Talk:2014 Ukrainian Air Force Il-76 shootdown/Archive 1

Proposed merge with 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine

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

The result of this discussion was not to merge – Herzen (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Part of broader 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. Not suitable per WP:GNG outside of the context. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

<discussion>

• Oppose - apart from being the largest loss by the Ukrainian military in one event in the conflict so far, it is also the largest loss of life for the Il-76, based on those accidents that have articles on Wikipedia. I expect that the Aviation Safety Network article will be updated with this information once it is confirmed. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's actually the 4th largest loss for the Il-76 to date. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The mere presense of a large loss of life doesn t mke it more notable. the repercussions would and WP doesn't need to jump the gun Lihaas (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

strong support needless creation of new pages without any content. It has one paragraph that can go into the main page or a section of it.Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support - As the nominator, obviously. This is part of a current and ongoing event. Creating an individual article on it only a couple of days after the occurrence is essentially journalism unless presented within the context of the events. A separate article may be warranted at a later date if it meets WP:GNG on its own merits. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Cleary meets GNG on its own merits. - BilCat (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose — e.g., Simferopol incident had only two casualties; right now BBC World News shows a footage on how a Stinger type missile hits the plane, and the fire afterwards (shall be uploaded to their webpage soon, I believe), and all the “mess” around this incident creates content too; besides that, this is an incident involving aircraft. And, updating the version of Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine in Estonian, daily, this accident is simply too “big” to be dealt with in this big file. ~ Pietadè (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - clearly meets GNG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Notable incident with many casualities and wide press coverage. NickSt (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• comment NO one is questioning its notability. Its the article quality here that can easiky merge into an existing page as there is no content Lihaas (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

    Not suitable per WP:GNG 

Did not you notice this?? This is exactly what Iryna harpy is trying to question...Even Poroshenko admited the importance of this incidence and it seems that things will change from the pro-gov side after this . It is not only important...i would say it is a turning point or an incidence that will trigger future reactions. Any self respected wikipedian believes this incidence deserves its own article.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.154.109 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Those in favour of merging are only considering the incident in the context of the conflict. Doing so omits the other half of the story, the context as an aviation incident. It is sufficiently notable as an aviation incident to support an article. Had the aircraft crashed due to pilot error, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I appreciate that quality isn't what we'd all like, but we are limited by what is reported. I personally am limited by a total lack of Russian. Any editor who can find Russian language sources and expand the article from them is welcome to do so. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Moderate View this article had significant coverage, but it has been created to recently. What about if we wait for more information to come out?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Wait - This event is too recent, so I think you can hardly judge the notability this early on. We ought to wait a bit longer first. Dustin (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Key incident that deserves its own page Guyb123321 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Incident is clearly notable and article has adequate content to warrant its own article. Both the main article and the timeline are already of excessive length and need to have content split into separate articles anyway. This incident could also represent a turning point with the downing of a bomber in Gorlovka.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose aviation disaster resulting in nearly 50 deaths? CLEARLY passes GNG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As for me, added to Estonian counterpart information provided by Dmytro Tymchuk, according to which two used 9K38 Igla MANPADS and one defect one were found on the place of presumed launch of the rockets (along with empty cans, made by ЗАО «Орелпродукт», г. Mtsensk (Russia) — didn't add this, it's not of "public interest" what man eats...). (How is/was it possible to see and hit the plane at 00:51 - a heavy machine gun had been used to fire upon the aircraft). ~ Pietadè (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, on the day when the Ukraine army helicopter shot down near Sloviansk, along with Major General Serhiy Kulchytsky, he "vowed" 'revenge' too, and, added later, that "the "criminals" who attacked the helicopter were later "destroyed" by Ukrainian troops involved in an "anti-terror" operation." [The BBC article has been updated several times, so it is not easy to track, what there was initially reported]Pietadè (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support merge but for a different reason: This fails WP:Aircrash as this is a military shootdown due to enemy action and the victims do not seem to be notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:AIRCRASH actually says "Accidents [my emphasis] involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable". As this wasn't an accident, WP:AIRCRASH would seem not to apply. Mjroots (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The event has gained widespread coverage enough to warrant it's own article. If we did merge the content then it would give WP:UNDUE weight to the event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Considerable coverage throughout mainstream news outlets, many lives lost. Easily passes the GNG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the 3rd grade grammar of the current title. Befitting. (More seriously, this is just more POV-forking. Apparently no one here takes WP:NOTNEWS seriously.).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: - feel free to suggest a better title. Article is named in accordance with WP:AVIMOS. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? Can you point to the part of WP:AVIMOS which says that an article should be named "Airplane shoot-down"? Quit making shit up. The title is embarrassing. This isn't about a video game.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It must be the hyphen Volunteer Marek objects to as there are plenty of other articles which use the term "shootdown" that presumably he would have fixed by now if it was the actual term itself he objected to. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not the hyphen (are you sure you don't want to get into a 8 month edit war over whether that actually should be a "dash"?), and the fact that Wikipedia has an idiotic article-stub on Shootdown, a "term (which) appears sometime in the late 1980s and is allegedly a contraction from 'shoot' & 'down'" (!!!) just goes to show that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. As in, a lot of other stupid stuff on Wikipedia exists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So your preference to shootdown would be? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

