Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

New "Criminal investigation" section

I noted above several times that the criminal investigation is where most interesting developments concerning MH17 are going to occur. Thus, I created a new Criminal investigation section. I found two other relevant sources besides the ones discussed here. I'm actually surprised that the article had said essentially nothing about the criminal investigation. I have taken into account objections that had been made to my presentation of the Spiegel interview. I believe that my edit fairly represents the Spiegel interview. Note that Reuters' take on the interview was "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner". A reliable source found this notable, so this fact must be kept in. I have made clear that even though the prosecutor is "open", he nevertheless strongly favors one theory. Thus, I include the quote "Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have happened differently." I just include the first sentence; I don't include the second one. But the "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence…" bit must stand, because the headline of the English Spiegel article is "Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'". Thus, according to English Spiegel, that is the most notable thing that Westerbeke said in the interview.
We need a new section about the criminal investigation. So please don't anyone undue my edit. This interview with Westerbeke is highly notable, and must be included in the article. If somebody thinks something needs to be changed, please bring it up in Talk, instead of engaging in aggressive editing. Note that I am following BRD: "When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." – Herzen (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, can you please put a heading on this comment, so it doesn't dangle off the bottom and I don't get in trouble again??? Please? :) USchick (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) USchick (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first source that says investigators are considering other theories. We have Malaysian Japanese and Singapore sources, but no one likes those and to this day we have no explanation why they're not acceptable. They were very early reports, and now we have a later report (dated today) that confirms all those early reports. USchick (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Our new SPA once again made an aggressive edit instead of following guidelines and raising the matter in the ongoing Talk discussion first. – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If this section is getting too long, I support the idea of a new article for the Investigation. USchick (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The section is long because of all the hearsay and speculation in the "Cause of crash" section. Now that there is a real criminal investigation underway, and the chief prosecutor has said "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site" (something the SPA with the username ‎Tlsandy instantly deleted), all of that hearsay and speculation has become utterly irrelevant, and thus should be removed from the article. – Herzen (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be removed from the article. For the thousandth time, you can call it "hearsay and speculation", but what it is is actually info from reliable sources. The existence of a criminal investigation does not change anything. Volunteer Marek  00:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) and to this day we have no explanation why they're not acceptable - again, blatantly false. This has been explained several times, you just keep pretending that it hasn't. In fact, it was explained to you in an ANI discussion which was started because you falsely accused an editor of being racist. So there's no way in hell that you can sincerely believe that "to this day we have no explanation". Stop playing games. Volunteer Marek  23:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of ranting, would you like to give the reason? So we all know? The section with the links is called "Conflicting claims" there's a proposal there, but there's no discussion there. USchick (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever "explanations" may have been given, they have become obsolete, given that Reuters has published a story with the headline "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner" and IBTimes has published a story with the headline "MH17 News Update: Pilot Was Targeted Right In The Stomach – Expert Alleges" (which IBTimes pulled from its Web site, but then put back again). The "game" has changed. The idea that considering the possibility that MH17 was shot down by a fighter plane is a conspiracy theory and FRINGE just doesn't work anymore. I'm sorry to have to break this news to you. – Herzen (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For further discussion, I would like to point out that Indian Reuters published this information. So now we have all kinds of foreign sources that contradict American sources. I like America (it's in my user name), but to ignore all these foreign sources, someone needs to provide a very good reason. If you need to me link them all in one place, just let me know. And we also need to explain in the article why America has anything at all to say about this event. They're on the opposite side of the globe and not at all involved in the crash. USchick (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please try to distinguish between America and the USA. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The IBTimes just notes that there's a video out there which claims that a jet shot down the plane. And that this is the official position of Russia. So what? That's already in the article. Haisenko is still a fringe source, this is still a conspiracy video, this is still junk (come on, use some common sense - pilot was targeted right in the stomach? Even if a jet tried to shoot down the plane that is just stupid). So no go.

