Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Proposal - Article Restructuring

Refer to reasoning provided in my reply to RfC. That approach leads to the following specific proposal for restructuring the article, and a clean up of lede. The proposed framework is in part inspired by the Wikipedia "good article" Korean Air Lines Flight 007, have a look. We could do better, why NOT aim for a Feature Article status?
Lede (alond lines of...)
Two hundred and ninety eight people lost their lives when Mlaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 crashed near Hrabove, Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014.
The Dutch Safety Board, who are leading the official international investigation into the cause of the crash, issued a guarded Preliminary Report on 9 September 2014, indicating that the damage to the forward section of the aircraft, apparently penetrated by a large number of high velocity objects from outside, resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft and its in-flight break up. The Investigation efforts were, and continue to be handicapped by access, safety and other issues which mainly stem from the fact that the wreckage site is in a conflict zone.
No official reports have yet been made public by a separate official investigation into criminal liability for the loss of human life and the craft.
The evolving political situation in Ukraine and beyond (x-reference to other Wikipedia articles on the ongoing Ukraine, US, EU, Russian Federation impasse, sanctions and counter-sanctions, etc.) forms the backdrop of heightened geopolitical tensions between RF, USA and EU, creating an information war environment where theories, speculation, accusation and counter-accusation proliferate. (x-ref to sections below)
Eastern Ukraine airspace is now closed to civilian craft, and Airlines which had not suspended flight paths across Eastern Ukraine before the downing of MH-17, acted quickly to do so, following the tragic event.
Contents
  1. Flight Details
    1. Craft
    2. Passengers and Crew
    3. Cargo
    4. Route
      1. Deviations from designated route
    5. ATC Communications
    6. Meteorological Conditions (optional, if anything comes up)
  2. Wreckage
  3. Human Remains
    1. Collection and Transport to DSB Investigation
    2. Autopsies
    3. Repatriation
    4. Funerals, Tributes, Ceremonies
    5. Next of Kin Support
  4. Official Actions, Investigations and Findings
    1. ICAO
    2. OSCE
    3. UN SC Resolutions
    4. DSB Investigation into cause of crash
      1. Memorandum
      2. Participant States
      3. Available Evidence and Providers
        1. Malaysia
        2. Russian Federation
        3. Ukraine
        4. Etc.
      4. Preliminary Investigation
        1. Timing
        2. Report Results
          1. Theories eliminated
          2. Findings
        3. Press Conference
      5. Post report leaks
      6. Final Report Schedule and plans
    5. Official investigations into Criminal responsibility and liability
    6. Other Official Investigations and Evidence gathering
    7. Sanctions and Counter-sanctions
  5. Official State Responses to the Crash (e.g. Prime minister, Ministries)
    1. x-ref link to condolences WP article (I think it's called Reactions, but 99% condolences)
    2. Official Responses by Countries who are official participants in the DSB-lead investigation (per DSB Report, same order)
      1. The Netherlands
      2. Malaysia
      3. Ukraine
      4. Russian Federation
      5. United Kingdom
      6. United States of America
      7. Australia
    3. Official Responses by other Countries (add as required, e.g. German Bundesbank Official Response)
      1. Germany
      2. China
      3. etc.
  6. Media Coverage
    1. Caveat - Below are theories and events which were given a platform by the mainstream media of the states involved in the Official International Investigation
      1. Theories presented by mainstream media in Investigation participant countries
        1. Deliberate downing by Donetsk rebels using Surface to Air Missile
          1. Ukraine Media
          2. Australian Media
          3. etc.
        2. Accidental downing by Donetsk rebels using surface to Air Missile
          1. Ukraine Media
          2. US media
          3. UK media
          4. etc.
        3. Deliberate downing by Ukraine Military using Air to Air Missile
          1. Russian Federation
          2. etc.
        4. Deliberate downing by Russian Military using BUK Surface to air Missile
          1. Ukraine media
          2. US Media
      2. Theories presented by mainstream media in other states (if any)
        1. Japan
        2. Germany
        3. China
        4. etc. as they arise
      3. Key reports by mainstream media of Countries which participate in Investigation (present as a table with Date, Country, TV/Press Name, Content (e.g. BBC reported that), Link)
        1. United Kingdom
          1. First 12 hours
          2. Before publication of DSB Preliminary Report
          3. After publication of DSB Preliminary report
          4. etc. as official reports, trial, judgement happen
        2. The Netherlands
          1. First 12 hours
          2. Before publication of DSB Preliminary Report
          3. After publication of DSB Preliminary report
          4. etc.
        3. etc.
      4. Key reports by mainstream media in Other Countries (present as a table)
        1. China
          1. First 12 hours
          2. Before publication of DSB Preliminary Report
          3. After publication of DSB Preliminary report
          4. etc.
        2. etc.
  7. Public Opinion and Views (where required, e.g. polls of views of Russian public, Guardian interviews Londoners)
  8. Cultural Aspects (music, poetry, art, monuments, e.g. "Requiem for MH-17" by Andrei Orlov)
  9. Financial Consequences (date order, e.g. "share price of MAS fell...")
  10. Notes, Internal Links, External links, etc.
The numbering format hasn't quite worked - sorry - but the structure is clear from the indents.
This could work. Comments? Tennispompom (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First impressions: not good. A lot of your rationale for this is in your 2000 word RfC response, so I'll try to reference it here. As you've previously stated, the purpose of your proposal is to create a POV shift in the article ("which is a revised structure (headings hierarchy) which could resolve the NPOV and RS issues"). It creates undue weight (see WP:GEVAL) which doesn't follow what the reliable sources say on the matter. On another matter, most of your rationale contradicts the policy on reliable sources itself (where you somehow say that sources suddenly are no longer sources, but "actors"). Your efforts are noted, but it's flawed from the ground-up and isn't going to work. Stickee (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stickee,
  1. You misread my intention – I don’t want to shift POV, I want to achieve NPOV, and in order to achieve it, the article needs to be restructured.
  2. I don’t see how the proposal creates undue weight, I took great care to identify significant reliable sources, and avoid any insignificant views by proposing that the article gives equal prominence to media reporting from all countries involved in the International Investigation (per DSB Preliminary report), even keeping the order the same, and to allow for other views, if editors want, e.g. China, etc. By taking the list of official investigating countries, I avoid the problem of NOR (synthesys) – it’s not my list, it is an Official list. Of course, only mainstream media from the listed countries should be used, no obscure small media should be referenced.
  3. Alternatively, significant sources could be selected by other means, e.g. by size of population, but that would require a lot more work, and be more contentious, because then you would only want to include the media coverage of China, India, US, Brazil and Russia, which have the most significant polupations, and smaller countries, like Ukraine and The Netherlands wouldn’t feature at all. You might find that is more contentious. Personally, I would recommend going for the list provided by Dutch Safety Board in their Preliminary Report.
  4. Reliable source is not a problem in this context. By reporting on what the publication does, as opposed to using them as a reliable source for some other fact, the media itself becomes a reliable Primary Source, and well within Wikipedia rules and policies.
Perhaps the rules were changed since you originally read them, but I checked them today. Happy to provide links to the Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Sometimes being a newbie, who has just read the Wikipedia rules, is a great advantage. Tennispompom (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stickee: It has been explained countless times that in this article, editors who consider themselves to own it determine whether a source is reliable on the basis of whether it supports the preferred narrative or not, so any argumentation that this article is neutral because it is based on reliable sources is nothing but lawyering. Thus, any talk of "reliable sources" by editors who refuse to admit that this article has major problems are nothing but incantations at this point. – Herzen (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't true. In the other article at least you added negative information about the Ukrainian Army based on Human Rights Watch (or was it AI? Can't remember). I left that alone simply because in that case you actually bothered to go out and find a reliable source. Likewise I've opposed adding "pro-Ukrainian" information when it was not based on reliable sources. The criteria for a source to be reliable are outlined at WP:RS. It's NOT editors here who determine whether or not a source is reliable or not. It's the criteria. The editors here can only to choose WP:RS policy or not. Some of us choose to follow it. Others insist that it be ignored. Those editors are in the wrong place.
This also has been explained a dozen times already. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  19:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As to the proposal itself, let's just say that it won't work. Volunteer Marek  21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Doing this article along the line of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (as suggested above) would be fine, however "Korean Air Lines Flight 007" does not include "media coverage" section and some other sections suggested in the plan. This is for good reasons. Also, suggested version of intro is inferior compare to the current version. So, no, this is not going to work as suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi My very best wishes, The article is BASED on, but not identical to the "Korean Air Lines Flight 007" for two very good reasons: 1 - For Korean the outcome is known, hence media coverage is not as important as it is in the present undecided case (it does include a Political section however, which I have broken down into political actors like mainstream media, state officials, etc) and 2 - we can improve on the Korean Article. Feel free to make specific improvements, say exactly what you would add or remove and please explain why it makes it better / more NPOV Tennispompom (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tennispompom: Jeez, you've put an awful lot of work into this. You show remarkable dedication and commitment for a new editor. (But I know that that is largely because you need to channel your creative energies somewhere while you are off work lol.) I'm curious, what do you think about the way that the German Wikipedia article is structured? You can find the Google translation of it here. For your convenience, here are the subsections of the cause section:
8 Further evidence and theories about the cause of the crash
8.1 evidence of a kill
8.2 Alleged missile launch by separatists
8.3 Alleged missile launch by Ukrainian military
8.4 Alleged shooting by Ukrainian warplanes
It appears that German Wikipedia has been hijacked by what Volunteer Marek conspiracy theorists (and I call editors who strive to attain NPOV).
Seriously, the easiest way to fix this article would be to scrub it entirely and just replace it with a translation of the German article. A single person could do that in one day. All he or she would need to do is use the Google machine translation and then copy edit. – Herzen (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia, not German Wikipedia. You also don't 'scrub' an article and sources. You would need to go through the process of addressing each source to be deleted and justifying its deletion as not being a verifiable and reliable source. Any such changes would need consensus. The onus would be on you to demonstrate that each source to be 'scrubbed' does not meet RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I was just responding to Tennispompom's proposal in this section to basically start from scratch. My point was that one does not need to start from scratch, because I believe the German article to be satisfactory, and it could be used as a basis, instead of Tennispompom's proposal. I certainly was not indicating that I was contemplating making significant changes to the article without obtaining consensus first. That would be suicidal, as far as my Wiki editing activity goes. – Herzen (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's disrespectful of all the authors who made up this English article (including me!) and of their work. Also, if you are so enthusiastic about the German WP, you may consider the German advice to authors regarding translations: Bitte überlegt stets, ob sich nicht deutsche Quellen finden lassen. Eine Übersetzung bedeutet immer auch einen Kulturverlust und die Gefahr, in Übersetzungsfallen zu tappen. Which means: Please always consider if you there are German sources available instead. Translation always means a loss of culture and the risk to step into translation traps.
I think what is needed instead here is a "moderator" with lots of guts, nerves and time, who pours the different POVs here on the talk page into a consensus rework of the article. With all the people here chaotically battling and mistrusting each other, you can't manage a rework. --PM3 (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
No. For all of the reasons stated above. See WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Kudzu1, Both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV support the proposed restructuring. Which specific part of these docs are you citing to support your "no"?
Read WP:STRUCTURE, it clarifies the reason for the restructure proposal. Also have a look at clarifications in WP:PRIMARYNEWS, para which starts with "However". Surely not rejecting these docs? Tennispompom (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Presenting competing theories with their own individual sections assigns a degree of equal weighting that the sources simply do not support. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources report that the attack is believed to have been carried out by pro-Russia elements. As the article already notes, the Russian government and a relatively small number of pro-Kremlin mouthpieces, most of which lack the notability for their claims and statements to stand alone on Wikipedia, continue to push conspiracy theories blaming the shootdown on Ukraine and/or the West. The article in its current form treats these claims with appropriate weight. Your proposed restructuring would put them on the same footing, which is utterly unacceptable by encyclopedic standards as spelled out in the policies I cited. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you've got the NPOV policy all mixed up. All primary sources are reliable as long as an educated reader can confirm that the media source really did publish what they published. Thus, even a state controlled Chinese paper is a reliable source for current event reports and opinions. As China and India are overwhelmingly the most populous countries, mainstream media in those countries hold the global majority public opinion. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong, whether they are state controlled or not, what matters is the fact that they are saying it. I am assuming that you are not attempting to justify a single point of view (i.e. opinion) as fact, because that would be original research! Tennispompom (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Kudzu1, you may also find this extract from WP:FIVEPILLARS useful in clarifying matters:
Second pillar - Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. Tennispompom (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: The Editors of this article appear to have highly suspect motivation which is not conducive to the good reputation of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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", "Wikipedia isn't the place for me", "an encyclopedia ain't it"? Here's my first ever comment on Wikipedia, 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)
Ugh. Look, my yearly quota of "good faith" has been pretty much exhausted, in dealing with all kinds of sketchy accounts which have been running around all these articles. For example, I find it very hard to believe that someone, even someone who's never edited Wikipedia before, doesn't know what a "sockpuppet" is, since that's a general internet term, not Wikipedia specific. That claim right there - that you say you don't know what a sockpuppet is - just raises all kinds of flags and sets off alarm bells because it *looks* like someone trying to pretend a little too hard to be newbie.
But fine. Let me assume good faith. You're a new account. Then the first thing to do is read WP:NPOV. A lot of people come away from reading that with the wrong impressions though - they think "well obviously my opinion is neutral, hence whatever I do is NPOV". So just to be clear, you should also read Reliable Sources and No Original Research. It's those two which make it clear what NPOV involves. Basically, anything you want to put into the article must be based on verifiable, secondary, reliable, sources, or it's a no go. It's the continual and persistent ignoring of (whether purposeful or not) of these Wikipedia policies by some editors that causes these endless conversations, and leads to much irritation. It is really is tiresome to have to repeat the same thing a hundred times. Volunteer Marek  21:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Tennispompom: You are certainly laboring to take time away from wikipedians to explain general topics. Considering my already stated opinion, I will not bite and I will suggest others to also not let themselves get distracted by the friendly requests for general information. Lklundin (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Volunteer Marek, just because your "yearly quota of good faith has been exhausted", is no reason to take it out on me. For someone who makes a habit of citing Wikipedia rules, I'm surprised that you are breaking three out of four instructions printed on top of this Talk page in the big orange box: 1) Be polite, and welcoming to new users, 2) Assume good faith and 3) Avoid personal attacks. Can you do that? If not, then proceed to Instruction No.4.
The same goes for you, Lklundin, no one asked you to count the words or kB in my comment, you are wasting your time all by yourself. Stick to responding to the issues I raised (see above), avoid personal attacks on me and time will be less of a problem for you.
Tennispompom (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Please make some kind of effort to avoid a battleground attitude. And since when has it become allowable to assume bad faith on the part of other Wikipedians? Also, deleting my comment from your Talk page, in which I asked you not to personalize this content dispute by claiming in your edit summary that my putting a POV tag on this article is "Herzen's POV push", when there are plenty of other editors besides me who think this article is biased, is considered to be bad etiquette. – Herzen (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
For a brief moment I thought I was being addressed here but that cannot be since I have not edited my Talk page in 7 years. Lklundin (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I was addressing you. That was a mistake on my part. I made the same comment on your Talk page and that of another user, and that other user deleted my comment from his Talk page. In my Alerts, your revert of my adding a POV tag to this article came up next to his revert of my comment on his Talk page, so, since I didn't look carefully at your revert, I concluded that you had reverted my comment on your Talk page, too. You have my apologies. But your copy-pasting other editors' edit summaries accusing an editor of POV-pushing is not conducive to civility. – Herzen (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course this article is not neutral. It reflects the majority POV of English-speakers, mostly from the US, UK and Autralia, which represents a one-sided view of this topic. Regarding the UK and Australia, my impression even is that the public opinion on this topic is extremly biased. You can't change that, that is how Wikipedia works. It is always biased by the POV of the language-specific mainstream. --PM3 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"language-specific mainstream". Yeah right. We dont have dozens of state media stations spreading the same disinformation 24/7 in hundreds of publications and several languages. Sorry for that. I would like to see the people, who build their opinion on MH-17 by russian state media only, to feel more represented in Wikipedia... It would be so much easier. Just look at the russian WP article concerning the "Conflict in Ukraine". It´s brilliant and based on so many different sources... Alexpl (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if all of Wikipedia's editors would 'build their opinion on MH-17 by russian state media only' then we would have to endure delusional fringe theories about a SU-25 able to fly well above 10km. We would in fact all be Winston Smith. So better to not export the Russian propaganda. Lklundin (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@PM3: Please don't be so defeatist. This article being biased is not inevitable. The only reason it is biased is that some editors make no effort to avoid systemic bias, and that other editors simply don't have the time to engage in the herculean task of removing the bias from this article. Also, the problem is not just that the primary language of most editors is English. For example, your main WP is the German one, and yet you have the same bias on MH17 as do most people in the Anglosphere. – Herzen (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If I had, I wouldn't agree that this article is biased. --PM3 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You got me there. But since this Talk section is about the bias in the article, we have a new editor who may make an effort to reduce the bias, and you can be viewed as having NPOV on mh17, since you, unlike myself, are very dismissive of the prevailing Russian view, it would be nice if you described what you see as the bias in this article, in case some editors make a significant effort to improve it. – Herzen (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tennispompom&diff=prev&oldid=629361539 - an intresting example of POV canvassing by Herzen.--Galassi (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Coaching a new editor is not canvassing. But stalking and tracking is considered WP:HOUNDING. USchick (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Who, exactly, is this 'new editor' being hounded, USchick? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This is really getting out of control. The only way I can read your comment is that you are alleging that Tennispompom is a sockpuppet. So who do you think he is a sockpuppet of? Did you look at his talk page? If he is a sockpuppet, he is certainly the most refined one that I have ever seen, since he is quiet good at feigning being a newbie to WP editing. – Herzen (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@User:Iryna Harpy, The new editor is User talk:Tennispompom. This new editor brought up concerns about the article and instead of addressing the concerns, experienced editors have attacked this new editor with sock puppet accusations and now accuse Herzen of canvassing on Tennispompom's page. Very little attention has been given to the actual concerns brought up by Tennispompom. USchick (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen: Don't make assumptions. I haven't checked in on this article for some time and it's somewhat cluttered with recent comments.
@USchick: Thanks for the clarification. I might be able to make some sort of headway as to what the disputes are about without spending a whole day trying to sort through the arguments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen: it would be nice if you described what you see as the bias in this article – see [1]. --PM3 (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question. However, I disagree with you about this POV in the article being inevitable. Since we live in a global society, with English versions of news sources of many non-Anglophone societies readily readily available on the Web, and with automatic translators such as those of Google and Yandex being available, there really is no excuse for English Wikipedia articles representing the point of view of the US government more than they represent, for example, that of the Russian government. That only happens because many editors do not take their obligation to avoid systemic bias seriously. – Herzen (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
How about the fact that there is no evidence to support the US accusation against Russia? John Kerry claims there's "overwhelming evidence," but even after a $30 million reward was offered, the largest reward ever, there is still no evidence. Source: IBT [2]. Reliable sources report that there is no evidence, like NBC [3], but those sources are ignored because editors like to cherry pick sources. The International Air Transport Association is begging for information so they can protect civilian planes, and they are ignored also [4]. Senior U.S. Intelligence Officers beg for evidence [5], but no evidence appears, only wild accusations. USchick (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I wonder if those who are so certain the Russians did it can remember when they first decided that. Was it it before they actually saw any of the "evidence"? The fact that all this happened right in the middle of a long fought propaganda war makes opinions a very dangerous thing. To anticipate possible inevitable responses, I have no idea who did it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Not many people are convinced the Russian Federation actually did it. But many think they are responsible, having created the circumstances by starting that war. It doesnt seem to hard to understand that difference. Alexpl (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"starting that war" eh? Right. Do you think anyone might have a different perspective on that? The certainty in some peoples' minds is what bothers me the most here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Everybody who consumed russian federation state media prior to the armed conflict, while feeling to be extensively informed by them at the same time. The rest watched and read those media in ascending horror, knowing exactly what would happen. And the worst thing is, that they cant take that shit back... Alexpl (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be nice if new users would familiarize themselves with the POV policy WP:NPOV before flinging accusations. The article is neutral and reflects the bulk of the sources. Geogene (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No matter how often some editors repeat the claim that this article is neutral, the article does not become neutral just because some editors claim it is. And there are plenty of old users who think this article is biased. I guess I have to repeat this once more, because some editors just don't hear: this article is overrun with systemic bias. To quote from the policy page of that name:
The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects, but it is inhibited by systemic bias that perpetuates a bias against underrepresented cultures and topics. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects on Wikipedia.
The theory that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet is an underrepresented topic. Meanwhile, the theory presented in English Wikipedia is absurd on the face of it, because (1) the rebels have no need for Buk missile systems, so it is highly unlikely that Russia would have given them one, whereas the Ukrainian military has many Buk missile systems, so NPOV would lead to the conclusion that if a Buk missile shot down MH17, it was shot down by Ukraine; (2) nobody has claimed that the rebels have anything but a Buk missile launcher, yet a Buk command and control unit and a Buk primary radar unit would have been required to shoot down MH17; Ukraine has these units but the rebels don't; (3) nobody saw or heard a Buk missile being launched, a virtual impossibility if such a missile had indeed been launched; (4) the rebels had absolutely no motive for shooting down MH17, whereas Kiev most certainly did; (5) unlike the case with MH370, which Western media compulsively pursued for months, Western media quickly lost all interest in MH17, a strong indication that Western leaders learned that it was Kiev that shot down MH17.

