counter Intelligence Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told a news conference... According to Nayda, a Buk launcher used in the shootdown was moved back into Russia the night after the attack.
  • Without quote mining: According to Nayda, three Buk missile launchers were moved back into Russia the night after the attack, including one which was used in the shootdown.
  • Commentary: Attached official video has the time stamp when Nayda was speaking about three missile launchers moved back to Russia the night after the attack.
• MH17#Background: <...> On 16 July, a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircraft was also shot down.
  • Without quote mining: On 16 July, two Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircrafts were shot at. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• To be continued.

References

1. "Ополченцы сообщили, из чего сбили украинский Ан-26". Vzglyad. 14 July 2014. Retrieved 18 July 2014. Today the self-defence destroyed An-26 airplane using SAM "9К37М1" (better known as 'Buk') ... said the militia, distributed in social networks
2. "Ополченцы сообщили, из чего сбили украинский Ан-26". Vzglyad. 14 July 2014. Retrieved 18 July 2014. Today the self-defence destroyed An-26 airplane using SAM "9К37М1" (better known as 'Buk') ... said the militia, distributed in social networks
3. "Ополченцы ДНР взяли под контроль воинскую часть ПВО с зенитно-ракетными комплексами "Бук"". TASS. 29 June 2014.
4. Vitaly Nayda. UCMC, 19th of July 2014
5. DSB report, p. 184-185

This makes sense to me, if the sources say what you say they say. Heptor (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

They do.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"Background" section

@Heptor: then there should be relevant subsections because the content of "Background" section is narrated in chronological order, isn't it? BTW there are not only aviation incidents in that section and Russian/Ukrainian response as you said. For example, the article Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation has the same "Background" section and the content of that section is narrated in chronological order. Please provide an example where the content of "Background" section isn't narrated in chronological order. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? There isn't any content policy for the background section to be in the order you suggested. Just to pick an article at random, the background section of RMS_Titanic isn't written in a chronological order. In case of this article, it is more natural to group it by the type of events. Heptor (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Why then the seizure of a Buk missile launcher grouped with aviation incidents in a chronological order? --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Military action first, then civilian measures, and then the An-26 overflight..? I don't think it's a bad organization for this section. Chronological organization seems rather generic in comparison... Heptor (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, let's try to group aviation incidents per your conclusion and then the rest.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, now it states that Ukraine should have closed the airspace upon learning that BUK SAMs were deployed. Personally I don't disagree, but I don't think you should state that in Misplaced Pages's voice without providing sources. If there are notable organizations who criticized Ukraine for that, then it should be mentioned. Otherwise, this is original research and should be published elsewhere. The passage in question: Ukraine imposed restrictions in the airspace of Donetsk Oblast, but did not close it for overflights even though the Russian news agencies reported that insurgents had obtained a Buk missile system after having taken control of a Ukrainian military unit A-1402. Heptor (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

'Even though' is original research? It does't say that Ukraine should have closed their airspace. But DSB does say that Ukraine 'didn't consider closing the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine to civil aviation completely' --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

even though sortof implies that they should have. Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong and I appreciate your other contributions, but I don't think you have support from reliable sources for stating what you did. 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. Let's divide it into two separate sentences to show you my good faith.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Heptor: I think your idea not to follow a chronological order and group events by its type isn't too good... June, July, April, June, July... --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can add subheaders? Heptor (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I changed wording to "Back in April" and now it looks good.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is an improvement. Heptor (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, thank you for cooperation. I saw on your personal page that you speaks Russian very well. So it will be easy for you as well to check the provided sources in Russian and Ukrainian in order to achieve the most accurate and neutral wording.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Nicholas Velasquez: Well, who exactly did state that, what is his source and what position does he have? It is said "according to Novaya Gazeta" but this citation belongs to an interviewed person. — "According to Novaya Gazeta, on the day of MH17 incident, a Ukrainian An-26 was scheduled to deliver paratroopers to the battle arena." Just CTRL+F this citation: «17 июля в зону АТО должен был вылететь транспортный Ан-26 с украинскими десантниками» and you will see.
• @Nicholas Velasquez: "...while the Donetsk People's Republic claimed possession of such a system in a since-deleted tweet." Why this tweet is so important for you even though it is clearly said in the text and much better sourced that the militia seized that Buk launcher that day? → "In late June armed groups seized the Ukrainian military base A-1402 according to reports in the media. As a result, the armed groups had also been able to acquire a Buk system. The Ukrainian authorities declared in the media that this system was not operational." --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

1. "17 июля в зону АТО должен был вылететь транспортный Ан-26 с украинскими десантниками" (in Russian). 10 June 2015. Retrieved 10 June 2015.