To merge this article away? Other than that, it's not my problem. Like I said, Keep the silly name.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot that. Well it's obvious a merge isn't going to happen, it would be better if you could suggest something appropriate since you deem the title "silly", "3rd grade grammar", "embarrassing" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"Downing of...", "Shooting down of..." and similar would be at least grammatically correct. Awkward, but correct. But the basic problem is that you're trying to make soup out of nails. You're not going to get a decent title here simply because the subject is not notable or article worthy. Is there a single other article out there (yes, I know, other stuff) dedicated solely to a military plane being shut down during an armed conflict? If so, then that might be a guide. If not, well, the fact there isn't illustrates something. There are of course articles about civilian planes being shot down, like Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (both notable and actually really - not just "claimed" - in compliance with WP:AVIMOS). But we can't really name this article Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 can we? (The "Volunteer" part of the username actually likes the absurdity of this name)Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well there's 1978 British Army Gazelle downing (British Army helicopter shot down during the IRA conflict), 1994 British Army Lynx shootdown (similar), 1990 British Army Gazelle shootdown (similar), Banja Luka incident (Bosnia conflict), 2002 Khankala Mi-26 crash (Chechnya), 1999 F-117A shootdown (Yugoslavia) &c &c so I think yes, there clearly are articles dedicated solely to a military plane being "shut (sic)" down during an armed conflict. So that's okay, but as you can see, the names differ quite a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Unless I'm missing something, I don't think red links constitute "examples". As to the actually existing examples, 2002 Khankala Mi-26 crash (note the word "crash" and the fact that the article title actually makes sense) is supposedly notable because it "was ... the most deadly aviation disaster ever suffered by the Russian armed forces, as well as their worst loss of life in a single day since 1999" (though I'd merge that one away too). 1999 F-117A shootdown just proves that there is another article out there with a dumb title (which is how this crap tends to spread across wikipedia) and even there it's claim to fame is that "This was the only time an F-117 was shot down". (Please, please, in the name of Jimbo, do not start a "list of deadliest shootdowns by country" article). All we got here is "It may be the deadliest incident of the conflict so far." Which aside from the WP:WEASEL speculation in the "It may be" part, is a clear case of WP:CRYSTALBALL.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

See Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents for other articles om aircraft shootdowns. I've got no objection to the removal of the hyphen, but let's wait until this discussion is closed before any move takes place. VM, there's no "may be" about it, referenced sources state that it is the severest loss by the Ukrainian military since the conflict began. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I corrected my links. Or lynx. Both. So there you have it VM, more stuff for you to prod! (Don't forget 1964 T-39 shootdown incident using both shootdown and incident in one snappy title!) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That one's pretty funny. But I think it's obvious that however righteous, my cause is doomed. So like I said, go ahead and keep the title.Volunteer Marek (talk)

• Oppose. The Ukrainian government clearly considers this to be a significant incident, since it held a televised emergency meeting about the downing of the plane, as I noted in a recent edit to the article. – Herzen (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

---

I think we can close this discussion already. I count 3 supporting votes and 12 opposing votes. Also, voting seems to have stopped; there have been no new votes in the last 16 hours. Thus, there appears to be a consensus.

As The Rambling Man has pointed out, there are plenty of WP articles about comparable incidents. Also, the Ukrainian government appears to take this incident very seriously, since it has relieved the chief of staff of the military of his duties while the incident is under investigation (something I documented in the article).