With the Reuters story you guys are seizing - and misrepresenting the sensationalist headline. Why not focus on what the article actually says. Like "An interim report issued by the Dutch Safety Board, which investigates air crashes, listed several passenger jets in flight MH17's vicinity, but no military aircraft that would have been capable of shooting it down.". All that the article says is that prosecutors will consider all possibilities, even the unlikely ones. It does not say that the prosecutor considers all theories equally possible. In fact it explicitly says that that isn't the case. This is just another attempt at pushing a POV in this article. No go. Volunteer Marek  00:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin, yes, please excuse me, US sources. USchick (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So the headline is both "sensationalist" and "misrepresented" by me? How does that work, exactly? How do I "misrepresent" a headline by quoting it verbatim? And no matter how many times you accuse me of pushing a POV, it is you who are pushing a POV, by trying to keep the article from abiding by Wikipedia policy. All I am doing is "striv[ing]… [to] document and explain the major points of view". If Reuters reports that the "MH17 prosecutor [is] open to theory [that] another plane shot down airliner", then that is a major point of view. That the prosecutor does not find this theory to be the most likely one doesn't change that in the least. Wikipedia policy is to "describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"." You keep insisting that the Buk missile theory is the best view, but that does not matter to editors who understand Wikipedia policy. – Herzen (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

 Volunteer Marek , please link to a discussion that you claimed happened for this edit [1]. Please self revert or I will call for sanctions to be enforced. Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time Magazine thing is all over this page. Read the talk page, stop playing these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, don't threaten people with sanctions when your own behavior has been quite egregious (like falsely accusing others of racism, misrepresenting sources, moving people's comments, misrepresenting editors, etc.), and quit wasting other people's time.

I should add something about the title of this section "edit war". USchick has been trying to add a POV tag to this article for some time. There is no consensus that such a tag is warranted, much less that it has been meaningfully substantiated. USchick's response has been to initiate and inflame edit wars on this article based on some kind of logic which says "if there are edit wars then that means the article is not neutral". See similarly titled section above. This is obviously acting in bad faith. Stop it. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There's an open RfC about the tag specifically for people to comment there. Your attempt here is to edit war after a BRD process. I call for an admin to review the history and enforce sanctions please. USchick (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Then gather your evidence, provide the diffs and file the report in the proper venue, WP:AE, where the accuser takes as much risk of being sanction as the accused. Generically "calling for admins to enforce sanctions please" is just a smear-intimidation tactic which alleges sanction worthy behavior without actually offering any proof to that effect. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And let me point out that you've repeatedly tried to force text into the article despite numerous objections on talk. And then you come to the talk page and pretend that these objections don't exist, endlessly asking "show me the discussion". It's right above. Volunteer Marek  21:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is sanctioned for a reason and I'm calling for enforcement. The discussion above gives no reason to remove sourced content except WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and shows repeated refusal to discuss. Proof [2] Since you have to have the last word, go ahead, I'm done arguing. USchick (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The BRD process you refer to above demands that after a bold addition (by Herzen) and a revert (by me) discussion is finished before anyone (including USchick) adds it again. So you reverting me already goes against the idea of the WP:BRD process which you yourself bring to the table. In that light Volunteer Marek had every right to revert your edit in turn. Arnoutf (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I think you're right about that! I just read the BRD more closely, and my edit was wrong. VM continued the edit war. Ok, I recall my request for sanctions, but we still have an edit war. Now do we want to discuss it? USchick (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: after the above comment (22:29) a new section was created above regarding this topic. Stickee (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I reported the incident to ANI, without much hope though.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this article

Since sources are considered on an individual basis, can we please get agreement on whether or not the following sources are considered RS for this article. USchick (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

New Straits Times

• Yes. it's the oldest newspaper in Malaysia that predates the formation of the government of Malaysia. They have an editorial board and this source has been critical of Mlaysian government. USchick (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should be decided on case by case basis depending on topic Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since we already know the topic, can you please clarify what else we need to consider? USchick (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No we don't as a column in that newspaper, or a personal opinion, or a letter in the discussion section may not be reliable in a specific context. So we need the actual article you want to refer to for that decision. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just a regular article, not an opinion, not a special column. It's buried somewhere on this page and I will link to it later. If someone can link to it now, I will be most grateful. USchick (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Here it is [3]. It quotes Robert Parry an Associated Press reporter. If Global Research is a problem, Robert Parry is not. The newspaper has an editorial board, and they chose to cover this story. It was picked up by another independent source Malaysian Digest [4] Then later on the same day NST changed the headline on the same story (probably to make it more neutral). [5]. USchick (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