If the "bulk of the sources" lead to an article creating an absurd narrative, then the thing to do is not to continue using only those sources, but to stop cherry picking sources, and start using sources which would allow the article to become more rational and reality based. To quote our "new user" Tennispompom: "The article reads like the editors decided on the story line and then selected the sources to back up their version". I don't see how anyone can deny this. – Herzen (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The narrative is only absurd from ... your point of view (YPOV). That is precisely why your proposals are not in accordance with NPOV. NPOV, not HPOV. All that the rest of your comment shows is that you've engaged in some logical acrobatics and have come up with some ways which in your own mind justify whatever preconceptions, biases, and prejudices you had to begin with. On a personal level, that kind of thing is alright, I guess, if that's your thing. At the Wikipedia level, that kind of thing is called "original research" and is expressly forbidden.
And frankly, some of your premises are ridiculous. And most of the conclusions don't even follow from these ridiculous premises. For example "the rebels have no need for Buk missile systems,". Uhhh... is that why they bragged about getting one, before the airplane went down? Why in the world would they have "no need" for one. Where you getting this from? Gee Russia, really wanted to give us a couple Buks, but we said, no thanks, we're good here, with our muskets and lances. How can this be taken seriously? "so it is highly unlikely that Russia would have given them one" <- even granting the ridiculous premise that the rebels have no need for a Buk, this conclusion does not follow. Or how your story (and a lot of this Russian propaganda) just twists and turns to explain how it must've been a Ukrainian BUK which shot it down, then turns around like you do in (3) and denies that a Buk was involved at all, it was actually a Ukrainian jet. In other words, making shit up as convenient, just for sake of creating confusion.
By that standard the "Western" narrative is an example of pristine and flawless logic and empirical evidence. Volunteer Marek  20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a "western narrative"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if there actually is, and if there is, I don't know why. Hence the quotation marks. Volunteer Marek  04:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No matter how often some editors repeat the claim that this article is neutral, the article does not become neutral just because some editors claim it is. - and no matter how often some editors repeat the claim that the article is not neutral because it doesn't genuflect before their favorite wacky conspiracy theory, the article does not become non-neutral because these editors claim it is. It does become neutral if it's based on reliable sources. Which it is. So I think "some editors" have a somewhat stronger case than some other "some editors". Volunteer Marek  20:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My "favorite wacky conspiracy theory", before which I really would like to see more editors genuflect, is that, unlike you, I don't know who did it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
We've been through this. You don't have to know something with 100% certainty to be able to say that "yea, we pretty much know". I mean, I really *don't* know that people actually walked on the moon. Come to think of it, I only *sort of* know that such a thing as a moon actually exists. I hope that I exist, dang it. So just because we don't know something with 100% certainty does not mean we say "we don't know", which is the position you've been taking. And at the end of the day, it's not whether I or you knows something but whether or not reliable sources say something. That's the essence of theverifiability policy. Which is a good one. Volunteer Marek  04:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It's perfectly valid to say "We don't know" in this case. Your counter-examples are ridiculous. The narrow choice of sources guarantees a biased conclusion - the good old "western view". A non-conclusion would be safer. and far more neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Last time I checked, there was no conclusion. Alexpl (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The single most authoritative source is the Preliminary report of the official investigation lead by the Dutch Safety Board. That is what we know. Anything beyond that is theory, speculation, opinion, tampered by the credibility of the source. Some of these should have a place in the Article, but not necessarily all. I've been reading the rules, which are perfectly adequate to deal with dact and opinion, as long as they are not mixed up. In a section below, I've put forward a PROPOSAL- STEP 1, to try to create an organised environment in which editors are not falling over each other. I'm currently working on the PROPOSAL - STEP 2, which is a revised structure (headings hierarchy) which could resolve the NPOV and RS issues. I'll post it as soon as I've finished it. Tennispompom (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
6 people commented on your step 1 proposal, and literally one person agreed. The other 5 said it was a bad idea or wasn't going to work. Stickee (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not decided by a vote. Neutrality is not negotiable, per WP:NPOV. This really needs to be addressed, not doing Wikipedia reputation any good. Tennispompom (talk) 00:09, 20 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 [6], Vietnamese [7], Spanish [8], Italian [9], German [10]. 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 Wikipedia'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 [11]. This Wikipedia 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. [12] 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. [13] 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. [14] "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)
I read the archives where it has been pointed out repeatedly that his profile is fake, and editors choose to ignore this fact. Did i miss something? I provided a source where another Russian rebel claims responsibility for the attack. Here it is again [15]. Please explain to me why sources are being cherry picked to support only one version of events? This article is clearly disputed and the POV tag was very justified. Why was it removed? USchick (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, in the archives, it is repeatedly pointed out that this is something that is widely covered in reliable sources. Yes, there is some accounts which claim it's fake. Personally I don't know if it's fake or not. Neither do you for that matter, so please stop pretending like this is some established fact. You are only hurting your own credibility when you rely on baseless assertions for arguments. None of this matters however. What matters is whether or not this story has been covered in reliable sources to a significant extent. And yes, it has. The damn thing has three sources after it. Another two dozen could be added but that would be silly. Volunteer Marek  20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@USchick: Yes, this should definitely be removed. First, something like that is very easy to fake. Second, it is inconsistent with the SBU's current theory of why the plane was downed: the rebels intended to shoot down a Russian airliner in order to give Russia a pretext for invading Ukraine. Thus, the statement in the lead that "after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement" does not make any sense, since according to the SBU, the plan all along was to shoot down a civilian aircraft. – Herzen (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it stays. It stays because it is all over reliable sources. I don't know if it's easy to fake or not. But that doesn't matter - I'm getting sick of repeating myself, but again, read WP:NOR. Stop it with the original research and synthesis. Volunteer Marek  20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
More than one rebel claimed responsibility according to RS. Why is Strelkov being singled out in this article as being solely responsible? Strelkov took credit for a different plane altogether. USchick (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm getting sick of this. Either you start giving links to sources or there is no point in discussion. I have no interest in having an argument for argument's sake or serving as a sounding board for your personal theories. For example, your claim "More than one rebel claimed responsibility according to RS" is just an empty assertion. Where is this RS you're talking about. To repeat just one more time, the reason Strelkov is being singled out is because his post, fake or not, was singled out by reliable sources. Please read WP:RS again because this is pretty elementary and you've been on Wikipedia for awhile. Volunteer Marek  21:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I provided a source (twice) showing where reliable sources are contradicting themselves as they report about unreliable social media pages. None of this information is reliable and none of it belongs in the lede, especially since the discussion is about a different plane. There are plenty of sources that I already provided that talk about a variety of theories that are currently being considered. All those sources are reliable. and so are the theories, yet, for some reason we can't talk about that because you're stuck on this one VKontakte profile. Why is that? USchick (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you being disingenuous? The Wire source you provided is about some guy who claims that he was the one who "pulled the trigger". This is just a single story which has not been widely covered in other media. And in no way does this contradict Strelkov claiming responsibility. Are you really pretending that the Vkontakte post by Strelkov claimed that he was sitting right there in the BUK pressing the buttons? Because that's not what it claimed. You are also playing another game, pretending that because Strelkov apparently *thought* they shot down a military plane, not a civilian one, then the Vkontakte post is not relevant to the shooting down of *this* plane. I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously. If we have an article on "Shooting of Mr. Smith", and some guy claims to have shot "Mr. Jones" but later it turns out that the person they shot was actually Mr. Smith, then yes, it is relevant. Why does this even have to be explained?
And the Vkontake post by Strelkov WAS widely covered by reliable sources. Your own personal opinion as to whether this is "reliable information" or not is completely, absolutely, irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether it's in reliable sources or not. It is. Volunteer Marek  21:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If he takes responsibility for a different plane, then I suggest you explain in the article how it pertains to this plane. I'm sorry to bother you, but yes, this explanation is necessary. It's also not the main event, and does not belong in the lede. USchick (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what it is you're asking for. He took responsibility for shooting down a plane. He thought it was a military plane. It turned out to be this one. And you're claiming that because he took responsibility for shooting down a "different plane", then this info is irrelevant. That makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what "It's also not the main event" means. Volunteer Marek  21:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
He took responsibility for a different plane. At what point did it turn out to be this one? Can you please provide a source for your claim, that whatever he (or someone else) said on his unreliable profile "turned out" for a fact to be this plane? Did the investigation confirm it or is this your personal OR?USchick (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, he took responsibility for *this* plane. He just *thought* it was a different kind of a plane. Sources are already in the article. Stop playing games, it's disruptive. Volunteer Marek  21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read the articles more closely. His message names a different plane. The article says "messages from Strelkov for weeks published a post saying rebels had shot down a plane outside Torez, near the location of the wreckage of MH17." The article does not link his post to this plane. In fact, the article states that the recordings may have been falsified. So the information presented in the article is a direct contradiction of what the sources say. USchick (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes. He *thought* they shot down an AN-26. The article says, whole quote:
Shortly after the Boeing 777 went down with 298 people aboard, a Russian social networking page that has been uploading messages from Strelkov for weeks published a post saying rebels had shot down a plane outside Torez, near the location of the wreckage of MH17.
The post, which was later deleted, appeared to incorrectly identify the aircraft as an AN-26 military transport plane, lending credence to the theory that the rebels mistakenly downed the Malaysian airliner. "We warned you not to fly in our skies," it read. (my emphasis)
And now you're gonna sit there and claim that "The article does not link his post to this plane."?!? Even though in the very paragraph you're quoting it says "lending credence to the theory that the rebels mistakenly downed the Malaysian airliner". I'm sorry but I'm not interested in having my time wasted. Volunteer Marek  22:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
So someone (we don't know who) may have been shooting at one plane, another plane falls out of the sky, and you automatically assume they shot the wrong plane? And you don't think that's OR? Does anyone even know where the An-26 was flying? Or at what elevation? And this speculation belongs in the lede? Really? USchick (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not assuming anything. No, it's not OR. It's straight from the Guardian and the Christian Monitor as quoted above. Who cares where some AN-26 was flying. Who cares about some elevation. *That* is an attempt (pretty blatant) at OR. Again, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you are not discussing the issue in good faith as you're sitting there denying the obvious. Even after the sources have been quoted directly. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that you are merely obfuscating to push a POV because you don't DONTLIKE what reliable sources say. Volunteer Marek  22:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources don't claim what you say. In addition, can someone please clarify something? If a guided missile is programmed to hit one plane, is it possible for it to go off course and hit a different plane in a different location at a different elevation? They weren't shooting a sling shot. It was a guided missile, right? USchick (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
See WP:NOR. Volunteer Marek  01:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources don't claim that it was the same plane. The only person making that SYNTH is you Volunteer Marek. USchick (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be having a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. From the source above, already quoted several times, "lending credence to the theory that the rebels mistakenly downed the Malaysian airliner". From the other source "All this creates the impression that Girkin claimed responsibility for the downing of MH17, thinking it was a Ukrainian military transport, and then panicked and tried to hide the evidence after the truth came out.". You really can't just pretend that the sources don't link Strelkov's claim to MH17 because it's right freakin' there. Volunteer Marek  01:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Lending credence to a theory from a news reporter is not the same as an expert opinion. Can we please be consistent about how we choose sources and what theories we're willing to support? There is no expert opinion in the article. There is no investigation that supports this idea. The entire thing is based on a questionable personal profile that was later rescinded. None of this belongs in the lede. USchick (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what your point is. You also seem to have changed your story. Before it was "the sources don't support the claim". Now, that that was shown to be total bunk, it's something about "lending credence to a theory". It belongs in the lede because it was widely covered in reliable sources. Volunteer Marek  01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
It may have been covered at one time, but since then is has been discredited. It was a wild theory from the beginning, just like lots of other theories. And yet, it remains in the lede. This is why people are complaining that some editors are pushing a POV agenda in this article. USchick (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, apart from being covered by reliable sources, all this information collected from different places makes perfect sense. What a tragedy. Lklundin (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@USchick. Sources. Volunteer Marek  02:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin: Actually, it doesn't make any sense, never mind "perfect". To quote from the article (my addition to it): "The SBU later concluded that rebels intended to shoot down a Russian airliner in a false flag operation to give Russia a pretext to invade Ukraine, but shot down MH17 by mistake.[144][145]" However, the lead says "after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement, and the post was taken down." But according to the SBU, the plan always was to shoot down a civilian aircraft. Not only is this article incredibly biased, but the editors who don't see a problem with it aren't even bothered by its being incoherent. – Herzen (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Another source: "Different versions of the events surrounding Flight MH17" [16] USchick (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Um... so... you think article is biased... and as evidence you quote... a portion of it which you added yourself? How does this work? Volunteer Marek  02:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Huh? I quoted the title of an article from a reliable source that outlines different versions of events. I'm asking editors to consider this source and to include all the versions, not just the one Buk version, which is POV. USchick (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
How did you come to the conclusion that the Malay Mail Online] is an RS? An unattributed article by an online publication run by unknown quantities is reliable because no one knows anything of substance about it other than they 'try' to be reliable must, of course, be reliable on the grounds that it exists? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec, @USchick) I wasn't responding to you, but Herzen. And no, the article you linked to does not in any way support "including all versions". It just outlines various theories which at one point or another have been put forth by someone or other. Most of them pretty ridiculous, like that the real target was Putin's plane or that the plane contained already dead bodies. The source makes no pretense that these are all equally valid theories, and neither will we. The BUK version is the main version as described in reliable sources. If we had an article on Conspiracy Theories about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, as I've suggested before, then that source would be useful for it. But this is a different article. Volunteer Marek  03:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the original list of sources Czech [17], Vietnamese [18], Spanish [19], Italian [20], German [21]. The theories being considered are 1. SAMs theory, 2. Air to air missile, 3. Other weapons. This article only talks about one version, the SAMs version. Including this information would bring balance to the article. USchick (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Uh, putting aside the question of reliability, these sources don't state what you say they state. How does the German source present "more than one version"? Your Vietnamese link doesn't work. The Czech source just repeats that "Union of Engineers" "report" (previously discussed). Volunteer Marek  03:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Now that an admin is here to review for sanctions, now you're interested in discussing the article Volunteer Marek? Thank you for your interest. The German source says "Western countries believe that the Boeing was shot by a rocket from pro-Russian rebel." This is the only version of events outlined in the Wiki article right now and ignores all others. A number of editors are challenging this viewpoint. I will work on the Vietnamese link if you're serious in your effort to collaborate. USchick (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What admin? What are you talking about? I have been discussing this article extensively. I *started* the discussion on the tag. Mostly against my better judgement, as it has been a tremendous time sink and a reasonable person might conclude that you're here just to obfuscate. Volunteer Marek  04:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
There are three editors begging for balance in this article, so I'm sorry if we inconvenience you. The Vietnamese article is no longer working, but here is a Malaysian one instead [22] USchick (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
NST doesn't work as a source for this article. Consult the archives. Geogene (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
In the archives there is the hint that NST is used as a source for thousands of WP articles: [23]. It's an ordinary, traditional newspaper, with some political bias, as I guess about halve of the sources used in this article have. --PM3 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
World Net Daily is also used as a source in a very large number of WP articles, although it has been decided that it shouldn't be. But I only oppose using NST in this particular article, I'm sure most of its uses elsewhere are fine. Geogene (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I wondered how a military person could take the Boeing for AN-26, which is a turboprop... It is doubtful that Igor Girkin himself would make such a mistake... Usernick (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Ok, I have checked it. The post is shown http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/17/malaysian-airlines-mh17-reported-crashed-just-after-rebel-leader-boasted-of-shooting-down-plane-we-warned-them-not-to-fly-in-our-skies/ . According to this source "An hour before news of the crash, Igor Strelkov reportedly wrote on Vkontakte, a popular Russian social media website, “In the district of Torez an An-26 was just shot down. It crashed somewhere near the Progress mine. We warned them not to fly in our skies.” Also, "The message was sent about 30 minutes after the plane is believed to have gone down. The post was later deleted and another post went up, blaming Ukrainian government forces for shooting down the passenger plane." Hence, Igor Girkin did not claim responsibility, at least personally. This is in contrast to what is stated at http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0717/Web-evidence-points-to-pro-Russia-rebels-in-downing-of-MH17-video and in the Wiki article.Usernick (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Andriy Lysenkos statement