I just want to clarify that the reversion of your edits in the "Background" section is due to severe over-trimming of properly sourced and actually important content, like the mentioning of the Russian media reports on capture of the BUK systems by the separatists and the "Novaya Gazeta" analytical piece, as well as the citation from it. However, some of the changes in the structure of the narrative you had made were nice, in my opinion, so if you want to restructure the section without actually removing the content, feel free to do it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it looks pretty logical that anything written within a "Novaya Gazeta" article is "according to Novaya Gazeta". If you so desire, you may change it to "according to 'Novaya Gazeta', citing ", however, removing the whole passage does not seem like a good idea in this case. As to the "tweet" part, there's just no reason to remove it, since it is an important addition and is properly sourced. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: Well here, I don't think you use right citation. The right citation is: "Я не могу раскрыть свой источник и доказать эту версию, поэтому говорю о ней как о гипотезе / I can't reveal my source and prove this version, so I speak of it as a hypothesis" and "У меня есть информация, которую я не могу подтвердить документально и источник которой я пока не могу назвать. / I have information that I can't confirm with a document and the source of which I can't name yet.". This version can be moved to "Conspiracy theories" I believe. What u think? And could you provide additional source to that person's statement please. --Александр Мотин (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem there was the phrasing: it was implied by your edits that the absence of the "documentary proof" is attributed to the paratroopers delivery, while in the article it is attributed to the alleged presence of spies on the Ukrainian air bases. Needless to say, there's a big difference. This is how it goes in the article: "У меня есть информация, которую я не могу подтвердить документально и источник которой я пока не могу назвать. Он утверждает, что в мае прошлого года СБУ пришла к выводу, что на украинских аэродромах действуют шпионы. // I have information, which I can not prove with documents, and a source, which I can not name. It says that last year, in May, SBU came to the conclusion that there were active spies on the Ukrainian airfields". What additional source you're requesting, exactly? -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 0:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As to the moving it to the "Conspiracy theories" section, I don't think it belongs there, since it lacks the spirit of absurdity. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 0:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: Do you agree that according to WP:REDFLAGS "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"? --Александр Мотин (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I do, but I do not think we're dealing with an "exceptional claim" of any sort. I'd say it would fall under this definition, if the source was stating something like "the spies were there, just believe me"; however, the language of the article is not that strict. On the contrary, it is emphasized multiple times that the information is unofficial and lacks documentary proof, which is a regular situation by the media standards. For example, every other TASS article on latest Russian weaponry cites some "unnamed sources within the industry" or "within the military", but they are widely used as references on Misplaced Pages. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: "every other TASS article on latest Russian weaponry cites some "unnamed sources within the industry" or "within the military", but they are widely used as references on Misplaced Pages" But in this case this unnamed source is not cited by Novaya Gazeta but cited by some private person, ain't it? So my next question is: are u able to provide any journalist's statement (but not by an interviewed person) which cites that fact? --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So did a Buk launcher cross the border at 2 a.m. at night on 18 July (Ukraine said)? Or "early in the morning" it only passed Luhansk in Ukraine (JIT)?

To avoid inaccurate wording please help me understand the following point.

• Vitaly Nayda, the head of counterintelligence for the Ukrainian Security Service: Buk missile launcher with three missiles on it crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border at 2 a.m. local time (deep night) on 18 July. (Video of press conference: video in Ukrainian and English ; report in English: )
• JIT: in Luhansk (Ukraine) in early morning (bright morning in the video) a video was made of the Volvo truck carrying Buk Telar... "with three missiles on the installation"... From there the transport moved to the Russian border (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtBEV_rAd0&t=2529)

What did I miss? --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the "2 a.m." part is mentioned by Nayda when talking about the other BUKs ordered to be withdrawn from the Ukrainian territory in the aftermath of the event, and the part of the JIT report you've selected is about the system directly involved in the shoot-down. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: No, Nayda clearly said that two Buk missile launchers (one of them had 4 missiles while another had 3 missiles on the installation) crossed Ukrainian-Russian border at 2 a.m. on 18 July and moved back into Russia. Another Buk launcher according to Nayda crossed the border at 4 a.m. on 18 July (and had 4 missiles on the installation). Moreover Nayda and JIT demonstrates identical imagery of the Buk launcher in Luhansk with 3 missiles on the installation as you can see in those videos with time stamps.