No discussion has taken place only disapproval without a reason. We have already been to ANI to determine that discrediting Malaysian sources for no good reason is unacceptable. USchick (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the conclusion of ANI. The conclusion was that calling people "racist" and saying people that people "slander" is unacceptable. Stickee (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion to talk about ANI. This one is about the source. USchick (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You brought up ANI. ANI discussion was about you making bullshit accusations of racism, not about the source. You almost got blocked, the only thing that saved your butt is that you retracted the false accusation. This whole farce is so absurd it's almost funny. Volunteer Marek  03:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion to talk about ANI. This one is about the source. USchick (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no objections to these Malaysian sources, I take that as consensus to include. USchick (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no clear arguments where to add for what reason, which was the request and this has ended up in the middle of a long thread, so I am pretty sure that this silence should not be interpreted as consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to play games. There's obviously objections. Volunteer Marek  18:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify what the obvious objections are to using this source. Maybe then we can move on to discuss how and where to use it. USchick (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You already know that. WP:Games. A Blogger and an OSCE guy are the source for the "New Straits Times" article, who are accepted as experts. Which they are not. Haisenko is not worth mentioning again and the Michael Bociurkiw interview is on youtube, and he says there, that he is not trained to identify damage. The article just has no base. Alexpl (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The New Straits Times published an article about MH17 in its print version which it did not post on its Web site. Graphics of the front page of the relevant edition of the newspaper and of the MH17 story are available here. The first paragraph of this story states:

Investigators are looking into an emerging theory that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it entered its death dive.

Haisenko, Bociukiw, and Robert Parry are not mentioned in this story, but "experts" are, although the nationality of the experts is not identified. But in an interview, one of the authors of the article says, "on that basis [examination of photographs of MH17 fragments, Malaysian investigators are working on the alternate theory." A segment from the interview can be viewed at the video found here:
International Business Times: MH17 News Update: Pilot Was Targeted Right In The Stomach – Expert Alleges (The relevant segment begins at 18:35.) By the way, the way I came to this International Business Times story is that when I did a Google search for "mh17", that link was the third one to come up.
So, we have a reliable source reporting that Malaysian investigators are pursuing the alternate theory. Sorry, that means that Wikipedia cannot treat the alternate theory as a "conspiracy theory" or FRINGE. – Herzen (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this NST story by Haris Hussain (the same guy you see in the video) keeps being brought up demonstrates just how fringe this really is. Also that IB Times link isn't working. Stickee (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone please provide a source that says this is a fringe theory, because according to several reliable sources mentioned above, this it an alternative theory. I'm sorry that some people don't like the individuals in the reports, but I don't like Strelkov and his VKontakte page, but that information is still in the lede. USchick (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they took it down. Don't see what the point is, since the article just reports what's in the RT report, which isn't going anywhere. The article is still cached by Google; don't know how log that's going to last. As for "this NST story by Haris Hussain … keeps being brought up", I don't see your point. By "this NST story", I take it you mean this. That isn't the story I brought up. Somehow I don't get the impression that you read what I write very carefully. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I screen captured the story in case we want to refer back to it, I recommend others do the same. According to policy, reliable sources have to report the story, there's no requirement for them to "keep it on their web site" indefinitely. Would anyone like to see an RfC on this topic? USchick (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You have screen captured an excerpt from a Russia Today/RT documentary on the MH17 crash? LoL. You are not really helping your case here. Alexpl (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what USchick said. What she said was that she screen captured the story that International Business Times published on its Web site and then deleted. You are not really helping your case when you jump to the conclusion that USchick screen captured "an excerpt from a Russia Today/RT documentary", when what she actually did was screen capture a story by International Business Times about the RT documentary. Unlike International Business Times, RT does not delete stories that it has published because they contradict the official line that its government is pushing. If you are going to post comments in Talk, you really should make more of an effort to understand the discussion that is being held in Talk. – Herzen (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats exactly what she said. Your business times article [6] quotes the infamous Russia Today. But I´m sure you already knew that. Its Haisenko over and over and over again. Maybe somebody else quoted that dude somewhere on the net, than you can present those writing here as well - and repeat it, until someday, when the guard is down, you can put them as facts in this article. In the future, read your source, and when the word "Haisenko" is in it, spare WP with it. Alexpl (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The double standards for RS are unbelievable! In the lede, we have reliable sources that quote Vkontakte! How is this RS any different? USchick (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. That guy published mostly conspiracy theories on his blog before that crash. He is no reliable source, not even by Russian Federation standards. Oh, the Spiegel just published another list of "experts" frequently quoted in russian media who arent experts at all: [7]