I have separated this from the previous section because it concerns another part of the article. --PM3 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Do you think this should be kept in:

On 28 July, Ukrainian security official Andriy Lysenko announced, at a press conference, that black box recorder analysis had revealed that the aircraft had been brought down by shrapnel that caused "massive explosive decompression." Dutch officials were reported to be "stunned" by what they saw as a "premature announcement" and said that they had not provided this information.

This paragraph is misleading, because it only mentions that Dutch officials "had not provided this information", whereas the fact of the matter is that the DSB report directly contradicts Lysenko's claim. So either that fact should be mentioned (and no, that would not be SYNTH, it would be avoiding readers getting misinformed), or the whole paragraph should be deleted as UNDUE. (I did not start a new section because this claim was discussed above.) As far as I can tell, the Independent story which is the sole source for this paragraph was obsoleted when the DSB preliminary report was released. The article preserving information which turned out to be false just leads to confusion bloat and confusion. – Herzen (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"DSB report directly contradicts Lysenko's claim" No, it does not. A sudden termination of the recording is consistent with explosive decompression. I note that you keep insisting on pretending the CBS News report does not exist, but it does exist, and you haven't provided any evidence the presumption of reliability there should be overturned. The DSB is officially less than forthcoming when it comes to what they think the evidence means, at least at this point. Someone affiliated with the DSB is more forthcoming as an anonymous source to CBS News. Using the additional sourcing is consistent with WIkipedia policy.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
And people accuse me of conspiracy theorizing. – Herzen (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on that. The DSB report does not directly contradict. On the one hand the information presented by Lysenko has not been confirmed afterwards by any experts, on the other hand it was cited in lots of reputable sources. In the German article we discussed if after it was added to the English article and decided to discard it because it's just rumour. But the German article has other policies than the English. --PM3 (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think he wants to point out the absence of any "explosive decompression" in the DSB report. The aircraft simply "broke up". Alexpl (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You replied quicker than I did. My problem isn't with absence of "explosive decompression" (as I recall the alternative theory of the Russian engineers postulates explosive decompression), but whether the FDR revealed anything useful to investigators. – Herzen (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Can't one conclude on the basis of the DSB report that the statement "black box recorder analysis had revealed that the aircraft had been brought down by shrapnel that caused 'massive explosive decompression'" is false? The report says that the flight data recorder revealed no information on what led to the destruction of MH17 or how it occurred. Yet the passage as it currently stands in the article asserts that the FDR did reveal some information about this. We know more now than we did when that Independent report appeared. – Herzen (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
No, you cannot conclude that as you do not have the evidence to do so. See what I said above.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"A sudden termination of the recording is consistent with explosive decompression." - Is that based on a reliable source? Hard to imagine. If "high energy objects" just cut all cables to the recorder in the same moment, the recording would stop without "explosive decompression". Alexpl (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think sudden termination of FDR is consistent with explosive decompression, but does not necessarily imply it. On the basis of the FDR suddenly terminating, it is possible that there was explosive decompression, but it's also possible that there wasn't. – Herzen (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Vadim Lukashevich

I am doubtful about this edit. In the source [24], this "military expert" says that the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown. That's OR which is not backed by reputable sources. Also, he overstates the Boeing model number error (778 instead of 787) -- even the DSB got those numbers wrong and wrote A330 for a 787. Regarding the Su-25 maximum heights, I read many different statements. There are different Su-25 models with different versions out there.

So I assume that this is no reliable source and suggest to remove it. --PM3 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Kravietz:. Stickee (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a blog, and a Russian one at that. I thought WP policy was not to consider blogs to be reliable sources. There are plenty blogs I wouldn't mind using as sources, but it wouldn't occur to me to cite one in an article. I even refrain from mentioning blogs in Talk pages. Incidentally, the word used in the title of that blog post, "врет", is much more emotive than "lies", so the very use of that word makes the reliability of that source dubious. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, Lukashevich missed flaws in the Russian source which are more important than the plane type number and need more expertise, e.g. a self-contradiction regarding the flight route. This makes me even more sceptic. --PM3 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@PM3: Sorry for asking you this instead of looking back in the archives, but what is your opinion of the Russian engineers' report? After I saw the discussion about primary sources (which I take that report to be) not being verboten, it occured to me that that report may be worth revisiting. I ask you because you are effectively our resident aviation expert. – Herzen (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As you can read German and it is offtopic here, please see [25]. --PM3 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"That's OR which is not backed by reputable sources." What's OR is your contention that CBS News is not "reputable". Just to make things clear: OR is only something that a Wikipedia editor can be guilty of, not a source.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course an external source can be WP:OR - when it publishes a theory which was not reviewed by any reliable second source. The CBS article says that the findings are consistent with a missile blast. The findings are es well consistent with a shoot-down by aliens. Though it would be OR if someone says that the FDR data shows that it was an alien shootdown. Agree? :-) --PM3 (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Taking a look at what WP:OR says about itself: The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be...' Is an external source adding material to a Wikipedia article? No? Then how could it be guilty of of adding material that doesn't satisfy the "must" part? As for your "aliens", why are you objecting to "the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown" as some sort of contentious claim if that could be caused by aliens? If nothing is implied about responsibility then who is the victim here?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is what the DSB report says:
All engine parameters were normal for cruise flight. No aircraft system warnings or cautions for this flight were detected on the flight data recording until the recording ended at 13.20:03 hrs.
PM3 politely politely calls that OR; others would call the claim you quoted a lie. – Herzen (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
PM3 did not say "That's OR which is not backed by the DSB report", he instead claimed "That's OR which is not backed by reputable sources." If "the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown" is a lie then CBS News is lying because that's effectively what CBS News says: "massive explosive decompression" is CBS quoting "a European air safety official", an official who furthermore explicitly draws the link between the "missile" and shootdown causation with "It did what it was designed to do, bring down airplanes."--Brian Dell (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bdell555: This "official" was Andriy Lysenko [26], spokesman of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council. I.E. someone representing the Ukrainian government POV. And the Independend writes: His source however, is under scrutiny after the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) confirmed they did not give the information to Ukraine. [27] Poor research by CBS. --PM3 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Now THIS is classic OR. The Independent is RS. CBS News is RS. But neither source says Lysenko and "a European air safety official" are the same person. That's your OR. Now OR that is confined to a Talk page is actually fine, but it has to be convincing, which your OR is not, since there doesn't appear to be any evidence Lysenko has ever had anything to do with "air safety" such that anyone, including CBS, would recognize him as an "air safety official."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This story was published in the end of July by many media, including the Independent and CBS, all citing the same phrase "massive explosive decompression" and attributing it to an "Europaen official" or "Ukrainian official" or "Andriy Lysenko". WP:OR does not prohibit us to use common sense when evaluating sources. It's very likely the same news message, so it's safe to assume that it is no reliable information, as the origin very likely is the Ukrainian government. Of course we must not write into the WP article that CBS was talking of Lysenko, that would be OR. But using this own conclusion to discard the CBS article is no OR, as OR only applies to what is added to the article, not what is left out. (We might use the Independent instead, becaus it looks like a more reliable source for this issue.) --PM3 (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
My common sense tells me that Lysenko using the CBS News story as his source is far more likely than CBS News using Lysenko as their source and then misleadingly describing him as an "air safety official." Given that Lysenko is a professional spokesperson for the Ukrainian military, CBS would be arguably colluding with the Ukrainian government to render him anonymous. It'd be like using the White House Press Secretary as one's anonymous source and calling him a Western air safety official. It's an unfounded allegation of conspiracy. In any case, the issue here is whether Lukashevich is a reliable source, not Lysenko, and with CBS News backing up Lukashevich, to undermine the CBS story you need better proof that their source is a professional Ukrainian spin doctor than your unlikely speculation. CBS News is presumptively RS until demonstrated otherwise.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The term "OR" (original research) does not refer to the process of adding material but to the added material. Adding is no research; the research was done by the person how constructed the material.
As well as claiming "the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown", you could claim "the flight recorder data confirmed a sudden implosion and an alien shootdown". While the latter one is less likely, both is not covered by any reliable sources. --PM3 (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to the material. WP:OR applies to how it's added, and WP:OR exists because it is possible to edit in such a way as to write Wikipedia text where each element satisfies verifiability but is put together in an "original" way such that there is a conclusion suggested that is "over and above" what the sources support. As for your continued effort to sidetrack and confuse this discussion with aliens, I will bring this back again to what I told Herzen, namely, that "the flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown" is "effectively what CBS News says" (meanwhile, that story effectively says NOTHING about aliens). As such, "not backed by reputable sources" is not true.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Bdell555 is correct. "OR" applies to editors, not sources. Sources are supposed to do OR. Volunteer Marek  04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OR: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. There are no reliable sources for serveral things that Vadim Lukashevich wrote, therefore these things are OR. --PM3 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes but this is in reference to actions by editors. Lukashevish here would be THE source for the info, so it's not OR. Having said that, I think this is not a reliable source, so should be excluded on that basis. Volunteer Marek  04:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The action by an editor was to copy Lukashevish's OR into the WP article. --PM3 (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If this was a reliable source, that would've been fine. But it's not a reliable source, so yes, we should remove it, if it hasn't been removed already. Volunteer Marek  04:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 Done – Herzen (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what happened there. I thought I undid the edit that PM3 linked to at the top of this section, but it's not showing up in the history. No matter. Volunteer Marek undid it. – Herzen (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Lukashevich PhD does not need to cite any sources if he, himself, is a reliable source which I think he is (to the standard required for use with attribution) and I accordingly dispute the removal. If he's unreliable, "flight recorder data confirmed an explosive decompression and a missile shootdown" is not the point on which he is unreliable, backed up as it is by CBS News. There is no blanket prohibition against "blogs", WP:BLOGS instead says "exercise caution" about "self-published sources." It would be more accurate to say that this is published by the Echo of Moscow Club. According to WIkipedia, "Among the site's authors are [several prominent individuals] and a number of other experts, who have sustained national and international acclaim in their areas of expertise. The Echo of Moscow site is an authoritative source of information, and its publications are regularly cited, relied on and reproduced by major Russian internet publications and other media sources."--Brian Dell (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