Official report in English:

According to Mr. Nayda, Ukraine’s Security Service has photo materials proving that two “BUK-M1” missile systems crossed the border from Ukraine into Russia at 2:00 AM on 18 July 2014, the day after the act of terrorism took place. One of them had a full set of 4 missiles, the other – 3 missiles.

--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heavily dug into this story, but I'd say the most likely scenario is that it is just a mistake on the Ukrainian intelligence side - after all, there's a two-year gap between the Nayda's speech and the JIT report. Or, alternatively, there were two BUKs with the load of three missiles: one directly involved in the shot-down and the other with one missile offloaded for some reason (could have been stolen, for example), which crossed the border at different times. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I think the editors of this article should dig a bit into this story in order, as I said, to avoid inaccurate wording 'cause Vitaly Nayda, the chief of counterintelligence for the Ukrainian Security Service, clearly said at a news conference that photo of a Buk launcher with three missiles which JIT used in their report is the "indisputable evidence". Does that mean that JIT was wrong? Where can we find any explanation for this fact? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not actively editing this article, I am just suggesting a reason for the inconsistency. I think it is very unlikely that the JIT report, which came out two years after the incident, is wrong and the 2014 Ukrainian intelligence briefing is not, since the amounts of work and fact-checking procedures put in these are incomparable. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So what about the other two Buk launchers moved back to Russia? Is it again a "mistake" of the Ukrainian Security Service? What did JIT or maybe Bellingcat say about those two Buk launchers with a full set of 4 missiles moved back into Russia on 18 July? We should find appropriate sources I believe but unfortunately after hours of searching I failed to find one. Maybe you can help.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be straying into original research. It isn't our job as Misplaced Pages editors to investigate what happened to MH17 or track movements of equipment. We're a tertiary source that summaries secondary sources. Stickee (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: It doesn't. Well, tell me then what to do with two different timings and different quantity of the moved Buk launchers and why Ukrainian timings are not mentioned in the article to comply NPOV? --Александр Мотин (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

For all we know, there might actually have been 2 Buks moved that night — the JIT is only concerned with the one used to shoot down the plane. But that's irrelevant - it's all OR anyway. Stickee (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No it is not WP:OR because it is an official statement made at a news conference by Security Service official.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism of a Dutch-led investigation by Malaysian, Dutch etc. authorities and officials?

It seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV at least. What do you think? --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not obligated to give credence to the Russian propaganda.--Aristophile (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This lies in the domain of criminology, not politics, therefore the report's conclusions are not a matter of opinion, but rather a scientific fact. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Which, needless to say, is fruitless. However, if you find some reliable sources criticizing the official MH17 investigation, I wouldn't object mentioning them in the article. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If this criticism is even worth mentioning, the proper context for it should be given. Mahathir Mohamad's worldview is a strange one, and seems to be based on his hatred of Europeans and the United States , . Geogene (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, it doesn't matter what just some people think of him. --Александр Мотин (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously it does matter, because secondary sources pointed that out. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe any WP rule can settle this?--Александр Мотин (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE Geogene (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship" So what of this exactly?--Александр Мотин (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, @Александр Мотин: this is now looking like a POV-push. Malaysia was involved in the JIT and this sentiment is not shared by their own prosecutor . Geogene (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Geogene. It is not. It is just WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT requirement.--Александр Мотин (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. You didn't even attempt to address the point. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And there's also this, about the families of MH17 victims asking the Prime Minister to please stop doubt-mongering and making statements that are "contrary to the truth" . Geogene (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And here's a victim's relative calling Mahathir’s remarks "bizarre and too crazy for words" . And meanwhile, Mahathir is no longer the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and there's speculation that the new government has a more mainstream perspective . Geogene (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So what? If someone does not like him, what does this have to do with his position and his opinion? --Александр Мотин (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is whether his opinion should be included at all, because it's so strange compared to the mainstream viewpoint. The second issue is that if it is included, the reliably sourced criticism of his views should be included as well. Geogene (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: 1. Does this publication ("Asia Times examines in two parts why Malaysia’s premier and others doubt a Dutch-led probe’s finding that Russia shot down flight MH17") in two parts by Asia Times look good for you? If not, why not? 2. What WP rule proves your statement about "reliably sourced criticism of his views" while he is just cited in an appropriate section of non WP:BIO article?--Александр Мотин (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