Lorenz Haag

Christoph Hörstel

Ken Jebsen

Kert Maier

+Haisenko. Just to make sure. Alexpl (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire Network

• Yes. It's an international organization in Paris. They publish online in 8 languages. USchick (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should be decided on case by case basis depending on topic Arnoutf (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Analysis by Ivan A. Andrievskii, an engineer [8] USchick (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, after a certain point it becomes extremely disruptive and yes, it will get you blocked.
• No. More wacky conspiracy fringe crap (among other things). Volunteer Marek  19:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

See how this comment is off by itself? Is this supposed to be the end of the discussion? Please don't complain when the discussion continues and this comment is "misrepresented." USchick (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Leave my comment alone. And read WP:POINT. Volunteer Marek  20:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no discussion on the topic. Just a seemingly endless line of accounts, trying to redeem the russian federation by repeating the same arguments. The "New Straits Times" article [9] is based on info from the bloggers Robert Parry and Peter Haisenko. So as reliable and old that newspaper may be, this particluar info is not so good, or just rubbish. So quote the "New Straits Times" if you like, but tell the reader that the story is taken from two bloggers who had no access to the crash site or additional info and who are just speculating. Alexpl (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@VM Please read WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT USchick (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

MST has an editorial board. If they choose to cover information they consider relevant, that's their responsibility as a newspaper. I would like to point out that in the lede, we have information from a credible source about a Russian social media profile, which is also rubbish. Somehow that information is still in the lede and no one is willing to consider removing it. USchick (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that that has been done for this specific article? Many good newspapers allow space for personal opinions of readers and opinion leaders that they think are relevant to show, but NOT agree with the content. Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that was all a bluff to free Girkin/Strelkov from blame - again. Wikipedia:I just don't like it But if you insist: There was a post on vkontakte, in his name, so short after the crash, that can be considered to be part of the main event. Nobody says here in the lede, that he actually did write that himself. I see no problem. If you dont bring up anything new, further posts on that matter shall be removed per WP:Forum. Alexpl (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So you're not even claiming that that social media post was done by Strelkov. Thus you effectively admit that it was black propaganda. So what is it doing in the lede? I have to agree with what editors have said before, ending their work on this article in frustration: never have I seen such a biased article as this one. – Herzen (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Both this and the preceding comment by Herzen are made later in time than the next comments. Any disruption of flow and misunderstanding becayse of these two remarks is fully due to the later addition of these remarks. Arnoutf (talk)

Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Are we bothering you? Are stopping you from doing anything? Please stop telling people what they're allowed to discuss on a talk page. USchick (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As someone who cares about the neutrality of this article, yes, you are bothering me. By wasting my time. By repeating the same nonsense, even after explanations have been provided multiple times. Even after it's been shown with direct quotations or text that you are completely misrepresenting sources and editors. By engaging in tendentious and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are intended to discuss concrete suggestions for article improvement. This talk page has long since degenerated into bickering about interpretation of wiki policies and a lot of wikilawyering. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Arnoutf, I did propose a specific approach, please see section "Proposal - Article Restructuring". The arguments for and against the proposal should be discussed in terms of Wikipedia policies on the Talk page before changing the article, but - you are right - if arguments degenerate into bickering about what the written Wikipedia text means, then it needs to be referred for clarification upwards. Tennispompom (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that this Wikipedia pillar must be observed but isn't in this article:

we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".