An edit war! Somebody said, after I got referred to ANI for edit warring exactly a week ago, that edit wars happen on weekends.
@Bdell555: If three editors agree that something should be removed, I don't think that you, the sole editor arguing for its preservation, should undo that removal. Also, you don't hear what PM3 wrote about the CBS story. – Herzen (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the party to originally add the material so it's 3:2 at best for removal and Marek agrees with me concerning the validity of PM3's OR argument. I read what PM3 wrote about the CBS story and have noted that it's editor speculation that fails to undo the presumption of reliability to which CBS News is entitled to. I've provided reasons here for considering Lukashevich a reliable source and absent any disputing of those reasons I edit. Instead of trying to shame me or intimidate me with talk about ANI you could address those reasons for deeming the source reliable that I just provided above.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
First, a Blog posting which has not been replicated by reliable secondary sources ist not usable for this topic. Second, Vadim Lukashevich's posting is unprofessional, as can be seen
  • by the wording (see Herzens comment to the word "lies")
  • by the fact that he replicates the story of "flight data recordes show that it was an explosive decompression", which has never been confirmed later and is unplausible - as to the DSB the recordings just stopped without showing any anomaly
  • by the fact that he missed flaws like the contradicting information on the flight route in the Russian material which an expert easlily wourld detect
So it is very questionable if he knows what he is talking about. --PM3 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
For the time being, as you noticed, I've moved the passage in question to the "Russian media section". It certainly belongs there, because the blogger talks about how he appeared on a Russian radio program and about other Russian media coverage of MH17. (Incidentally, one uses the word "delirium" to describe the thinking of someone you disagree with much more often in Russian that you do in English. "Delirious lies" was incorrectly translated in that passage by "absurd lies". Russian has the exact same word for "absurd" as English does, and the blogger did not use that word. – Herzen (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen: Is "military expert" backed by the source? --PM3 (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
At the Web site, he's described as a "candidate of technical sciences", which Yandex (the Russian Google) translates as a PhD. He's also described as a historian and a writer. Doesn't sound like a military expert to me. He seems to work for some kind of steel construction company. Wikipedia says about the media outlet his blog belongs to that "some observers describe [it] as 'the last bastion of free media in Russia'": that does not sound to me like a place a military type is likely to be associated with. By that I mean that Echo of Moscow must be a bastion of the liberal anti-Putin "fifth column", of which I do not imagine there are very many in the Russian military. By the way, I looked at the comments to that blog post, and they almost universally trash Putin and Russian generals. So much for Russia being a totalitarian society. You never see that level of criticism of authority at any American news site. My guess is that only pro-Western, anti-Putin "liberals" go to that Web site. Oddly, it is owned by Gazprom. I think that shows how convoluted Russian power structures are. (Sorry for the digression.) – Herzen (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
So if a source is Russian, it's only reliable if it is anti-Western and pro-Putin?--Brian Dell (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't saying anything about the reliability of secondary sources. I was merely answering a question by PM3, and giving reasons why it is unlikely that the blogger in question is a military expert. – Herzen (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You try to declare russia a liberal country because one guy is bold in his blog? Please remember WP:Forum. Alexpl (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you accused me of using WP as a forum, I am not going to answer that question. – Herzen (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. Sole reason why I added Lukashevich's article is that he is indeed recognized expert in Russia and was frequently speaking on various topics related to MH17 and Ukraine in Russian TV (just have a look here[28]). Also, the reason why I described him as "military expert" is that it's how he's presented in the Russian TV programs I watched. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This source says that Vadim Lukashevich is "Ph.D., a well-known Russian expert on the combat effectiveness of the aircraft systems, along with the world's intelligence agencies believe that Malaysia's plane was shot down by system Buk and he does not deny the catastrophe has not been without the "aid" of Russia." (Translated article note: automatic translation with low technical quality).PauloMSimoes (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just based on principle - we want to have only high quality sources in the article - I'd still exclude this. Even if he is a recognized expert, it's still a blog. If this was picked up by some other sources I'd be ok with including it. But including this can potentially open up doors to inclusion of all kinds of sketchy stuff. Better to set the standards high to begin with and work from there rather than playing wack-a-mole with sketchy sources. Volunteer Marek  06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fake Recordings

The voice recordings that were used as evidence by Ukrainian military have been shown to be fake. http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/741521 This should be added to the article. Why would someone fake evidence, unless they wanted to frame someone? 118.210.196.217 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Already there "The SBU released another recording, which they said was of pro-Russian-separatist leader Igor Bezler being told of an approaching aircraft two minutes before MH17 was shot down. Bezler said the recording was real, but referred to a different incident.", section "Cause of crash". Alexpl (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As above. Already mentioned. Stickee (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive us, Netherlands

The following statement is not encyclopaedic and should be removed from the article: "On 25 July, the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch that read "Vergeef ons, Nederland" ("Forgive Us, Netherlands")." Who is in favor? 118.210.196.217 (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "not encyclopaedic"? It's definitely notable and relevant:
MH17 crash: Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta prints front-page asking Netherlands for 'forgiveness'
Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta prints front-page apology for MH17 disaster in Dutch
MH17 Disaster Prompts Heartfelt Apology From Russian Newspaper Novaya Gazeta
Russian Newspaper Issues Front-Page Apology for Flight MH17
"Novaya Gazeta newspaper has published this front page, with the headline translating to "Forgive us, Netherlands""
Malaysia Airlines MH17: 'Forgive Us, Netherlands' – Moving Frontpage Tribute Printed by Russian Newspaper
‘Forgive us’, Russian newspaper appeals to the Dutch over MH17 tragedy
Russian newspaper prints front-page MH17 apology
Russia condoles MH17 plane crash, says 'forgive us'
Plus all the ones in Dutch [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Stickee (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Novaya Gazeta article was published just days after the event, so they could not have known the truth. Plus given that it is Russian, it is not a reliable source. Playing your game now :) 118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
So you now argue to remove all Russian sources/opinions? Please go ahead.; and clean out that section. But don't play games with your interpretation of what is going on just to make a point. Arnoutf (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, please stop playing games.
However, undue weight is an issue here. Why report a headline in a minority Russian newspaper, when the global mainstream publications' views don't get a proper mention? You know my views on this - global media opinions and theories (mainstream only) should be listed in a section titled Global Media Coverage. A separate section on only Russian media, breaches Wikipedia neutrality policy, especially when the article states that the Russian view is the odd one out, which it is not - there are many other global views with far greater weight, omitted in this article. But, as restructuring from scratch is seen as too much effort, let's correct the article piecemeal - I say take it out. Only the mainstream media opinion should be included in this section, or we will be obliged to start including non-mainstream views from other global regions for the sake of being even-handed. Tennispompom (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This in not a matter of "mainstream views", but reliability of sources. In countries with state political censorship (like the Soviet Union or Russia today) most sources on politically important events are highly unreliable or distribute outright disinformation. There are a few exceptions: some newspapers with independent editorial boards and reputable journalists. Such is Novaya Gazeta. It represents mainstream views - in the worldwide sense. Now, speaking about Ukrainian news organizations, most of them are highly critical of Poroshenko government, indicating their independent position, unlike position of Russian media that relentlessly praise Putin, just as they praised Stalin. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't use Novaya Gazeta as a source for "mainstream views - in the worldwide sense" in a section entitled Russian media Coverage. It doesn't make sense in two ways:- First, one can get much better (authoritative) sources for that view from the big international media houses. Why scrape the barrel? Secondly, in the context Russian Media Coverage, it is textbook undue weight.

Instead, use mainstream Russian media - happy to look up - something like Pravda, RT, such like. RS is not at all a problem - see WP:NEWSORG for explanation. Tennispompom (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It has already been pointed out often enough, that all of the media, you ask for, are actually state controlled and have been extensively used to spread false information or disinformation in the past month. All russian state media together are one, single source - not many different. Which disqualifies them for use in Wikipedia:Exceptional. Alexpl (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. The current text states: " the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta ...". Hence it doesn't say that NG represents "mainstream Russian opinion", or that it represents "mainstream worldwide opinion" or anything of the sort. It correctly describes the source. The IPs contention that this sentence is somehow "unencyclopedic" is just an empty assertion. It's just more of this WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  18:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire Network How do you like this a s a source? Would that be acceptable? USchick (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
What does that have to do with this discussion?  Volunteer Marek  19:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking if you accept this as a reliable source. USchick (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
And I'm asking what does that have to do with this discussion? Anyway, the answer should be obvious to anyone familiar with criteria for reliable sources. Volunteer Marek  19:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously what's obvious to me is not at all what's obvious to you, and that's why I'm asking. USchick (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong place to ask. But the answer is no. Volunteer Marek  19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Alexpl, and everyone, Alas, it's been pointed out too often, because state control is irrelevant in this case.
There has been a major misunderstanding on this Talk page re what the Wikipedia policy on current events actually is. Reliable SECONDARY sources are NOT applicable in this context. Here's a very useful and clear quote from WP:PRIMARYNEWS:
However, Wikipedia fairly often writes about current events. As a result, an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources".
The same Wikipedia doc goes on to list examples of Primary Sources, e.g.: Eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, Interviews and reports of interviews, Investigative reports, Editorials, opinions and op-eds. Some of these are Defined as a primary source by policy. What this means is that if one attempts to use them as secondary sources, one is falling foul of rule on No Original Research. Please read the article and follow the link, it takes you directly to the OR policy page.
The Media coverage section doesn't need secondary sources, it needs primary sources - BY DEFINITION! Tennispompom (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No, reliable secondary sources are applicable in this context, like everywhere else on Wikipedia. We don't need primary sources, except in some very limited circumstances. We don't do original research. Volunteer Marek  19:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Tennispompom Euhm no, it not falling foul of original research, although it claims a level of reflection typical to secondary sources that is unwarranted. Also please do not start something that does not follow from the previous discussion as that is asking for conflicts because you almost force people to place comments at the wrong place. If it needs to be said, start a new thread.
Re Voltaire Network USchick- The policies on reliable sources do mention that for news type sources the reliability should be judged on a case-by-case basis. So without revealing exactly what information you suggest to use from the Voltaire network your question is irrelevant. Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing they want to use an article VN reprinted from Oriental Review [34]. It's junk. Not reliable in 99% of cases. Volunteer Marek  19:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
(clarify) OR being one source which did a lot to publicize that fake letter from Prof. Hamelink [35]. A website (not a journal) which specializes in bullshit. Volunteer Marek  19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, Media coverage of current events is just such a limited circumstance. Did you read the link I provided? It's there in black and white. If you still disagree with what it says on WP:PRIMARYNEWS, we should ask for clarification from the Wikipedia policy makers. Tennispompom (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know that link but I have no idea how you get the conclusion "we don't need secondary sources" out of it. Volunteer Marek  19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek and Artnoulf, let me address both your comments: All depends on what statement you want to substantiate. Contrast the two statements:-
"MH17 was downed by BUK", source PRAVDA article
"PRAVDA says MH17 was downed by BUK", source PRAVDA article
If one wants to establish that MH17 was downed by BUK, and are using PRAVDA as a source, then Pravda is being used as a secondary source, and it is necessary to establish that PRAVDA is a reliable secondary source (i.e. not state controlled, etc). Does the Article on MH17 want to establish one particular theory as true? No, that would be original research.
But, if one wants to establish the fact that PRAVDA believes that MH17 was downed by BUK, then Pravda is being used as a primary source, and all that is needed is that any educated reader can go to the Pravda article and confirm that Pravda indeed did write so. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD explicitly states:
"Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True™. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does."
By treating all media views and theories as Primary sources, which we are instructed to do, we are able to include all mainstream theories in a neutral way. : WP:PRIMARYNEWS states clearly which types of media reports are Primary BY DEFINITION, and directs to page on OR for policy clarification.
I've now explained why secondary sources are not applicable in context of media views of current events. We were all mislead by the the statement that "reliable secondary sources" are required for neutrality. Not so. If you still have doubts after reading the links, I suggest that we take it to the Wikipedia policy makers for confirmation, no point arguing amongst ourselves what the words on Wikipedia policy pages mean. Tennispompom (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
For now, just note that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is not a Wikipedia policy but an essay. While some essays get quoted a lot and have a measure of support in the community, generally essays are nothing more than glorified talk page comments. The ranking is policy > guideline > > > > essay. Volunteer Marek  22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