1. No, because part of it is pro-fringe. There's nothing mysterious about what happened to MH17, and pretending otherwise is WP:FALSEBALANCE. 2. WP:NPOV. Geogene (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: 1. First, where was it stated that Mahathir said "it is mysterous", whatever you mean by that? 2. Why are there sections like "British ISC report", "Civil cases" or "Russian media coverage" but you tell me that "Criticism" subsection violates NPOV despite the availability of RS? --Александр Мотин (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Because NPOV is about balancing views in accordance with their weight. This is a fringe viewpoint. Stickee (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A brief mention (sentence or two) about the Malaysian critics is all that is justified by the level of coverage. Demanding a whole section makes no more sense that demanding an "allegation of sexual misbehaviour" section on the Putin article - simply because Clinton and Trump both have one. Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I cannot agree because it's not clear what rule authorized you to determine editing policy in this way although I have already provided all the necessary links to the WP rules and recommendations (WP:NPOV, WP:CRIT). --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to include the official Malaysian reaction on the investigation in the article. However, such phrases as "was outraged" should be avoided, in my opinion. It should be worded much more semantically neutral, e.g. "expressed dissatisfaction" or "According to the prime minister of Malaysia, ". -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: I agree to rephrase it in more consensual terms since you have expressed such concerns.--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Please explain why reactions of the head of Malaysia cannot be posted in the relevant section "Reactions"? Why you keep deleting this reaction of the Malaysian Prime Minister? Why are you reacting so strongly to the Malaysian reactions while other reactions are OK for you? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Two editors have removed that text (inc me once), other editors have expressed the view that the text is disproportionate - this is one individual who has taken a somewhat maverick position - and a fairly bizarre one since few incidents can have had more 'proofs' in the public domain. Certainly proofs against Russia, if not against the named individuals. It is up to you establish agreement as to what text should be inserted. I would personally support a neutrally phrased sentence or two recording his views. Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources

Александр Мотин, you are using primary sources (mainly DSB report), to write your own opinion piece, eg "Subsequently, it became known about the possible fabrication of the circumstances of this aviation incident. So the report of the Dutch Safety Board concluded that in response to its additional questions the Ukrainian authorities refuted some of their own initial statements". The relevant page of the DSB report says NONE of this, it's pure WP:OR, no mention of fabrication or of refutation. Also, it is screamingly obvious that English is not your first language. I am barely able to work out what the intended meaning of much of this except is it's obviously accusing someone of fabrication, which DSB does not do on that page. Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think your accusations are true. Obviuosly it is written "possible fabrication". Well, a term "fabrication" is used when you speak about "evidence" and when it subsequently revealed as false evidence. That is why it is called as "possible fabricated" according to WP:NPOV. Next, DSB said that when Ukrainian authorities were questioned about that incident they actually "refuted" their initial statements arising from the disclosed evidence. Maybe Nicholas Velasquez would like to contribute to this discussion as I still don't agree with your accusations. --Александр Мотин (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's apparent there is a lack of consensus for the insertion of this section, especially in regardings to POV and WP:BALASP. There is already comment in the article for this, at the end of the section "Findings of the joint investigation team (JIT)". Stickee (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Stickee: ...But u didn't say why there should be no criticism in the article. Please explain your position. --Александр Мотин (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Replied above. Stickee (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, 'fabrication' means 'making'. In the context of evidence, it means 'faking', ie deliberate construction of a false narrative - deliberate lying. The DSB says that Ukr may have been wrong, or initially wrong in some of its assessments, and does not understand the full picture on other Ukr assessments - it does not come within 1000 miles of claiming 'faking' or even possible 'faking'. That is your belief only and is pure WP:SYNTH.

The word 'refute' is not used anywhere in the DSB report, nor does it make much sense, it suggests they proved themselves wrong. Again the DSB does not even imply this. Being wrong or unclear or incomplete in an assessment, does not mean one has 'refuted' anything and - more importantly - you, not DSB are claiming this. I'm sorry to say this, but nothing about your text or answer suggests that your standard of English is good enough to be interpeting the English sources here, nor that you understand the difference between arguing your own beliefs and faithfully summarising sources. I intend to remove the offending text and look at how the DSB rteport is used elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I can't agree with you because if we are talking about false evidence as it was, the verb for this is "to falsify" And words "falsification" and "fabrication" have similar meaning being synonymous. I would like to emphasize that in order to comply NPOV, I used a term "possible fabrication" but not just "fabrication" as you said accusing me. And according to MOS:QUOTE "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Misplaced Pages editors' own words." If you want we can use a "possible falsification" term instead. Deal? --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Initially wrong, inadvertently incorrect, incomplete - or numerous other possible reasons for the gaps/discrepancies which DSB notes (it concludes nothing about them) are simply not 'fabrications'. You are trying to say or imply that DSB says something which it clearly does not say. Pincrete (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Please provide your wording then because you keep deleting the whole text fragment and preventing me to add at least relevant and reliable information under an obscure pretext (like here ).--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think THIS page of the DSB is important - nor whether this is an apt use of a primary source. I am clear that it doesn't say what you seem to want it to say. Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Using primary sources