Any attempt to implement WP policy in this article by "document[ing] and explain[ing] the major points of view" gets trashed. If that stopped, the bickering would stop, too. – Herzen (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is a good example of the wikilawyering I was talking about where User Herzen left out the opening sentence of that pillar which state we report: the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. in favour of lines further down in the text. Also Herzens quote actually starts with "in others" clearly implying this is not a 'must' as Herzen claims, but a solution that can be used in some specific situations. Arnoutf (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If the only two theories that Time magazine considers are that the rebels shot down MH17 and that a Ukrainian fighter plane shot it down, then due weight requires that Wikipedia consider both theories. Doing anything else is a clear case of holding that there is a best view. Please stop the lawyering and admit the obvious. – Herzen (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Above, I made this "concrete suggestion for article improvement": to use this unimpeachable source to add the following to the end of the "preliminary report" section:

According to Time Magazine, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.

Yet editors continually shoot this proposal down, because hate the theory that a fighter plane shot down MH17, defiantly holding to their position that there is a "best view", thus unambiguously and flagrantly violating Wikipedia's second pillar. – Herzen (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Time Magazine, in regard to "other theory" "This hypothesis, a favorite on Russian state television, does not fit well with the audio recordings taken from the cockpit of the plane." Why aren't you quoting that part of the article?  Volunteer Marek  22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Does not fit well" does not negate "vague enough to leave room for". Your compulsive insistence that there is a best view is not encyclopedic. Please make a minimal effort to be collaborative, instead of viewing Wikipedia as a battleground in which you can push your POV with wild abandon. – Herzen (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, as someone who's accused others of "hating Russians" or of holding particular views simply because they are of some national background, you got no room to lecture others about "battleground" and "collaborations". Or POV pushing for that matter, seeing as how I just showed that you were selectively quoting from the Time article in order to make it seem like it was about something else than what it really was about. Volunteer Marek  22:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17. That is what the article is about. No qualifications, hedging, and regretting that investigators had little chance to visit the crash site changes that. And as I recall, Time doesn't say that audio recordings "fit well" with the theory that a Buk missile shot down MH17. So that Time says that the audio recordings don't "fit well" with the theory that a fighter plane shot down MH17 is not probative. There simply is no getting around the fact that editors who want to keep this article out (as a compromise, one could add the qualification about the audio recordings, but they don't even propose that) are blatantly advocating a best view, violating the second pillar. – Herzen (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: Yes, you and whoever you deem to be part of your 'we' are bothering me and wasting my time. I did go away for a while to actually contribute only to come back and see that you are still preventing any meaningful discussion about this article. Lklundin (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: "The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17" - are we reading the same Time article? That is not at all what the Time article is about. The Time article is mostly about how, quote, "Pieces of the downed Malaysian airliner were pillaged after the crash, contaminating the work of investigators who published their preliminary findings on Tuesday". You know, there is a reason why they put that blurb right at the top, it's called a summary. The article however does discount the Russian government propaganda story about the plane being shot down by a jet, by noting that, among other things, it doesn't fit in with voice recorded data. If that's the source evidence you've got for why "multiple theories" should be included in the article, well, you don't really have anything. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how editors who insist on preserving the egregious systemic bias in this article at all costs cannot refrain from personal attacks. A reminder: In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible.You managed to use "you" or "your" four times in just two sentences. Also, note that "Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia, making up less than 15% of contributors." Your accusations do not help close the gender gap. – Herzen (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Says the guy who went around accusing other editors of "hating Russians". And as far as the gender gap... huh?  Volunteer Marek  00:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you, since you apparently do not understand the Wikipedia policy onsystemic bias: "The gender gap has not been closing over time and, on average, female editors leave Wikipedia earlier than male editors." – Herzen (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What on God's green earth are you going on about?  Volunteer Marek  00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Systemic bias is an essay, not a policy. Please, if only to save yourself from looking silly, stop citing it as though it were. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Time article