Any objections to closing the discussion? If not, anyone should feel free to close it. – Herzen (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article has been expanded significantly in the interim, seemingly validating sentiments against a merge. I have removed the merge template. --pmj (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible mistake

The article says the plane carried 40 paratroopers of the 25th Separate Dnipropetrovsk Airborne Brigade even though that unit was disbanded in April. Tomh903 (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

According to RUS and UKR wikis the unit still exists; ru counterpart: Катастрофа Ил-76 в Луганске lists also crew members and soldiers (all 49 in one table).~ Pietadè (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the president site saying that the 25th was disbanded, it seems that the Russian and Ukrainian wikis are out of date. See WP:CW Avion365 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Their (25th unit) page exists, the president ordered the the brigade to be disbanded, later on they (the brigade) explained the situation, where they (paratroopers who had been in service for only some weeks, and had theri orders: not to shoot) had to abandon their armored vehicles, and seems that the brigade still exists;
in addition, the UKR article on the 25th brigade has a section, titled "the 25th in 2014"; at first there goes a paragraph with above mentioned president's order, the paragraph right below states, that according to data presented by Dmytro Tymchuk, the data president used, was incorrect (both paragraphs dated April 17); the next paragraph states that on April 18 some vehicles were returned to the brigade, as a result of special operation; and some paragraphs lower (in article The 25th Brigade...), there goes a description of Ilyushin incident. Russian version ends with president's order to disband the brigade, and "full stop". ~ Pietadè (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There was an official request of a very high ranking official to re-order this order, on the 30th of this month Pietadè (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Establishing WP:RS and how both Ukrainian and Russian sources are to be treated... again.

For the benefit of contributors who are unfamiliar with the amount of edit warring that has been going on over the last few months in particular, I'd like to take this opportunity to familiarise you all with Eastern European discretionary sanctions. Please see discussions on Russia Today, Ukrainian based sources on the ongoing Ukrainian crisis. Actually, there have been many. The gist of discussions have been to state that the information has come from one side or the other, but that it is best to find an English language trusted source to verify, or not use it at all. Thank you for your attention. Russian sources have been particularly identified as needing verification through reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That assumption is clearly racist. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How is that "assumption" racist? Clearly those in the region have a stake in the conflict, so an article from a non-interested source is preferred. There is also the fact that RT, and I am using them as a example, has spread propaganda as well as truth, that is why any report from them has to be verified by an external source.68.204.234.240 (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry the above comment is mine, I though I was signed in, clearly not the case however.Avion365 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we prefer English language sources where they are available. Where they are not, other language sources may be used. Both RIA-Novosti and ITAR-TASS meet WP:RS, and may be used freely. Any evidence of bias in those sources should be countered by referencing alternate points of view from other reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Actually, I posted the current discussion on Russia Today, ITAR-TASS and other Russian Federation news sources because it is still being hotly disputed (particularly given the context) as an RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Recentism?

Taking into account of the proposed merger above, it's obvious that the community is largely opposed to such a merger, and so I don't mind respecting this community decision. That said, it kind of begs the question: Is the community leaning towards acceptance of recentism? When it comes to aviation shootdowns such as this one, the Wikipedia project overall documents in greater detail more cases that occur in recent decades; there are plenty of other cases, where these events are written as separate articles.