After your comment, I've reviewed the core Wikipedia policy docs again, and they are fully consistent with the contents of the references I provided. To avoid a long post here, I'm happy to respond in detail on your user page and include references to the CORE POLICY, showing how they are consistent. Let me know, I have already prepared the extracts. Alternatively, you might be prompted to re-read the core policy again yourself. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are most pertinant in the context, in that order. Neutrality is not negotiable.
It is surprising to see you invoking the relative authority of Policy-> Guideline -> Essay, etc. because you have been quoting references to the Documentation supporting the TEMPLATE:POV source code to override Core policy documents - incorrectly. To give an analogy, that's like quoting a Software Developer's comments on source code of an Online shopping application to override the Laws on Trading Standards.
The Core policy WP:NPOV states
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
In section "Spurious Tag again", User:Volunteer Marek quoted from the Template documentation, to support the incorrect view that only secondary sources are acceptable:
The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.
I've raised this on the TEMPLATE:POV Talk page, and the published decision states:-
The policy is WP:NPOV. It is one of the WP:5 pillars of wikipedia. To the extent that the template documentation is useful it is to underscore policy. The precise language of the template is not all that critical, but the precise language of the policy is. Refer to that instead.
There is no requirement for "secondary" in this context. Can you accept it now? Tennispompom (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
True, but (to come back at your earlier example) for a primary source we should quote it as "Pravda states..." (what Pravda may or may not believe we cannot know. However if we agree on using primary sources, suddenly the relevance of the source itself (rather than the content) becomes important. So now we have to determine whether the opinion voiced by the Pravda (a state controlled newspaper from a state according to itself having no involvement whatsoever) is more important then the opinion of a newspaper in Fiji.
In short it shift the discussion from WP:RS to WP:UNDUE and that is not trivial in this case. Arnoutf (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Very good point. If we reinstate the deleted section on Stakeholders (entities directly involved in the crash), it will become evident whose opinion is important and who is posturing for political gain. USchick (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tennispompom Of course there is still a requirement for secondary sources. Primary sources may be acceptable in limited circumstances. This is no different than thousands of other articles on Wikipedia.
@USchick, we are not restoring that WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:NPOV violating section. Even the very word "stakeholders" is a piece of POV original research that some Wikipedian invented out of thin air. Volunteer Marek  17:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
USER:Arnoutf, USER:Volunteer Marek, USER:USchick, I'm so happy I could hug you!!! Consider yourself kissed smack bang in the middle of your forehead behind which intellect resides. Finally argument which is rational, impersonal and by reference to the Wikipedia rules. Excuse the outburst - I had almost lost all hope.
You are absolutely right - the relevance, due weight, no original research rules, etc. all have to be dealt with too. It's not hard - I've worked out how to do it. An article must comply with all the policies, and I have given them some thought (quite a lot of thought and research through the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays library). I can see how to make this article fully compliant with WP and would like to pass the information on, before I bow out. My chest infection is gone, I go back to work tomorrow, and won't have any time to waste on pointless arguing.
PRIMARY SOURCES ARE ALLOWED AND ADVOCATED BY WP POLICY
We've now established that in the context of media coverage, primary sources are advocated by WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:NOR. Thus, diverse global media views can be covered in the article without being excluded on state control et al. grounds. No need for us to prove that what they are saying is true, it is enough to report that they say so. So if China Times (does such a paper exist?) publish an article stating their view on causes, it doesn't matter what they believe and whether they have been coerced into publishing, what matters is that they published it in order to influence their readership and form public opinion. (I.e. they are ACTORS in this media game, not just sources.) In Wikipedia, we are not required to prove that the media source's vision is true (that would be taking sides, a no no in Wikipedia world); we required to report what they said neutrally.
RELEVANCE AND UNDUE WEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS
But we can't report what every media source in the world says, and how they change their story over time, we have to address significant views in a neutral manner, avoiding original research (synthesis) accusations. So which countries views should we take into account, given that we are not allowed to come up with our own lists?
BY POPULATION SIZE
In order to cover multiple points of view, Wikipedia WP:NOR requires that "editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.". English language Wikipedia does not restrict itself to the English speaking world, its domain is global. Therefore, the majority views will be represented by size of population, in sequence:, e.g. China, India, US, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Japan, Mexico and Phillipines, all with populations above 100M.
But, the list based on significant populations by population size has a problem in that it excludes media views in countries directly impacted by the event, such as Ukraine (43M population), The Netherlands (17M), which is intuitively unfair, so what other lists do we have which are relevant in the context of MH17?
BY PARTICIPATION IN OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION
There is the list of countries which are participating in the official international investigation lead by Dutch Safety Board (no problems finding a source listing them, e.g. DSB Preliminary report itself). These countries are, in order listed by DSB, Netherlands, Malaysia, UK, US, Ukraine, Russia and Australia.
COMPROMISE SOLUTION
However, if we only include the views of media of countries involved in the investigation, we inadvertently exclude the vast majority of the global population, and thereby the views most likely to be neutral (taxpayers not paying for it, etc.) The total populations of countries involved in the investigation are about one third of the population of China - we can't exclude China if we want to be impartial. Therefore, in my RESTRUCTURING PROPOSAL Section, I suggested we have a Media Coverage section in the Article with two subsections 1) mainstream media views in countries participating in the Official investigation and 2) mainstream views in other countries.
To keep the inclusion list manageable, I suggest including only mainstream media, the chances are that the views of the minority press are already covered by one of the other countries mainstream media anyway, and we have to draw the line somewhere. Undue weight applies - and this is not a party political issue within a single country where opposition views are significant, MH17 crash is an international incident.
As for "Other countries list, the line can be drawn at various points, e.g. China and India only, representing two thirds of the world's population, or perhaps the top 5, or maybe only those with pop. over 100M. Not all have expressed a view, so perhaps list could include those who expressed a strong position, e.g. Germany. As long as our objective is neutrality, it should be possible to agree.
MEDIA COVERAGE OVER TIME
I further proposed a lower level breakdown by time period, because as time passes and investigations are concluded, the media views may also change, and it would be sensible to anticipate future article additions. I was prompted by reading an excellent Chinese article published a few hours after the crash, listing almost all theories involved in this blame game. The paper was one which is viewed as a mouthpiece of the Chinese Government - and what better source would one want for a statement showing how China wants to influence it's public opinion, ideal. What struck me was that within 8 hours of the crash, the majority of the cause (blame) theories had already crystallized. I also noticed that after the publication of the report, the media stance changed subtly from constructing their respective theories to justifying them by reference to what the DSB preliminary report said.
I'm open to suggestions re temporal breakdown. On the one hand, the media role in the incident is likely to remain historically important long after the causes of the crash are known, so the changing stance of the media in role of influencing public opinion, also matters. On the other hand, the article could grow to be too big. The decision to restrict to CURRENT Media stance doesn't need to be made now - my inclination is to allow for time breakdown, because too many items already included in the article would then have to be taken out, risking another edit war in a fragile situation, also - in these early post crash days - the article isn't too big yet.
NOTABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
Any suggestions to split off the Media Coverage Section to a separate Article should be strongly resisted on the grounds of notability. The Media section will only have Primary sources within it, failing on notability for independent article. Also, Media Coverage is an important attribute of the MH17 event and should stay with the Article on that topic, where there are no Notability issues.
SIMPLIFICATION THROUGH NEUTRAL STRUCTURE
Arnoutf, you once suggested to me that you thought the article should be much simpler. I agree completely, as long as no one confuses simpler with smaller. Smaller, would be good too, as long as Neutrality is maintained, and that means including only the most important points in a neutral way, which in turn means that we need a neutral structure, along the lines of the Restructuring proposal I made earlier. There is a WP guideline on Structure, I read it, but didn't record the link. it should be easy to find.
ADMIN OVERSIGHT REQUIRED
On a different topic now, this article won't be going anywhere unless ADMIN are appointed to oversee the behaviour of the editors. There is no shame in the "Neutrality Disputed" badge, but oh boy, this Article must be the shame of Wikipedia by the way that it's editors are arguing amongst themselves. The discussions have almost entirely abandoned rational discussion on the topic of how to write the article, and degenerated into very aggressive bickering about the relative merits of one MH17 theory or another. Shame on all who have resorted to this, and they exist on all sides of the opinion divide.
When the ADMIN eventually arrive to keep everyone within the Wikipedia policies, there could be a spin off benefit from the polarized views of the current editors, for example the pro-Dutch editor could take on the Dutch Media Section, while the pro-Russian editor could take on the Russian media section, etc. and they would have an interest to produce highest quality report. Perhaps they also speak the language, which would help a great deal I suspect. I may volunteer to do China and India coverage, unless there are Chinese and indian speakers.
REFERENCES TO OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES
This leads me to something I have not checked, but which should be checked carefully to stay within the bounds of Wikipedia neutrality rules. By providing references to other Wikipedia articles, e.g. to provide the wider context, we should be sure that there are no circular and other references where the editors involved here, are also editors of the Referenced articles. There is potential for mischief, whether or not it is happening and there are Wikipedia rules covering it. When reputation of Wikipedia is at stake, Wikipedia rules should be observed rigorously.
Arnoutf et al., due to it's size, you (or anyone else) may want to copy my comments to a new section within the Talk page, I have no objection if you do.
Wikipedia editing has been quite an experience, but now I have to go back to work and won't have as much time. I'll remain a Wikipedia User, and will contribute from time to time. I will certainly be following this page with avid interest! Good luck, Tennispompom (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is too long too read in full. I stopped when I got to: "We've now established that in the context of media coverage, primary sources are advocated by WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:NOR. ".
We have not established this. WP:NOR most certainly does not advocate using primary sources. Quite the opposite. I guess under some readings WP:PRIMARYNEWS might (though even there the reference is to "breaking news" and such, and this isn't that anymore), but that's just an essay not a policy or even a guideline.
There are very good - almost fundamental - reasons for an encyclopedia, any encyclopedia, to eschew usage of primary sources as much as possible. One way or another it almost always leads to synthesis and original research. And that's not what encyclopedias are about. This is especially true in an encyclopedia which is written by volunteers rather than hand picked experts (since at least with experts you'd get half way decent original research, here even that won't be the case). So at the end of the day we really need "sources which talk about how sources cover this event". In other words secondary sources. Volunteer Marek  19:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is only one answer to the above Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf and User:Volunteer Marek, as you din't have time to read my comment, why did you spend time in replying to it? Your answers to a comment you didn't read are meaningless. Tennispompom (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I read it up to the first majorly flawed premise. Volunteer Marek  20:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There are headings, includes structure and sequence, you can read it one step at a time when you have time to think. Tennispompom (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Volunteer Marek for reading part of the way. I do appreciate it.
Re your 1st point - Yes it does, it's in Core Policy NOR, section WP:PSTS, Primary Bullet point, which says: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. That's what a media opinion, report, etc is - BY DEFINITION!
Re 2nd pt, you say: "So at the end of the day we really need "sources which talk about how sources cover this event". True, when writing about an event which is in the past, and the facts are known, e.g. an article on the battle of Waterloo, but on an evolving current event, where even the investigation isn't complete yet, let alone any court trial, reliable secondary sources (i.e. authoritative analysis) do not exist yet, however much the media from all parts of the world, would like us to believe. All media are jumping the gun, trying to influence public opinion. Wikipedia isn't in the business of rubber-stamping media speculation, which - at this stage - is what it is. I.e. stay neutral, use as Primary source - report what the media say, not that they are right. We simply don't know. Tennispompom (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that "the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch...". As such, there is no issue here about the reliability of sourcing, unless someone wishes to contend that we all cannot believe our own eyes.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, but the problem is due weight, as I've explained yesterday. Please read the top few entries. Tennispompom (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I see that no one has argued back re my undue weight comment on 19 Oct, and take that as tacit agreement (i.e. consensus). I therefore intend to remove the item from the article over the weekend, so as the old adage says, speak now or forever hold your your peace. Tennispompom (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I read it up to the first flawed premise. Volunteer Marek  07:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Being the last person to comment doesn't mean your comment is "correct". Especially when there's multiple comments above it that disagree. Stickee (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiegel on German Secret Service report

Der Spiegel is reporting that the German secret service (BND) has reported on their analysis. Apparently has concluded that it was indeed a BUK missile and that it was fired by the rebels; and that all other reports were false. Should we mention this, or wait for more reliable sources to confirm/analyse. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reuters has it now too: Report: Germany blames pro-Russian rebels for MH17 crash. Here's the English language Der Spiegel article: [36]. Stickee (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, they said the ukrainian audio recordings were fake, and the russian presented evidence wasnt useable either. But the pro-russian readers started to cry for foolproof evidence in the commentsection of that article, so better leave it aside here, to avoid the same reaction, until we have more. Alexpl (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let's wait how this developed. We may hear more of this over the next few days, as Dutch parliamentary parties have asked this evidence being reported to the Dutch parliament, and apparently German parliament has been/is to be briefed as well. Better to wait until more details are made public.Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, Spiegel says the German briefing occurred on 8 October, and that information is only being published now. Spiegel was only released a few hours ago, but over the next 24hrs the other news agencies will pick up on it probably. Stickee (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This is all consistent with indisputably "majority" view about the event: the plane was shot down by a BUK missile fired from the rebel-held territory. However, it still remains a mystery who exactly (which person or team) operated this BUK, where this BUK came from, who issued the order, and why they did it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
If the article said what My very best wishes just said, we would have a balanced article. The majority view is that the plane was shot down by a BUK missile fired from the rebel-held territory. However, it still remains a mystery who exactly (which person or team) operated this BUK, where this BUK came from, who issued the order, and why they did it. USchick (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am pleased that you do not require the mentioning of the super-capable SU-25 in order for the article to be NPOV. Lklundin (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This has been my position all along. Can we work toward consensus in this direction? USchick (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting what MVBW means. No surprise there. The title of the Der Spiegel piece is, quote: "German Intelligence Claims Pro-Russian Separatists Downed MH17". So as far as German Intelligence is concerned there is no "mystery" as to who, broadly speaking, shot down the plane. Pro-Russian Separatists. Now, what *is* a "mystery" as to who actually "pulled the trigger"; the actual rebels, Russian mercenaries, Russian soldiers or special forces units (if so, which ones)? And whether the BUK was one that the rebels captured, or one directly supplied (and operated?) by Russia.
The error is in the phrase "from rebel-held territory". MVBW is probably assuming good faith and wrote that with the expectation that editors would take that to mean the same thing as what Der Spiegel said "by pro-Russian separatists". But this has not been a good faithed discussion. USchick immediately jumps on this ambiguity to pretend that "we don't know who shot down the plane". Volunteer Marek  19:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Arnoutf: I would have no problem with this being mentioned in the article now. I wanted to add a previous Spiegel article about the German government saying something about MH17, the Keine "gesicherten Erkenntnisse" story, but that was blocked because it didn't support "the truth" pushed by editors. As for how this is "developed", the FAZ is ignoring this thus far, which suggests that this is just another one of those accusations against Russia or the rebels that der Spiegel regularly makes. Since this crisis began, der Spiegel has followed the most anti-Russian line of any major German media outlet. A little crystal balling: this is meant for internal German consumption (Merkel taking a hard line against Russia is unpopular in Germany), and the US intelligence community will not confirm any of this. By the way, Spiegel now has an article about the rebels denying this latest accusation from der Spiegel, saying that they do not have the expertise to operate a Buk system, which of course they don't. WP should mention this, too. – Herzen (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
False statement by Herzen. FAZ has the story right here and I note that it had been there on faz.net for more than 12 hours before Herzen came along to claim it wasn't there.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It was not on the FAZ's Ukraine page and still isn't, so I assumed the FAZ is ignoring this. Funny how holders of "the truth" cannot desist from making personal attacks and assuming bad faith. (The edit summary says I should "start telling the truth".) – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Then why not tell the whole truth then and say, here, that you ASSUMED something instead of presenting your (false) assumption as fact? Funny how the Kremlin crowd here just shrugs its shoulders and complains about another editors when their claims are proven false.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Der Spiegel and Reuters are both excellent, high-quality sources used frequently on Wikipedia. That's not to say theirs is the definitive take, or that German intelligence is infallible in this (or any) case, but it is unquestionably notable and should be presented in the article with due weight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Due weight requires mentioning that the BND believes that the rebels used a Buk system they took from the Ukrainian military. That contradicts the countless stories about Buk launchers crossing the Russian border. Also, nobody ever claimed that the rebels ever took more than a single Buk launcher from the Ukrainians. A complete Buk system consists of a launcher, a command and control vehicle, and the primary radar unit, and as far as I know, nobody ever claimed that the rebels took the latter two from the Ukrainians. – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That's fine...what's your point? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The story is being re-reported in other outlets: [37] [38]. Even RT has it, though the way they put it German intelligence actually blames a "Ukrainian militia" (you know, Right Sector or something. Just when I think RT can't get any worse, they surprise with a new low of dishonest scumbaggery). This should go into the article. Volunteer Marek  21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's just your "Anglo-Saxon POV" that finds "Germany’s intel agency says MH17 downed by Ukraine militia" a misleading title, Marek. All reporting, in fact, can be explained in terms of the presence or absence of an "Anglo-Saxon POV". Or so we're told.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The RT's chosen title makes perfect sense since they had to accentuate that Spiegel is not accusing Russian army. The RT's report is completely clear. Usernick (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What's perfectly clear is that RT removed the "prorussische Separatisten" association between Russia and the militia that was in the original Spiegel report and misleadingly replaced that association with an association to "Ukraine". It's the sort of intent to muddy the issue that must a reader interested in accuracy must always be on watch for when reading RT.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Brian Dell, I think that Spiegel did not have a right to use the expression "prorussische Separatisten" because they did not know the state of minds of the persons who supposedly operated the Buk. There are people in the east of Ukraine who fight for control over whole Ukriane, including Lviv, i.e. not all fighters there are separatists.Usernick (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It was the head of German intelligence who used the expression. Does Spiegel "not have the right" to quote someone?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The article in Spiegel does not even mention that they have talked to this guy; apparently, it is based on hearsay, but it is bad reporting that they are not completely clear on whether they quote this guy directly or indirectly. In any case, please notice how DW has titled their article: "Spiegel: Review finds rebels shot down MH17 in Ukraine" (http://www.dw.de/spiegel-review-finds-rebels-shot-down-mh17-in-ukraine/a-18006712). You see, rather many people consider Poroshenko's army as rebels against the legal president, Mr. Yanukovich. It means that for them this title would mean smth different. I mean, RT has not reported worse on this story when compared with Spiegel and DW. Usernick (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Spiegel uses quotation marks and there is no ambiguity about that. If you don't think Der Spiegel is a reliable source then take it up on the reliable source noticeboard. You really are shameless when you misrepresent DW as suggesting that "rebels" could possibly refer to "Poroshenko's army". There is no way DW would agree that they imply that in any way.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I understand your use of the word "shameless" as an abuse. Second, your accusation is unfounded: I did not state that "DW would agree that they imply that "rebels" could possibly refer to "Poroshenko's army" ", but I stated that there are people who consider "Poroshenko's army" to be rebels. Hence, your accusation of me in misrepresentation constitutes another count of abuse. Also, your misrepresentation of my words is an abuse. The reports on the Poroshenko's army are indeed not inspiring http://www.newsweek.com/evidence-war-crimes-committed-ukrainian-nationalist-volunteers-grows-269604 . With regard to Spiegel, I wrote what I wrote, you can try understanding this again. Usernick (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate the work you have been doing here, but I follow Novorossiyan Web sites and news fairly closely, and I have to say that I have never seen anyone on the Novorossiyan side think about "Poroshenko's army" as rebels. So I know of no people who consider "Poroshenko's army" to be rebels. The thinking is that even though Yanukovich is the legal president to this day, the violent coup was successful, so that soldiers in the Ukrainian army are not rebels, but soldiers in the new government of Ukraine. (And before someone accuses me of pushing POV or engaging in OR: I am just trying to explain how the rebels think, something which it is useful for editors to understand.) – Herzen (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I saw this expression used as I said in some discussions on facebook and also heard from a Chinese friend. In many cases Poroshenko's army people still wear masks, as rebels would do. Usernick (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Alexpl: They did not say that the audio tapes were faked. From the context, I think they are referring to the sattelite images which the Ukraine presented to refute the Russian satellite images and says that both are fakes. --PM3 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't clear on what that referred to either, but I just figured my German wasn't good enough to understand and I'd have to wait for English source. But what you're saying makes sense. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. I´m not a fan of secret service officials as sources. No matter from what nation. Alexpl (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Alexpl: So you suppose to remove all intelligence sources from this article, including US and Ukrainian sources? This would also mean to remove the phone audio recordings, they were published by Ukrainian intelligence. --PM3 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No, we keep it. Phone recordings, German intelligence, Russian stuff. Just make sure to properly attribute everything. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@PM3: I take it that you mean the recordings in which rebels allegedly discuss the downing with their GRU handler. Those are obviously fake, if for no other reason that the recordings indicate that the rebels thought they had shot down a Ukrainian military plane, whereas the SBU's current story is that the rebels wanted to shoot down a Russian airliner. So I actually would appreciate you removing those. – Herzen (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
They are not "obviously fake". We've been over this a dozen times. There's one guy in the SBU who thinks the ultimate purpose was to bring down a Russian airliner in a false flag operation. Who knows if Girkin was in on it? Who knows if the rebels on the phone were in on it? There's no contradiction here, unless one tries really really really hard to find one. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen: You just violated the administrative restrictions for this page with your "obvious fake" thing, because it is OR which straightly contradicts the souced information in this article ("one of the involved persons acknowledged that these conversations took place"). Please stop that. --PM3 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see how I violated anything. I just looked at the top of this page, and all it mentions is the article itself, not the Talk page. I think I've mentioned before that it would be impossible to carry on discussions in Talk if one were not allowed to engage in OR. OR is prohibited from articles, quite rightly, but not Talk pages. If my use of the word "obviously" is construed as combative, my apologies, and I will try to be more careful. I was just honestly expressing my opinion, and I don't see how anyone can find that objectionable without dropping the assumption of good faith. Volunteer Marek's points are accepted, and I will try to avoid bringing this up in the future, although I think that to call the director of the SBU "one guy in the SBU" is a bit tendentious. – Herzen (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You have good reason not to trust intelligence officials. Here in the US, intelligence officials perjure themselves before Congress with impunity. But their being untrustworthy does not mean that what they say is not newsworthy. By the way, a reason not to trust them in this case is that they did not release any photos. Nor did they release any evidence that Russia faked anything, something which it has no reason to do. Russian intelligence does not usually employ such crude methods. – Herzen (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't seen anyone use the term "Anglo-Saxon". The terms used are "Anglophone" and "Western". (Maybe I shoould start using "Atlanticist".) – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Funny how you bother to see if RT has it but I don't. Of course RT has it. It is very careful not to appear biased about such things. Now if the NY Times and the Wash Post pick this up, things will get more interesting. So far, not even the Guardian appears to have picked it up (judging by a cursory Google News search). – Herzen (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"(RT) is very careful not to appear biased about such things" - I'm sorry, but this is straight out of some Bizarro Upside Down Alternative Reality World. Volunteer Marek  23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Guardian is not expected to quickly pick up on stories - rather they are known for bringing not previously reported information. Just a small example in relation to MH 17, the Guardian was the first to actually get a Dutch prosecutor to clarify the details on the victim with the oxygen mask. (The big deal being of course the story on Snowden). And yes, RT generally picks up on stories brought in Western media, but they are sure to spin it to the opposite effect. Consequently, one needs to read RT in order to discuss with a Russian, in order to understand their view of the world and how they got it. As for the BND report, I hope it contains some specifics (not just "the pro-Russian separatists did it") to stifle the conspiracy theorists. Lklundin (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
German Google News currently gives a count of 218 sources for this story, English Google News gives 47. Not all are of them are reliable sources, but I think the big impact in the media is indisputable. --PM3 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What "BND report" are you referring to? I am not aware of any report; the Spiegel article only mentions a briefing. And the Spiegel article is sloppy, as I said below. If what appears in the printed version is longer than what is in Spiegel online, then a German Wikipedian should get it and read it and tell us if it contains anything interesting besides what is at Spiegel online. And finally, I think I have made the case conclusively that the prevailing Russian theory should not be called a conspiracy theory in the "Time article" section. Time does not use the term "conspiracy theory", unlike the editors here who know the truth. Good points about RT, though. – Herzen (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
the Spiegel article is sloppy, as I said below Original research. Not a forum. Etc.  Volunteer Marek  23:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Why did you put the Spiegel report in the lede? I was the first to say that the report should be placed into the article immediately, but nobody said anything about putting it in the lede. Sorry, but it would be different if US intelligence was making these allegations, but so far it hasn't. And the Spiegel report is sloppy, because it does indeed speak of a "BUK air defense missile system", but a Buk system consists of three components, of which I have not seen anyone claim that the rebels had more than one. Finally, these are just the usual allegations made by intelligence officials without providing any evidence. So due weight most certainly does not justify putting this in the lede. At the very least, this should get major coverage in the Anglophone press, which it hasn't thus far. – Herzen (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not put it into the lead but move it downwards there. It nicely fits to the previous sentence on the same topic regarding Malaysia. I have no strong feelings on where in the article it may be placed, but I think the different intelligence and prosecutors' statements on this issue should be grouped. --PM3 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It was Bdell555 who put it in there. And yes, it fits nicely where it is now. Stickee (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a relief, because I like to think of PM3 as a neutral editor. I do not dispute that it "fits nicely" there. But reading the lede, I noticed this zinger: "after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement" (which could be SYNTH; I am too lazy to check the sources), because as I point out periodically, according to the SBU, the rebels always believed that they were shooting down a civilian aircraft. Sorry for the digression. – Herzen (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The way that RIA Novosti reports on this story is an even bigger hoot than the way that RT does [39]. Their headline is "German Intelligence Agency Chief Says Kiev Falsified Data on MH17 Crash". They do say at the end of the article that BND (which they just gloated about saying Kiev "falsified data") blames the rebels for downing the plane, but then they quickly follow up with that usual bullshit line about "but no evidence has been provided". Nothing about the fact that BND says Russians falsified data. If there was ever any doubt that RIA Novosti and RT are just simply NOT reliable sources, this right here makes that crystal clear.