OK, the next use I found of recently added DSB report material was:

"In the months prior to 17 July, reports also circulated in the media on the presence of weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, in the hands of the armed groups that were fighting the Ukrainian government in the eastern part of Ukraine. On 26 May a spokesperson of the Ukrainian Armed Forces revealed in the media that a surface-to-air missile systems that was being used by armed groups near Donetsk airport had been destroyed from a helicopter by the Ukrainian army. On 6 June 2014 The International New York Times reported that surface-to-air missiles had been seized from military bases. On 11 June the newspaper Argumenty nedeli reported that a Buk-M1 missile launcher had been present in an area under the armed groups' control. In late June armed groups seized the Ukrainian military base A-1402 according to reports in the media. As a result, the armed groups had also been able to acquire a Buk system. The Ukrainian authorities declared in the media that this system was not operational." from "DSB Final Report" pp 187–188

Every word of this (with minor re-ordering and 'pruning'), turns out to be copy-paste, and therefore probable COPYVIO. Re-phrasing would not be especially difficult, but before doing so, it seems apt to ask what the proper limits of use of this primary source are. The immediate reason for asking is that this is a nearly 300 page, very balanced document and it isn't difficult to find text within it that states/suggests that Ukr did/could/should have known what weaponry was/could have been in the hands of rebels (and thus implicitly should have closed its airspace). Close by, one finds text that says that it wasn't possible for anyone to know with any certainty what weapons rebels possessed or were operational. The mere act of selecting which of these aspects to quote and/or highlight is probably WP:OR.

So, what are the limits of the use of the DSB report. I'm disinclined to look at every recent addition for accuracy and COPYVIO if we shouldn't be using the source in this manner at all.Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Recently you said that no one can use his own words because DSB report doesn't have them. Please, make up your mind, Pincrete! --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The requirement to paraphrase - use one's own words - (except for brief quotes), does not mean one can write anything one wants, even if it doesn't accurately reflect sources or makes little sense in English. Pincrete (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: So why you delete the whole text fragment with DSB findings instead of telling me what exact word you want to be paraphrased? An example here --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think THIS page of the DSB is important - nor whether this is an apt use of a primary source. I am clear that the text in the PREVIOUS section does not say what you seem to think it says, which is why I removed THAT text. Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Because that page of DSB report gives summarized information about aviation incidents which are described in that text section. And I am perplexed that you seem to be trying to censor information about aviation incidents from DSB report. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't removed THIS text, nor any part of it, so can hardly be said to have censored anything. I question whether the primary source is the most apt and whether the previous text wasn't better phrased and ordered, but will 'go with the flow' on those.Pincrete (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unnamed sources

@Александр Мотин: regarding this edit , there's no reason an RS can't cite unnamed sources. It's a common practice in journalism. Geogene (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems that WP:REDFLAG can settle this case: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources".--Александр Мотин (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no support?