@Herzen: "The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17" - are we reading the same Time article? That is not at all what the Time article is about. The Time article is mostly about how, quote, "Pieces of the downed Malaysian airliner were pillaged after the crash, contaminating the work of investigators who published their preliminary findings on Tuesday". You know, there is a reason why they put that blurb right at the top, it's called a summary. The article however does discount the Russian government propaganda story about the plane being shot down by a jet, by noting that, among other things, it doesn't fit in with voice recorded data. If that's the source evidence you've got for why "multiple theories" should be included in the article, well, you don't really have anything. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: Regarding your wish to cite the Time article that a Ukrainian fighter jet had intercepted the airliner and sprayed it with chain-gun fire, I think this should be one of several items in my already proposed new article: 'Russian propaganda regarding MH 17' - along with details on the until now secret and super-capable Ukrainian SU-25. Lklundin (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is Western propaganda about MH17; I am not aware of any Russian propaganda. Unlike Western coverage of MH17, Russian coverage is fact based, not unbridled speculation. To quote from an interview with Edward S. Herman, an expert on American propaganda and hence a reliable primary source:

This is an amazing story, with Obama, Kerry, Power and The New York Times and company, immediately and indignantly accusing the rebels and Russia of responsibility for downing the plane before any investigation had been carried out. And this was accompanied with furious accusations and with a quick retreat to silence without the presentation of any evidence supporting the US-Kiev-NATO party line by either Kiev or the United States. …

The rebels and Russians had absolutely no interest in destroying MH17. The Kiev government and the U.S. did have an interest, if it could be turned into a successful "false flag" operation with blame successfully placed on the enemy. It has been so treated, with the help of the Western propaganda system, which made the enemy guilty based on no evidence, and protects the likely real killers with protracted silence.

If there is a section on Russian propaganda, there must be a section on Western propaganda. To proceed otherwise is to promote grave systemic bias. – Herzen (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time article is about the DSB preliminary report, as its title clearly indicates. And here is what the article says:

According to the crucial part of the report from the Dutch Safety Board, “The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from the outside.” This could be consistent with the West’s prevailing theory of what brought down the plane, namely a BUK surface-to-air missile launched by the pro-Russian separatists over the territory they control. …

But the wording of the 34-page report … was also vague enough to leave room for one of the more common theories among the rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the disaster on the Ukrainian government on the night of the crash; and in the days that followed, some of the separatists claimed in interviews with TIME that a Ukrainian fighter jet had, for some reason, intercepted the airliner and sprayed it with chain-gun fire.