This shootdown was part of the current ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which occurred this year, however we don't even have an article for even a tiny handful of major and notable aircraft shootdowns from World War II, let alone every single case where a WWII transporter aircraft carrying more than 49 people has been shot down. Are we turning a blind eye to WP:RECENTISM as a whole within the community? What makes this shootdown any more remarkable than the 6,000+ similar cases which occurred between 1941 and 1942? Why is the death of 49 people today more notable than the death of an exponentially greater number of people that died 70 years ago, to the point where today's event warrants a separate article more than those of days long gone by? --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may take the opposing view, it's a issue and worthy of an article because unlike 1941-42 where shooting down an airplane is common, today in a airplane being shot down while there is no state of declared war but instead an internal conflict. There is also the fact that 50-ish deaths at the same time are a rather large proportion of the overall amount of deaths. I understadn where you are coming from, but I would have to disagree.Avion365 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Benlisquare: We do have a few articles on WWII shootdowns, mostly where civil aircraft have been lost due to enemy action. My own feeling is that consensus would be against lots of articles on WWII combat losses, even those involving Wikinotable people. What would be sustainable would be a List of military aircraft lost in combat (and sublists thereof). I've mentioned this at WT:MILHIST in the past and didn't get any negative feedback. This would indeed be a large project, but achievable in the medium to long term. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps during WWII they did not have Internet and laptops, to produce and post an article ASAP? Pietadè (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Setting up a project is laudable. Trying to run with an article based on WP:RECENTISM as something to add to your wishlist (i.e., the project does not exist) is not. We are not dealing with WWII. Judging by 'votes' remarking on how it looks as if it is going to be a turning point... well, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.
@Pietade: Have you actually read WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM?
@Benlisquare: I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with you, which is why I proposed the merge in the first instance. I've just read through the article again and, despite noises about its having been expanded (past stub size), it still reads as an amateur journalistic piece than an encyclopaedic article. Reactions from Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk do not lift its profile in any manner, and working on the premise that it will somehow go down in history as a 'turning point' is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. In keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, it would require secondary source scholarship in order to evaluate its significance. I'm finding this attitude of grabbing at headlines and running with the ball in order to create an article based on premises as to its WP:GNG to be deeply disconcerting. I don't believe it represents the community as the same contributors are being attracted to every article surrounding current events in Ukraine. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying in the merger proposal discussion that the incident was a possible turning point. Also, both Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia have an article on the incident. Thus, for English Wikipedia not to have one would be a clear case of WP:Systemic bias. – Herzen (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I created this article from the view if its significance as an aviation incident, i.e. a large jet aircraft lost with large loss of life (originally reported as 30). Its loss as a combat incident was an incidental factor. I took the view that such a combination would mean that WP:GNG would be easily met, as has shown to be the case. I make no prediction as to whether of not this will be a "turning point" for Ukraine. As usual, there has been plenty of hot air coming from politicians, but no action so far.

Having created all lists of shipwrecks covering WWI and WWII, I know that similar lists covering military combat losses would be achievable. As I stated above, I had raised this at MILHIST previously. The subject is now being discussed with a view to setting out the direction the lists will take before we start adding incidents and creating the lists. Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion at User talk:Mjroots/List of military aircraft lost in combat. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: You don't recall? You don't need to recall anything: just try reading through the responses again. You were so busy counting 'votes' and closing the discussion that you didn't bother to read through the arguments? Note, also, that you were overstepping the line by closing the discussion off and calling it as being "it stays" as you are, by no means, a neutral party. Invoking WP:Systemic bias is completely off the mark as pertains to the arguments for and against.
@Mjroots: No, you didn't discuss crystal ball matters, but others 'voting' did. At this point, I don't have time to engage in the MILHIST discussion (although it is on my watchlist: I'm busy reformatting my computer and it's going to take a while). It's a worthwhile project, but I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to start pulling it together using such recent events, most particularly as it can feature in the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article, the Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine and, more conspicuously, has been added to the "2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine" template. There needs to be more collaboration between the current affairs enthusiasts and the military projects enthusiasts in order for it to work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: _ Herzen did not "overstep the line" in closing the discussion. There was clear consensus that the article should not be merged. The instructions at WP:AN/RFC state that editors involved in the discussion may close in such circumstances. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: "However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion." Clear consensus after two days? Where? It's hardly WP:SNOW! If you actually tally the outcome based on counting the votes there were 12 opposing, 2 asking to wait to see whether it meets GNG 3 outright supports for the merge and a tongue-in-cheek keep the stupid name and echoing issues of recentism. Of the 12 opposing, most were voting per WP:GNG having being met, but not addressing the recentism and crystal ball issues. There has been no time allowed for discussing valid concerns. As for Herzen, how did he count the 3 supports and 12 opposes and somehow ignore the other 3 wait to see whether it meets GNG, plus another call of recentism and the article not actually meeting any criteria other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL are yet to be discussed in any any meaningful way. As for VM's observation, the non-military enthusiasts voting here are drooling over the potential to expand on WP:WEASEL. If Herzen wishes to, he can open an AN/I because I'm about to toss some commenting on the user (who has POV-pushed to the limits on related articles) and how his agenda is driving the content he wants in place. I'm supremely well armed with diffs, so we could always crank this up a notch by taking it to a less formal venue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove the template, so don't blame this all on me. I invited someone else to close the discussion, but somebody responded to that by only removing the template from the article. When I completed the process by adding the discussion closed template, he thanked me.