Reading between the lines though, from the RIA Novosti article, it does look like "faked evidence" refers to some photographs, not to the phone conversations. Volunteer Marek  23:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the separatists already refused the Spiegel story. For the case someone wants to mention that (translation by me):
The separatists in Eastern Ukraine refused the BND assesment that they were responsible for the crash of flight MH17. They had not the military experts needed to launch the "Buk" air defence system which alledgedly was used for the shootdown, separatist leader Andrej Purgin on Sunday told in Donezk according to the agency Interfax. He said operating such a system was very complicated. [40]
--PM3 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I put a copy edited version of that in the lede? As I said above, due weight required that this be included, but of course, I was ignored. – Herzen (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It's called spin. Everything RIA reports there is true. Nobody has ever claimed that RIA does not put spin on stories. So this report making "crystal clear" that RIA is not a reliable source is not the case at all. It's clear from the German Spiegel article that the photos reported as fake were ones produced by Kiev; I hadn't noticed that before. Also, Spiegel doesn't report that the BND claims that Russia faked anything: all it says is that the BND's position is that "Russische Darstellungen … seien falsch." "Darstellung" means presentation or account. English Spiegel translated it as "claims". As I said above, Russia has no reason to fake anything. – Herzen (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It's called spin. Nah. It's called lying. Volunteer Marek  00:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Kindly quote a sentence or passage from that report which is not true. – Herzen (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh please. Look. If it helps you sleep better at night to imagine a distinction between "spin" and "lying", that's your business. But it's pretty obvious RIA Novosti is lying their asses off here. The Spiegel article is about how German Intelligence concluded that the rebels are responsible for murdering the civilians on this flight. But RIA Novosti re-reports this: "Ukrainians faked their evidence!". It's like some bad Radio Yerevan joke gone horribly wrong. And honestly, it's indecent. Although that word is probably not strong enough to describe it. It's down right evil. But hey, like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Volunteer Marek  04:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It is certainly not the case that everything from RIA is true. June 2014: "300 тел без внутренних органов" (300 bodies without internal organs [harvested by Kiev's forces]). Now click on "тел" (bodies). It's a hyperlink to a graphic image that originally appeared in an account of Chechnya atrocities, in particular a 2001 operation for which none other than then President Putin can take responsibility. A RIA editor had to have generated that bogus hyperlink because no mere source, however dubious, controls their website.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
When did I say that everything RIA reports is true? I was talking about this specific article. And I ignored the stories about the 300 bodies, btw. The NY Times has published plenty of stories that it had to retract, so RIA occasionally making a mistake means nothing. Who knows who linked to that photo or why? The problem is that exaggerated claims about the number of bodies in common graves were published, not some link, which is a relatively obscure matter. – Herzen (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
No, the "problem" is not "exaggerating" claims about the "number of bodies", the problem is disseminating a conspiracy theory about Kiev forces engaging in organ harvesting. It isn't just the sort of inflammatory falsehood you find in an indisputably unreliable source like Globalresearch.ca, it IS "reported" at globalresearch.ca! The fact a false photo was hyperlinked just highlights how deliberate and un-"mistake"-like it is. Pravda at least allowed that it is "possible that such messages are fake propaganda news bits aimed at denigrating the Ukrainian authorities."--Brian Dell (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to defend or even read this particular article, however I would like to note that not all terrible stories are conspiracy theories. For example, the Ukrainian problems with organ harvesting were reported in http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-01/organ-gangs-force-poor-to-sell-kidneys-for-desperate-israelis.html and http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/human-corpses-harvested-in-multimilliondollar-trade-20120717-2278v.html . Also, in the context of MH17, you can study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods , noting that this plan was developed and approved on so many levels in the US government. Usernick (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The reaction of Abbott, as well as of China or other BRICS countries, may be added to the lede "Germany's intelligence service believes Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels using a missile taken from a Ukraine military base, a German newspaper has reported. The finding contradicts previous claims – including by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and US Secretary of State John Kerry – that the missile was supplied by Russia.". Abbott said "I am going to be saying to Mr Putin [that] Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment – we are very unhappy about this" http://www.smh.com.au/world/prorussian-rebels-using-seized-ukrainian-missile-downed-mh17-passenger-plane-says-germany-20141020-118i9u.html Usernick (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Abbott's claims certainly do not belong in the lead. But mentioning that the BND contradicts Abbott's claims where those claims are currently stated might be viewed as SYNTH. Personally, I am not sure if anything needs to be done, since Abbott is a politician, and people tend to take what politicians say with a grain of salt. – Herzen (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that Abbott's words show Australia's initial position. I suggest adding them to the lead because they have been cited more and more in recent days in connection with Putin's visit to G20 meeting. I did not mean that it should be added that they contradict Spiegel's article. Rather, I find it kind of funny that they do, but it seems to me that the Spiegel's article is there for a certain purpose of the German government, this is why it is "semi-official": someone told us that the head of BND told to the commission that etc. A smart reader will notice the differences anyway. With regard to the Chinese position, it also should be added because they are in the UN Security Council, there are so many Chinese people in the world and because Putin is going to the G20 meeting due to the support of BRICS.Usernick (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting speculation as to why Spiegel published this story now. But bringing up the G20 meeting in this article seems like recentism to me. – Herzen (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, possibly. The Australia's POV seems to be very close to that of the USA and Ukraine, so I am not completely sure that adding it would illustrate the spectrum of POVs better. Chinese and BRICS POV(s) may be close to the Russian POV, but even if they are, then they may need to be added to satisfy the Weight policy. Usernick (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH. We can't say "this source contradicts this source". We say "this source says this" and then "this source says that". We assume readers are smart enough to judge for themselves whether or not there's any contradictions there, not ram conclusions and OR down their throat.
And I take it the "official line" has changed from "the Ukrainians did it, the rebels are innocent!" to "the rebels might have done it but Kremlin had nothing to do with it"? A step in the right direction I guess. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense.Usernick (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Did you look at the Sydney Morning Herald article? The most interesting thing it seems to find in the Spiegel article is that the BND's briefing contradicts claims that Kiev and Abbott have made. – Herzen (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by the "official line", but I am under the impression that the Kremlin and I think alike, and I can assure you that I do not believe that "the rebels might have done it". It is obvious that the Kremlin wants to distance itself from the rebels; Russian interests are of immeasurably greater importance to the Kremlin than the interests of the residents of Donbas. So the Kremlin has a significantly higher interest in it being clear that Russia had nothing to do with the downing of MH17 than it does in Western opinion not holding the rebels responsible. Russia only supports the rebels insofar as it does not view this support to harm Russia's own interests. This is a constant subject of discussion in the Russian blogosphere. – Herzen (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I still do not see this covered by any American paper, so I still see putting this in the lede as a case of WP:UNDUE and recentism. Funny how when I tried to put a Spiegel story about how NATO had no information from radar of a missile launch, editors found that that was not worth mentioning, but then when Spiegel reports that the BND thinks rebels downed the plane, that instantly gets put in the lead. – Herzen (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

PM3 has changed "an analysis which concluded that the Ukraine had published forged evidence, that Russian had made false claims" to "an analysis which concluded that both the Ukraine and Russia had published forged evidence" with this edit. His edit summary was

The reference here is the German original Spiegel article, which says "russische Darstellungen". "Darstellung" may be "pictures" or "claims", but in the context it must be both, as it can only refer to the Russian press conference of July 21.

Four points. (1) The reference here was the English Spiegel article. PM3 added the German Spiegel article as a reference with that edit. (2) This is English Wikipedia, so, since Spiegel bothered to translate their German article into English, we should go with Spiegel's translation. Spiegel translated Darstellungen as "claims". There is nothing in the English Spiegel article about any Russian photographs or Russian forged evidence, so that is all OR on PM3's part. (3) Here is the German text: "Ukrainische Aufnahmen seien gefälscht… . Auch russische Darstellungen … seien falsch." So what we have with the Ukrainians is gefälschte Aufnahmen (faked photographs), whereas with the Russians it is falsche Darstellungen (false claims/presentations/representations/interpretations). So PM3's assertion that the BND director said that both the Ukraine and Russia forged evidence is preposterous. (4) Here is how Australian Associated Press presents what Spiegel reported:

Schindler said Russian claims the missile was fired by Ukrainian soldiers and that a Ukrainian fighter jet was flying close to the Malaysia Airlines plane were false, according to Monday's edition of Spiegel.
He also said Ukrainian photos had been "manipulated", the magazine reported but did not elaborate on what the pictures showed, who had provided them or altered them.