An editor recently removed a section which provided some responses from the Malaysian PM to the investigation. The reason given for removal was that it had no support. What is this referring to? The article currently contains little information about the Malaysian government's views on the investigation. The section seemed fine to me and I would not support removal. Burrobert (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is over 11,000 words, so there is space for it. His is a minority opinion and it shouldn't be given excessive prominence, but not mentioning it at all seems tendentious. Heptor (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait, he is mentioned, in the section Findings of the joint investigation team (JIT) (I searched for Mohamad earlier). It is not very well structured though. Perhaps this article could be organized better by having a section titled "Official Russian position", "Response by persons accused by the JIT". Right now, the Russian response is hidden in Counties. It should be given more prominence. Heptor (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Breaking up article POVs, such as by creating Criticism sections, is discouraged. Geogene (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's sometimes permissible, especially in political articles. Articles covering trials often have it in practice, because the subject matter is intrinsically adversarial. For example O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Defense_case, Trial_of_George_Zimmerman#Defense's_case, Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik#Defendant's_testimony. IMHO, in this case the accounts of the accused parties are so different from that of the prosecution that it's more straightforward to organize them in a separate section. Heptor (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Me and Nicholas Velasquez above also supported Malaysian reactions to be added. As it was said it complies with WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT rules and recommendations. While POV-pushing not to mention this seems to be possible bias. --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be biased against weird minority viewpoints. That's what WP:NPOV actually means. Including a huge block of text with the former prime ministers' unchallenged and controversial remarks was a POV push. And, let's be clear on this: not only did you want to include them, you wanted to give those views prominence in their own dedicated section, and you also denied that any of criticism of his remarks should be mentioned at all. Geogene (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: Just take a look at the publications you provided above : It means that Malaysian PM position is very widely discussed all over the world. That is why that PM's position is no less important than the other reactions of other world leaders. This also means that Malaysian reactions have sufficient encyclopedic value.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You opposed all of these sources, until it became clear that consensus was against inclusion. Now you've changed your mind? Geogene (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Opposed? I said "so what?" --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No one AFAIK - or very few people here - support Александр Мотин's proposed text and BTW he's former PM now. I believe it justifies a sentence or two neutrally phrased, though I'm not sure where. Also BTW, the country is called the Netherlands - calling it Holland is a bit like calling the UK, 'England'. Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please just don't try to give the impression that you represent a clear majority here. You don't even have a majority at all.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not supporting the previously proposed version due to the phraseology problems mentioned above. However, I see no reason to oppose the addition of that passage in the rephrased form to the article, since throwing out neutrally phrased and properly sourced official statements would go against the fundamentals of Misplaced Pages. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above I share your concerns about the most neutral wordings and I agree to rephrase them.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The 'reactions' section is largely reactions to the shootdown, and subsequent memorials. The proposed Malaysian ex-PM text is largely a response to enquiries. The two would not sit very comfortably together and the inclusion of this guy's negative reaction to the enquiries, opens up the prospect of hugely more numerous positive reactions. I'm not opposed to a sentence or two from Mohama, but more than that would inevitably invite 'balancing' endorsements of the enquiries or criticism of Mohama's position. Pincrete (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware there already is such a statement from him, at the end of the finding of the JIT section? Stickee (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Stickee, if the question was addressed to me, I was aware that it was mentioned but hadn't looked at it today. Having done so, I don't see any need to add to that text and it is probably in the best place, No content, as opposed to rhetoric is missing IMO. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Baudet

Is this DUE? . Note also that there's now an open AN/I thread relevant to this page. Geogene (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No. It looks like a comment by a non-expert only indirectly related to the actual event. It stirred up enough minor controversy at the time to be reported in the news, but it certainly has had no lasting significance and doesn't belong in this article. I will remove it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene:@Red Rock Canyon: Then why, for instance, this below-mentioned private person's statement with a reference to an unnamed source is DUE? Why is it so significant to you? --Александр Мотин (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

According to Vadim Lukashevich in an interview to Novaya Gazeta with reference to an unnamed source, on the day of MH17 incident, a Ukrainian An-26 was scheduled to deliver paratroopers to the battle arena.

References

1. "17 июля в зону АТО должен был вылететь транспортный Ан-26 с украинскими десантниками" (in Russian). 10 June 2015. Retrieved 10 June 2015.

That has nothing to do with Thierry Baudet or whether he should be mentioned in this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: Is above-mentioned private person's statement DUE? So if a statement of a member of the Dutch Parliament regarding JIT's probe isn't DUE that means that private person's statement isn't DUE even more so, ain't it? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely undue IMO. We don't mention the relatives' reactions, we don't mention that almost the entire Dutch parliament had sought clarification from Russia, which Baudet opposed (Baudet "refused to support a request for clarification from the Russians about the disaster, something supported by almost the entire parliament." - from the same source}. We don't mention practically any individual politicians, except leaders and Foreign Ministers of involved countries. Why should Baudet be included, does he have some role in this, either as accused or accuser or as representative of one of the affected countries? Is he privy to info that others are not? Have his remarks even attracted significant coverage?

What Baudet says is also fairly valueless. Russia might not be to blame - well of course it might not, that's why the Netherlands has sought some sort of open judicial investigation where all the evidence can be weighed. Remind me, who is it that has opposed that? … … … ps ANI was closed without actionPincrete (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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
• High-importance Malaysia articles
• WikiProject Malaysia articles
• B-Class Netherlands articles
• All WikiProject Netherlands pages
• B-Class Ukraine articles
• Mid-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 In the news articles