And I don't understand your point that WP:Systemic bias is "completely off the mark". If Russia and the Ukraine, which obviously have opposite points of view on the subject, both find this subject to be worthy of its own article, then I don't see how English Wikipedia not having an article on the subject can be anything but a case of Atlanticist, Anglophone bias: a plane getting shot down on the other side of the world isn't as noteworthy to North Americans as it is to people who live there. – Herzen (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that, Herzen? Someone else who wanted the article to stay thanked you for removing the template. That's known as two parties agreeing that there is consensus, not consensus.

As regards some form of 'systemic bias', please cut the impoverished justifications. English Wikipedia is not liable for articles that shouldn't exist on other Wikipedias. The GNG and issues of NOTNEWS, RECENTISIM, etc. are judged here on their own merits. Atlanticist, Anglophone biases can just as easily be matched with Russocentrist bias. Neither are we writing for North America, but for the Anglophone world (it's English Wikipedia): I'm Australian, others are British, etc. Respond to concerns surrounding policies and guidelines with logical answers instead of bleating empty rhetoric. What you are engaging in is posturing rather than answering valid concerns regarding content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pietade: You are making a logical fallacy by arguing that because we have computers now, we are free to break with previously accepted and established norms and conventions on Wikipedia such as WP:RECENTISM. Yes, we have computers now, what's your point? Neither did the Ancient Greeks, and we have a ton of Socratic philosophy articles.

I assure you that in 10 or 20 years time, few people will even remotely remember this event. One of the aspects of notability on Wikipedia is that it should be permanent, and not change over time; if this event is completely forgettable in 20 years time, then we should be thinking twice over how "articleworthy" it really is. Why does it have to be a separate article? Why can't it be a section within a much larger article? There are all sorts of events that occurred more than 100 years ago and are still memorable today despite computers not existing, so your argument doesn't make any sense. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• The above discussion clearly concludes that this subject is notable beyond recentism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. It establishes that there is community support to maintain a separate article, however it does not prove that this isn't recentism. Please do not confuse correlation with causation. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• This continues to be a problem, especially in the Ukrainian nonsense quadrant of Wikipedia. Articles are created willy-nilly, nothing more than agglomerations of meagre news reporting. I've tried to stem the tide, but failed at most every turn. Wikipedia will no longer be an encyclopaedia, but merely an aggregator of media coverage of "historical" events. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @RGloucester:, What the Ukrainian Wikipedia do is up to them (if that's what you meant by "the Ukrainian nonsense quadrant"). What we can do on en:Wiki is to ensure that that article is of the highest quality it can be, and presented from a neutral point of view. As for the "agglomeration of meagre news reporting", we need to remember that what we are doing now will be around for future generations. The List of shipwrecks in 1814 is also an "agglomeration of meagre news reporting", the only real difference is the passage of two centuries. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Poor translation?

" . . . who found themselves in a situation facing a threat to be killed by invaders and sponsored by them subhumans." - doesn't make for good grammar.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You can lodge a complaint with the Ukrainian foreign ministry. That's a direct quote from their official web site. This is English Wikipedia, so it's natural to use official statements the Ukrainian government puts out in English through its Washington embassy.

To see that there's nothing unusual about that statement, just consider this from the official Euromaidan English Web site, which some editors here consider to be a reliable source:

The government in Kyiv should announce that Ukraine will take these 6 steps within the next 72 hours: ...

Call on Ukrainians in the West to attack and kill members of the Putin regime, their associates and close relatives.

Remove uranium from Ukraine’s nuclear reactors and prepare to disperse it in Russia by all means possible

So Yatsenyuk's talk of Russians being "subhuman" is par for the course. – Herzen (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is poor English, but it is an accurate reproduction per WP:MOSQUOTE. That is why I added the hidden note. Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

After looking at the source, I came here to ask about the same thing. Probably this is a translation of something originally written in Ukrainian. Can we figure out what it is? We shouldn't reproduce translation errors if we can work from the original text. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:CB89 (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Title

"Shoot-down" is not good English, in fact it is American slang. I suggest a change of title. The article on the Korean Airlines Boeing 747 shot down by the Soviets is simply called "Korean Air Lines Flight 007".

In this case, there is no (known) flight number. "Shoot-down" (or "shootdown") is perfectly good English, dating back to WWI. The current title is in accordance with the naming convention for aircrash articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)