I have to say that I find it absolutely mind-boggling that some editors accept without a moment's thought that Russia would falsify evidence, especially in such a grave matter. As I've said several times, Russia has no reason to fake evidence. The only reason people think it would do so is this idea that some editors have that they know the truth, so anything but the official US account of events (the US being the country which habitually starts wars and interventions based on false claims and evidence) must be a conspiracy theory. – Herzen (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to who falsified or manipulated what evidence, that can go in the article, but please, stick as close to the source as possible, rather than running away into original research. Probably be best to wait for a clarification as to what exactly has been falsified or manipulated. (Apparently Ukraine manipulated some photographic evidence but I'm not even aware of any Ukrainian photographic evidence). Likewise, let's leave whether or not this contradicts anything out of it, until we get a clarification. Volunteer Marek  21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I really don't see what is wrong with my edit which you undid. The lede says "The Ukrainian government says the missile was launched by 'Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia'", so my addition of "This finding contradicted claims that had been made that Russia supplied separatists with the missile." is relevant and provides some NPOV to the lede. The source for that sentence is the Sydney Morning Herald, which as I noted above seems to find this finding the most interesting aspect of the Spiegel report. PM3 self-reverted the change with which he deleted this sentence. So what do you find wrong with it? If the lede has accusations against Russia, NPOV requires noting that reliable sources qualify Russia's involvement.
As for my addition of "that the Ukraine had published forged photographs, and that Russia had made false claims": what do you find wrong with that? I practically wrote an essay above explaining why that is what the Spiegel article says. Your edit summary says: "Consensus with regard to these issues is to wait for more info." Nobody said anything of the kind. Some people said that we should wait, but that was about the whole Spiegel article, not two of the three points it makes. Why is it that we don't have to wait to report that the BND believes that the rebels shot down the plane, but we do have to wait to report that it believes the Ukrainian government forged photos and that Russian claims are false? This is a clear case of cherry picking if there ever was one. Please respond to the substance of my points, instead of dealing in vague generalizations.
There are multiple threads going on about how this article lacks balance and suffers from major cherry picking. So what happens when a new report emerges? Allegations in the report against the rebels instantly get put into the article, but something making the Ukrainian government look bad or exonerating Russia gets left out.
The edit you reverted was perfectly valid and completely supported by reliable sources. Please provide a cogent argument justifying why that edit needs to be reverted, instead of just making false claims in your edit summary. Another thing you said in your edit summary was "This doesn't reflect what's been discussed on talk." But note that PM3 did not reply to my long comment explaining what the Spiegel article says. So yes, my edit did reflect what's been discussed on talk. – Herzen (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Translating a foreign language source is not OR. And I don't see why why you want to leave the "contradicts" out of it. Both AFP and SBS pointed out that "Kiev and the West have previously charged" Russia with supplying rebels with the missile. Is adding the word "contradicts", which is not used by either secondary source, OR? I dont't think so. That merely adds clarity to the article. But I can leave that word out, if you insist. But there is nothing to wait for, since everybody agrees that the BND said the rebels got the missile from the Ukrainian military, and everybody knows that "Kiev and the West" charged Russia with supplying the missile. – Herzen (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The publication by Spiegel is vague. This is your interpretation of publication by Spiegel. According to an independently published interpretation of the same [41], "Russian claims the missile was fired by Ukrainian soldiers and that a Ukrainian fighter jet was flying close to the Malaysia Airlines plane were false", which could be mentioned as something basically consistent with majority of other sources. It also tells that Ukrainian photos had been "manipulated", but "the magazine reported but did not elaborate on what the pictures showed, who had provided them or altered them." Without such details, I think this is not worth inclusion on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
My edits have mentioned that the BND finds Russian claims to be false. If you want me to say what claims, based on secondary sources, fine. As to the "manipulated" photos, I explained above that the word used was "gefälscht", which is German for "faked". Here is what Spiegel's English translation says:
BND's Schindler says his agency has come up with unambiguous findings. One is that Ukrainian photos have been manipulated and that there are details indicating this.
If Spiegel saw fit to report this in a very short article, and other reliable secondary sources have picked this up and mentioned the "manipulated" photos, why on earth shouldn't Wikipedia mention this? The only reason I can find is you don't like it. Saying that "I think this is not worth inclusion on the page" is of no help at all. You have to provide a rational argument for why it is not worth including. That Spiegel doesn't specify what photos were faked doesn't matter. That the Ukrainian government falsified some photos, no matter which ones, is noteworthy in itself. To repeat, not mentioning that while mentioning that the BND thinks that the rebels shot down the plane is a blatant case of cherry picking. – Herzen (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Given how you were excusing the cherry picking engaged in by Kremlin-controlled media when Marek was objecting to it I wouldn't get on too a high a horse about how outrageous it is to cherry pick. I think people are missing an important element to this Spiegel story and that's that we are far more reliant on Spiegel than if the BND held a press conference. Reading the article, and the way people talk about it on this Talk page, you'd think that not only did the BND hold a public press conference but they came down from Mt Sinai with the Final Verdict. If the Americans made these claims would you nod along with them so readily? Yet the Americans have far more intel (e.g. satellite data) than the Germans could have. The article text should be attributing to Der Spiegel here given the fact no other media outlet has access to the original source. While it seems quite clear that the BND ultimately blames the rebels, for the other stuff when you are reduced to having to argue translation of language that is already third hand, you're pushing the envelope of "must include". The sense of conviction should be proportionate, and that's why it is not as "blatant" a form of cherry picking as you contend: it's unlikely Spiegel got it's headline wrong, it's more possible that other elements, mentioned apparently in passing and not repeated or not stated emphatically, are inaccurate. Again, it is not necessarily cherry picking to take the headline or key takeaway from a source and not also take every other detail. One's motive is relevant here.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The battleground attitude here is really getting out of hand.
Given how you were excusing the cherry picking engaged in by Kremlin-controlled media
RIA Novosti is a wire service. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Because it is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to maintain NPOV. Because RIA Novosti is not an encyclopedia but rather is a wire service associated with a particular government, nobody expects its articles to have a NPOV. Is that really so hard to understand?
The only reason I had to bring in translation was that instead of using the English Spiegel article as the source, PM3 used the German article, falsely representing what it said. As for your apparent claim that the cherry picking going on here is acceptable, this ploy of pulling justifications out of thin air (the only thing that Wikipedia can mention from an article in a reliable source is the topic that is mentioned in that article's headline) for the purpose of POV pushing is getting very tiresome. It is obvious to everyone that what is going on is that some editors are using any pretexts, no matter how flimsy, to put anything that puts Russia and the rebels in a bad light into the article, and to keep anything that puts the current Ukraine government in a bad light out. This has gotten so out of control that we even had someone who had never edited here before get a user account so she could help fix this. I'd never before seen someone join Wikipedia all on account of one single article being so utterly biased. – Herzen (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You've got the biggest battleground mentality going, Herzen, as demonstrated by your frequent tirades that fail to address the particular content issue at hand. What was your rant about Echo of Russia readers being "only pro-Western, anti-Putin 'liberals'" supposed to be about if "nobody expects" a source "to have a NPOV"? What's in fact a false representation is your contending that I ever said or implied "the only thing that Wikipedia can mention" is what the source title says. I instead disputed YOUR apparent contention that one can never call attention to JUST one thing in a source, a headline matter, and not also call attention some other non-headline thing in the same source. It is only your battleground mentality that transforms selectively taking the most important, least ambiguous, and best sourced element from a source to the exclusion of other elements as necessarily bad faith editing. This particular content matter is grey rather than black and white such that I am certainly not about to edit war over it.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm two minds about this. The main message of both the Der Spiegel piece and the BND report is that the pro-Russian separatists were responsible for the shoot down of this plane. That's what the report is about and that is the essential point and that is the one thing that should be in the article. However, the report also says that there's been some monkey business by both Russia and Ukraine in terms of presenting the evidence. We already knew that as far as the Kremlin is concerned so that's sort of NOTNEWS. But it does say that some Ukrainian evidence has also been "manipulated". I would very much like to see exactly what this is referring to because it's not clear from the sources. One source talks about some photographs. Another re-reporting of the story talks about the recordings. Another one says that there was some of it and "details can be provided". I'm not gonna revert the addition of this again - unless more info becomes available - but I do think that whether or not to include the auxiliary parts of the report is a judgement call and hence subject to editor consensus. Volunteer Marek  06:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The nature of the faked evidence was not exactly given. Remember, the story is based on an internal speech only, not something for the public. @Herzen: Come on. Ria is not NPOV any more. Controlled by Dmitry Kiselyov, it has become a tool to manipulate the public as Moscow demands. The idea that the Ukrainians executed large amounts of people near Donezk / a possible CIA link to the recent Ebola outbreak / or the fake news about the death of Gorbatshev last week - come to my mind without further research. Alexpl (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we have a misunderstanding here. What I wrote was "nobody expects" Ria to be NPOV. And I was never under the impression that Ria was ever neutral, not that that means much, since I'm not really that familiar with Russian news media. I don't think it's especially eccentric to believe that no news media are neutral, which is what I believe. To be honest, I trust Western and Russian blogs more than I trust Western and Russian corporate media. And the blogs I trust are ones that have a similar POV to my own. But blogs are deprecated as sources by WP policy (I do not believe that that policy is bad, because I would not like blogs which have POVs that I don't like to be used as sources), so I don't bring up blogs at WP. The idea that a newspaper can be unbiased is relatively new. It used to be that different newspapers adhered to the POV of particular political coalitions. You still have that to a certain extent today in Britain: the Guardian is associated with the Labour Party, and the Telegraph is associated with the Conservative Party. – Herzen (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Now we've got a reliable source using the word "contradict":
The new findings by BND contradict the existing claims of Ukraine and the West that the rebels fired on the MH17 jet with an advanced surface-to-air "Buk" missile, supplied by Russia. The German agency also said the photos and other images supplied by Ukraine was manipulated.
It appears that the International Business Times doesn't find the Spiegel story to be any more vague than I do, and it also finds the same aspects of the story to be noteworthy as I do. Finally, it also only speaks of the BND "refut[ing] Russia's claims", and makes no mention of Russia faking any evidence. I really don't know how PM3 got the idea that the Spiegel story said that Russia faked evidence. The story is minimalistic, but it is not murky or ambiguous.
A little piece of OR and crystal balling: that the BND lets Russia off the hook might be why the NY Times and Wash Post are ignoring this story: Washington wants all economic sanctions on Russia to be kept indefinitely, and the downing of MH17 was used as a pretext to put another round of sanctions on Russia. (Writing that paragraph made me look for the word "sanctions" in the WP article. The word does not appear. That should probably be fixed.) – Herzen (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You searched long enough for a crappy source to turn the orginal story 180° around. Even the pathetic russian state media didnt manage to do that. No value for our article, but entertaining none the less. Alexpl (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
That comment contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion. There is nothing there but IDONTLIKEIT. The editors who, unlike some of us, know the truth about MH17 should make a little more of an effort to hide their battleground attitude. A news story may place several parties in a bad light. The idea that "the orginal story [is turned] 180° around" shows that one is looking at sources strictly in terms of how they support one's POV. Thus, one is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push one's POV. – Herzen (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps one could include that Ukrainians and separatists debunked already the German intelligence claim. Official Ukrainian representatives asserted that none of their operational BUKs was ever taken by rebels, and a representative of rebels stated that they never had specialists capable of operating BUKs. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
If it would be for the purpose of improving this article then it should better quote a RS for the conclusion to forgo WP:SYNTH. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Several RS, including Spiegel, have reported that rebels responded to the Spiegel article, saying that they don't have the expertise to use it. I wouldn't say Ukrainians "debunked" the claim that the rebels stole a Buk launcher from them, since the BND obviously doesn't believe them. No reports I've read have said that Kiev has responded to the article. As a side note and a little OR, the BND's saying that Russia's claim that a Ukrainian fighter plane was flying near MH17 is false sounds fishy, because the German government said in September that NATO AWACS lost contact with MH17 half an hour before it crashed. Of course I am not proposing putting that into the article. Just reminding people that intelligence agencies don't reveal something they know in order to promote transparency. And the laconic nature of that Spiegel article is remarkable. I've asked German Wikipedians to tell us if the article in the magazine is different or longer, but none have done so. – Herzen (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
RS reported all that long before the Spiegel article. Many of the responsible Federation people left Ukraine weeks ago, I see litte reason to repeat the claims they made back then again. And I certainly dont want to read that AWACS crap again. For the AWACS rubbish you - again - chopped the old Spiegel article to the most useless bit of information and ignored the fact, that in the same article, they had written that they had more info on the MH 17 crash which they couldnt give to the public. I start to see a pattern in your activities here, which I call "counterproductive". Alexpl (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Atlantic [42]. It does say that the German results contradict the claim that the BUK was supplied by Russians. Rather, it was stolen by the separatists. It also says it was some photgraphic evidence which Ukraine monkey around with. And that Russian claims were false. It also says: "Gerhard Schindler, was extremely direct in his accusations, simply telling Germany's Der Spiegel, "It was pro-Russian separatists.""  Volunteer Marek  23:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Tlsandy, whose account was created in September, undid this edit of mine. Tlsandy has not made a single comment in this Talk section, so I consider that to amount to edit warring. I was really hoping my edit would not be reverted. I think it's fair to say that we had reached consensus. Volunteer Marek said

But it does say that some Ukrainian evidence has also been "manipulated". I would very much like to see exactly what this is referring to because it's not clear from the sources. One source talks about some photographs. Another re-reporting of the story talks about the recordings.

It is clear what the evidence is: photographs. All the sources say this, and the original source is quite clear. Marek says he saw a source that said that the evidence in question was recordings, but did not give a link. The Atlantic has now published an article abut this:

Schindler said there was evidence that Ukrainian photos had been manipulated. (The photographs were presumably of the missile-launch site, though the exact images were not specified to the public.)

So there is no question that the evidence was photographs; what is unclear is what they are photographs of. Marek agreed that evidence being manipulated is notable. The Atlantic also says this:

Thus far, it has been widely believed Russian forces provided the separatists with both the missile and the launcher, but the new report suggest the rebels actually stole the launch system. German intelligence officers believe the separatists "captured a BUK air defense missile system at a Ukrainian military base and fired a missile on July 17."

Thus, multiple reliable Anglophone sources have found everything I added to the article to be notable, so that the main point of the Spiegel article is that the rebels did it is irrelevant.. I really don't think there is a case for not including this material: there is only IDONTLIKEIT. Tlsandy's edit summary was "Does not go here". Who is an editor who has been here less than two months to tell other editors where something goes or doesn't go?

Since I wrote that Marek made a comment directing us to the Atlantic article. From his comment, I think that I can have some confidence that I have not misunderstood his position. (Sorry for duplicating some quotes from the Atlantic.) – Herzen (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Would you object to my reverting that edit to restore this material? – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You're close. I still have some problems with how this is worded: "This finding contradicted claims that had been made by Ukraine and the West that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile". Why not just say something closer to the source, like "it contradicted previous theories that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile". Also, AFAIK US, UK and Ukr, all said that they're sticking to the "Russia-supplied-it" story (if I understand them correctly). In the second sentence under contention I would change "forged" to "manipulated". Otherwise I'm fine with that going in. Volunteer Marek  23:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. As you might have noticed, I changed "forged" to "manipulated" in my comment above. "Forged" is an emotive term. The English Spiegel uses "manipulated", even though that's not really a proper translation of the original. I accept all your suggestions. I'll put the material back in in a little while.
I'd like to thank you for our congenial collaboration on this. Your support is very importat. I am probably more outspoken in Talk than any other editor about having the Russian POV on this, but I hope that you have noticed by now that when I edit articles themselves, I adopt a different mindset, and really do try to maintain a NPOV. And I have learned from you and Iryna Harpy about WP terminology. I never really became conversant with it until after this crisis started. – Herzen (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed and I appreciate it. Volunteer Marek  01:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that someone is edit warring when you've added in the same content 4 times is a little bit rich. I'm not sure that sentence should go in. So far there hasn't been any analysis of what contradicts what, so why do it now? Plus it already says that when it says it's a stolen system. Stickee (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not edit warring if you engage in sustained discussion of your proposed edits in Talk. So please stop the personal attacks. There were tons of news stories about Buk systems crossing the Russian border, so as several Anglophone sources have found, the BND's finding in this regard is notable. I don't know why you don't like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herzen (talk • contribs) 23:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I already said why: the article so far hasn't explained what contradicts what, even though sources have said it. Instead the article just states them without analysis. If we started to do that the article would be twice as long. It's already clear that it contradicts when it says it's a stolen Buk system. Stickee (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
What don't you understand from this sentence from my last edit to the article:
This finding contradicted claims that had been made by Ukraine and the West that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile.
The finding in question is that the rebels stole the Buk system from the Ukrainians. Nobody has claimed that the rebels have more than one Buk system. Thus, either the Russians gave it to them, or they stole it from the Ukrainians. Both can't be true. So my edit did "explaine what contradicts what". Is this really so hard to understand? Sorry, I can't figure out why you're getting upset. – Herzen (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Or wait. Volunteer Marek addressed this problem with his suggestion for a change in the wording. – Herzen (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand exactly what that sentence said. The article already says that the BND findings contradict that the missile came of Russia when it says "stolen Ukrainian Buk system". Stickee (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Why are you so adamant about this? If reliable secondary sources find it worth pointing this out explicitly, why is it so important for Wikipedia not to do the same thing? Also, it's conceivable that the rebels could have more than one Buk system, so not stating this explicitly is just misleading. – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see how that is misleading. The article states that rebels "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system", which already contradicts that a Russian Buk had been used. Stickee (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The article also says "The Ukrainian government says the missile was launched by "Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia"." "Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski warned about the dangers posed by the continued Russian military support for pro-Russian separatists, especially ground-to-air missiles." "Associated Press journalists reported that the Buk M-1 was operated by a man "with unfamiliar fatigues and a distinctive Russian accent" escorted by two civilian vehicles." "On 23 July, two Ukrainian military jets were hit by missiles at the altitude of 17,000 feet (5,200 m) close to the area of the MH17 crash. According to the Ukraine Security Council, preliminary information indicated that the missiles came from Russia." "On 19 July, Vitaly Nayda, the chief of the Counter Intelligence Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told a news conference, "We have compelling evidence that this terrorist act was committed with the help of the Russian Federation. We know clearly that the crew of this system were Russian citizens."" And even if the article did not repeat allegations of Russia being involved in the downing of the plane, several Anglophone reliable sources point out that "Ukraine and the West" had claimed that the Buk system was provided by Russia, so that this claim was made is notable for that reason alone. You have not answered my question about why you are so adamant about this. – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that still doesn't explain why the current wording of "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" is "misleading". Would you mind elaborating? Stickee (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hertzen. It is still widely believed that Russian military forces provided the separatists with both the missile and the launcher or even with a military team who accomplished the launch. This German report is just one of many sources. It does not provide any details and therefore not especially reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It was reliable enough to point the blame at the rebels, and that aspect got put into the article instantly. Der Spiegel is a reliable source. You find this article (or rather some points that it reports) to be unreliable because you don't like what it says. We take major Western news outlets to be reliable, period; we don't decide on a piece-by-piece basis which articles are reliable on the basis of whether we like what they say or not. The advocacy of cherry picking here is unbelievable. Reliable anglophone sources find the aspects of the report that I am trying to put into the article to be noteworthy, but some editors don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, but to POV push for the Kiev government and against Rupssia and the rebels. And what does what "is widely believed" have to do with anything? How many times do I have to repeat that Wikipedia policy is to present the relevant points of view, not to present "the truth" or the one "best view"? – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess most people really dont care for the Kiev government, or share the wierd Russian gov. obsession for everything from Kiev. The Spiegel article quotes a high ranking german operative who blames the Separatists and at the same time accusses both, Ukraine and Russia, of false play in terms of evidence they provided. Thats all. To quote WP rules, which you may just not fully understand, doesnt change that. Maybe ask Iryna for some coaching. Alexpl (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Your finding Moscow's concern that a neighboring country is immersed in an armed conflict, with the central government using artillery and air strikes against its own people, "weird" is itself weird. And the BND official (a director of an intelligence agency is not an "operative" did not accuse Moscow of anything. He just said Moscow's claims were false. And Iryana thinks I understand the rules well, thank you. Your condescending tone is uncivil. – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Were you not going to respond to my 00:18 comment? How does "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" mislead? Stickee (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall ever saying that "had used a captured Ukrainian Buk system" is "misleading". I used Volunteer Marek's wording for the phrase in question. Everything I added faithfully represents what reliable sources say and find notable, yet you reverted my edit. I really don't understand at all what your problem is with this edit. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: continued by Bdell555 at 00:42 in section CESI on BND report. Stickee (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting claims

The following sources say there are "Conflicting claims" about who is responsible: Slate [43], NY Times [44] Hindustan Times [45], "3 possibilities" Straits Times [46], "different versions" Jamaica Observer [47], and "wildly clashing perspectives on what downed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 and who was to blame" Voice of America [48]. I suggest we use the NPOV term "conflicting claims" and list those claims. USchick (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

All but the Jamaica Observer – which is an AFP story – and VoA articles are problematic, because they came out just a day or two after the crash. Some editors would argue that there were "conflicting claims" right after the crash, but since then so much evidence has been produced that only crazy conspiracy theorists could even think for a moment that anyone but the rebels might have shot MH17 down. Like the Time story discussed above, the AFP story is a response to the ambiguity of the DSB preliminary report. However, the AFP is less forthright than Time here, since it says, "A preliminary report from Dutch investigators, which said yesterday the aircraft was hit by numerous "high-energy objects", could back up claims that the plane was shot down by a missile, although the report did not apportion blame", it does not say that the report could equally back up claims that MH17 was shot down by a fighter plane.
Are you suggesting that the term "conflicting claims" is more neutral than "different theories"? If so, why? All kinds of claims have been made, but there are only, depending on your POV, one, two, or three theories of how MH17 was downed that are "well recognized".
The VoA article may contain material that could be used in the "Russian media coverage section". – Herzen (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm suggesting that "conflicting claims" is more neutral than "different theories." For one, a claim is just a claim (not a theory). For example, when the rebels claim they didn't do it, they're not assigning blame to anyone specific as part of some grand theory. They just claim they're not responsible. At this point no one claims responsibility, and that's a fact. The lede suggests that people claimed responsibility, which is misleading and leads the reader in a direction that sources don't support. If the US is blaming someone, than that needs to be made more clear in the article. First, it needs to be established that the US is not at all involved in this incident, and then, they blame Russian separatists. And then after that, the investigation is still ongoing and there are no conclusions at this point. This sequence needs to be established IMHO. USchick (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the exact proposal as far as the article is concerned?  Volunteer Marek  03:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to hear me out! For the article to be balanced, it's important to determine fact from sensationalism. We can do this in the lede: 1. Announce the plane crash. 2. There are conflicting claims about what happened. 3. List the claims without blaming anyone. 4. The US is blaming someone in particular. In this case, the US needs to be introduced as an interested party and why they have an opinion (since they're not involved) and state their opinion (as opinion, not fact, since they have no evidence). 5. Give the results of the preliminary investigation. USchick (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Now you're talking about something else. We've been over this. Stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No POV. Volunteer Marek  05:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You're pulling a mini Tennispompom. Even though your proposal has great merit, it currently has near-zero probability of getting anything like a consensus behind it. I find my time is better spent in finding ways of letting little snippets of a major point of view other than the truth slip through occasionally. – Herzen (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
"your proposal has great merit" if you ignore WP:FRINGE. We do not "list" every "claim" made by an unreliable source and then reduce everything to "opinion".--Brian Dell (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I wish someone would post a link of an actual discussion when "we have been over this" because all I remember is people saying no, without any explanation. USchick (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Did we not have an edit war over people posting comments out of sequence? Did editors not freak out over that and go to ANI? Are we being selective about that also? Does the hypocrisy bother anyone besides me? USchick (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as Tennispompom, they presented a lot of very good arguments that are being completely ignored. USchick (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No, we did not have an edit war over people posting comments out of sequence, we had an edit war over you moving other people's comments out of sequence. No, we didn't go to ANI over this, we went to ANI over you falsely accusing others of racism. No, there's no hypocrisy here, just you ... "misrepresenting the situation". As usual. Volunteer Marek  19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a proposal at the beginning of this section. I would appreciate some discussion about the proposal please, or a link to where it has already been discussed. USchick (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thats not a real proposal. You dont differentiate between the perpetrator "A" (who shot down the plane) and the party responsible "X". There are conflicting claims about "A" and A´s method of destroying the plane, but the guy responsible for this war in the first place is widely thought to be "X". Alexpl (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
By "X", I take it you mean Victoria Nuland. – Herzen (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You certainly make it hard to assume good faith on your part. And how exactly is your assumption supposed to improve the article? Lklundin (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It should not be that hard to figure out that I am acting in good faith. Alexpl made the gratuitous remark that there is a "guy" who "is widely thought" to be "responsible for this war". That remark does not help build an encyclopedia; it is a provocative instance of using Talk pages as a forum. My comment used irony to point that out. Since that irony evidently went over your head, you forced me to spell this out for you. – Herzen (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is a real proposal. If someone already knows what happened, they must have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. USchick (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Untold Story Documentary

A new documentary has come out called "MH-17: The Untold Story". http://rt.com/shows/documentary/197540-mh-17-crash-ukraine/ It claims that there was no BUK launch, because no trail was seen. The trail should last about 10 minutes in that weather. It claims that SU-25 Wiki pages have been edited to downgrade its ability to reach 10km. It shows an example of SU-25 cannon fire, which looks remarkably similar to holes in MH-17. They also interview witnesses who claim that a second plane was in the area at the same time. All of these are good candidates for addition to this articles.118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I love the smell of napalm propaganda in the morning. Lklundin (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
For once, please try to be mature and respond to the raised topic.118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
On reflection I believe your pitch for the RT story received exactly the response it deserves. Lklundin (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It is propaganda and nothing more. Tlsandy (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
We decided before that RT is generally not a reliable source for this page. So I don't see why this changes anything. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You never responded to my observation that you appear to be a SPA. – Herzen (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If you say that "we" decided something, you should give a link to where "we" made this decision. In any case, even if such a decision had been made, it does not apply in this case, because Western news outlets are taking this particular RT documentary seriously. Here is another story about this RT piece. – Herzen (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is getting so old. Anything that deviates from the truth is Russian propaganda and "Putin's alternate reality". If this were propaganda, a mainstream Western news outlet wouldn't have given serious coverage to this documentary, only to delete the story from its Web site, because the story undermines the current intense US anti-Russia propaganda campaign. How some editors can't understand that they believe that there is one true theory about MH17 only because Western propaganda is highly effective is beyond me.
After I wrote that, I went back to the original link, and it turns that this story has been put back on the IBTimes Web site. So thanks to Google, the effort to make this story disappear from the internet failed. – Herzen (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Was is getting old is the attempt to push the speculation regarding ballistics from a civilian aviator (Haisenko) and with it the super-capable SU-25. The latest attempt by rt.com (pushed above) even tries to argue that on the English wikipedia the specified service ceiling of the SU-25 has been reduced (from at least 10km to 7km) after the downing of MH-17. However, rt.com fails to notice the inconvenient fact that prior to the downing of MH-17 (when the desperate diversion of the super-capable SU-25 still had to be concocted) the SU-25 service ceiling was indeed just 7km. In the mindset of a state controlled news organ it must be hard to accept that the information available to the public is not just a matter of the will of the state. Lklundin (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
OR can't be used in articles, so you are wasting your breath. Also, see the next section. You haven't got a leg to stand on any more to push your one truth. – Herzen (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Nevertheless we are free to label a theory proposed by someone with exactly zero knowledge on military issues (Haisenko) as unreliable or fringe. His opinion is about as much worth as my claim the cause was a pulsating laserbeam from a high orbit North Korean satellite. Arnoutf (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If he wrote about his theory VKontakte, it would be fringe. If reliable sources report about his findings, it should be mentioned in the article. USchick (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there a point to your comment?  Volunteer Marek  21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are fringe comments in the lede and RS are being ignored. Why? USchick (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

CESI on BND report

Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence claimed that the original, classified BND report had much more details pointing to Russian origin of the "Buk" but it was sanitized prior to delivery in Bundestag.

  • "German intelligence service report on MH-17 flight crash was altered". Center for Eurasian Strategic Intelligence. 2014-10-22. Retrieved 2014-10-24.
Ok now we have a statement from some center that is self published. What do you suggest we do with this? Arnoutf (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The center seems to be a small anti Russian think tank (see their own website: [[49]]) so I think we should not take this as a reliable source. Arnoutf (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure who these people are [50] (no opinion on inclusion), but if they are right, the report by BND was partially a fake. This is not surprising, given it provides no details and contradicts many other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A report can't be fake, even partially. (Of course you say "partially" because you think that some parts of the report are true, namely those that support "the truth" known to you and others with your POV.) Only evidence can be fake. – Herzen (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
True a report is a report (it is, cannot be fake). That draft reports are sometimes changed to highlight or reduce claims for political reasons is very common; so nothing spectacular there. Arnoutf (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for inferior English. I linked word "fake" (see above) to disinformation - that is what all intelligence services do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not even sure this is intelligence service or government in general. A lot of draft reports are edited or reframed to avoid political issues. In this case placing no emphasis on Russia's role would fit such an action. Disinformation is something else i.e. the spreading of false information. Arnoutf (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed "This finding contradicted previous theories that Russia had supplied separatists with the missile and launcher." Besides the fact that one can argue that this is original research when the BND did not clearly say that their findings contradict a "theory" circulating in the "West", what exactly the BND said is coming to us third hand and this particular source (CESI) furthermore disputes it. When you are going to lead readers by the nose and present a "contradiction", one's sourcing needs to be of a very high standard. It is NOT the case that the BND held a press conference and announced that they've disproved something that got considerable circulation in Western media. If the third hand reporting is good, this was not the point the BND highlighted anyway. The bottom line is that reliability is not black and white with the report of testimony to German politicians that no one else reported on or had access to pure white and this CESI report pure black. What Wikipedia says should be appropriately qualified. That means not declaring, in the lede, not only "using a captured Ukrainian Buk system", but then using Wikipedia's voice to further highlight for the reader "contradiction" as if the reader could not come to that conclusion without Wikipedia's help. Business Insider is clearly unwilling to go along the "contradiction" claim since subsequently BI still reports that "The mainstream consensus is that Kremlin-backed Ukrainian separatists shot down the civilian plane with a surface-to-air missile provided by the Russian government". If you are going to overturn that consensus in one fell swoop, you need better sourcing than a incidental remark in a third hand account that is both absent public confirmation from the original speaker and disputed by another source.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is fair enough. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Several points. (1) This is the wrong section for this discussion. (2) You must not make false accusations against other editors. (3) Before you revert an edit (and that goes for partial reverts) which is being extensively discussed in Talk, you should first read that discussion. (4) I did not engage in OR, because the secondary source I added said "The new findings by BND 'contradict the existing claims of Ukraine and the West that the rebels fired on the MH17 jet with an advanced surface-to-air "Buk" missile, supplied by Russia." (5) It is you who are engaged in OR, because the secondary source International Business times did find that the BND contradicted what Ukraine and the West have said. That is why Volunteer Marek agreed to this edit. Thus, I based myself on a reliable secondary source; you did not. By bringing in CESI's speculation, you also engaged in SYNTH. (6) Please undo your edit.
P.S. Since I wrote that, you added to your previous comment. So: (7) If an editor makes a substantial addition to a previous comment, he should add a new timestamp to that addition. (8) I am not trying to overturn anything. Nobody has suggested that this one Spiegel article has overturned the Western consensus. That the consensus still holds does not imply that the assertions made by the BND, reported by Spiegel, do not contradict it. – Herzen (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
re (1) no, it is not the wrong section because I used CESI to support a subtraction, namely subtraction of what it contradicts. The difference between subtraction and addition has to do with burden of proof, something you don't seem to understand when you characterize my position as "do NOT contradict". At issue here is rather your contention that "DO contradict" is solidly sourced and fairly presented. As for (2), I suggest abiding by that yourself by not falsely contending, per (3), that I did not read everything related to this matter on the Talk page before editing. As for OR, I'd concede the point were it not for Wikipedia editing that cited Spiegel for the contradiction. When a source is drawing conclusions that the original source is not, that ought to be properly separated from the original source and ideally attributed as well when it is a judgment many other similarly positioned sources are not making. Re (5) see what I said about burden of proof. I do not need to cite RS in order to remove disputed material. re "Since I wrote that, you added to your previous comment", no, I did not. You did not "write that" (what proceeded your "P.S.") until half an hour after I edited my comment (according to the page history). The only thing you did between my revisions was sign your name to a comment elsewhere. I see no reason to clutter a comment with multiple time stamps when that comment has not yet been replied to. re (8) "not trying to overturn anything" if that's true then you should be fine with adding "The mainstream consensus is that Kremlin-backed Ukrainian separatists shot down the civilian plane with a surface-to-air missile provided by the Russian government" to this part, right? That would be an acceptable alternative to me.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I go with Brian Dell here. If we want to mention a 'contradiction' then we need high quality sources. Either a primary source (in this case BND) that explicitly (verbatim) states there is a contradiction; a secondary source held in incredibly high and universal regard who makes this analysis, or mainstream reporting from multiple reliable secondary sources. If have not seen either of these three. I would however not use CESI as argument as that is a very novel (est 2014) institute of which I cannot find any mainstream sources that hold it in high regard. I do agree this topic might have been better discussed at Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Spiegel_on_German_Secret_Service_report (although that thread is now unusably long) Arnoutf (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_20&oldid=1133810983"