Time magazine could not express itself more clearly. The West has one "prevailing theory" or POV; Russia and the rebels have another theory or POV. Both are equally consistent with the report. Thus, this article favoring one theory over another requires OR, and holding that there is a best view or even the truth. And note that I'm not even asking that equal weight be given to the Russian theory. All I'm asking is that the article mention that the Russian theory is consistent with the DSB report in just a single sentence. But editors are fighting tooth and nail to suppress even a single sentence mentioning that the only reliable information we have to go on, the DSB preliminary report, favors this possibility no less than the US government's conspiracy theory that the rebels shot down MH17 for some unknown reason with weapons they most likely did not have. This is getting really tedious. – Herzen (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Herzen. Even Time, one of the most reliable sources, admits that DSB supports multiple theories. Yet only one of these theories is discussed in detail here. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Whatever needs to be told about conspiracy theories has been described already in "Russian press coverage" section. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are presenting this information as alternate possibilities, and this is confirmed by the investigation. To label them Conspiracy Theory would be OR. It has been discussed previously why having a section on "Russian press coverage" is problematic. To jump to conclusions before the investigation is complete is also OR. USchick (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen. Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick. Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion ended in VM announcing that there will be no discussion. One more comment like that, and we're going back to ANI for being disruptive. USchick (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The case is watertight. There is an impeccably reliable secondary source clearly stating that the theory that the rebels shot down MH17 and the theory that Kiev shot it down with a fighter plane are equally consistent with the DSB preliminary report. Thus, for this article to utterly exclude one theory as anything other than a crazy conspiracy theory is to seriously violate Wikipedia policy against OR and editors writing as if there is a best view or even the truth. So you might as well drop your battleground attitude and the IDONTHEAR in this case. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to POV push our pet theories. – Herzen (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. There is no majority or significant minority view that the plane was shot down by Kiev. According to sources, such view or claim was propagated by Kremlin, but this is already reflected in "Russian press coverage" section and other parts of this article. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It was never "discussed to death". You have claimed in the past that discussions had been held regarding a content dispute with consensus being reached, when in fact there had been no such discussion. In this case, when reasons for excluding this source were put forward, I rebutted every one of them. The reason I stopped participating in those discussions was that it was obvious that some editors were not willing to abandon their battleground attitude. This time, I am more inclined to pursue this further, because I found out about the five pillars, with their principle that we do not describe one particular view "as 'the truth' or 'the best view'", which gives opponents of the inclusion of this article no leg to stand on. – Herzen (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading that quote from the Time was also vague enough to leave room for -- Does not say the Time supports those theories. In fact the wording strongly implies the opposite: The current evidence is too vague for any theory to receive support. I find the argumentation that lack of evidence is construed as strong support for adding a theory problematic (there is also lack of evidence for an alien deathray; meteor strike; Goldeneye satelites etc etc. - yet we do not mention those). Arnoutf (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Time is not in a position to support a theory. They report. Just like WP editors are not in a position to support a theory. There is also a lack of evidence for the prevailing theory. There's a reward (the largest in history) for anyone who can produce evidence, but no evidence has been produced. The US has satellite data, but they won't release it. USchick (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

What USchick said is absolutely correct. Time is not in the position to "support" any theories, and neither are editors (although there's a lot of supporting of one particular theory going on; hence all the bickering); what Time does is report the news, and what it reported is that the DSB preliminary report is consistent with both of the two most prominent theories of who shot down MH17. Readers coming to this article will most likely be curious about who shot the plane down. Time reported, on the basis of the DSB report, who the main suspects are. This issue is notable, and on the basis of WP policy, there are absolutely no grounds for excluding what Time reported from this article. Since this is a new section, I will copy the sentence I proposed here:

According to Time Magazine, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.

That sentence accurately represents what Time reported about the implications of the DSB report as to who the perpetrator might be. This is just one sentence. Why some editors are fighting this one sentence tooth and nail is beyond me. – Herzen (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not fighting the sentence at all. The sentence claims that the Dutch safety board report does not support nor rule out any theory, and that is indeed the case. It can not and should not be interpreted as a sentence that supports the SU25 theory. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: That's very nice to hear. But I wouldn't call the second theory "the SU25 theory". As far as I know, the idea of an SU25 came up at the Russian military briefing, where it was just offered as a suggestion of what the military jet might have been. Bloggers instantly went crazy trying to prove what the operational ceiling of an Su-25 is. But as the Russian engineers' report indicates, the radar signature of a SU-25 is very similar to that of a Mig-29. A Mig-29 is a fighter; an Su-25 is an attack aircraft, so it would have made more sense for the former to have been used. – Herzen (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No vapour trail

Discussion that is turning off topic - welcome to start a new topic with any further concerns

If the BUK theory is true then we would see a vapour trail from the missile that would last 10 minutes and be seen for many km. This is what the Untold Story documentary claims. However, we don't see such a trail. Here is the best video we have from the crash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbAirCuNnA&list 118.210.196.217 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Here is what the trail would look like: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/sciencetech/video-1106139/Watch-SA-11-Gadfly-Soviet-SAM-System-works.html 118.210.196.217 (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC) You're just repeating nonsense from various internet conspiracy sites. WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek  07:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Wait but this is just pure logic. "Where there is smoke there must be fire". You can't have a BUK missile launch without a vapour trail. It is physically not possible. None of the numerous witnesses saw such a trail... 118.210.196.217 (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Also why is this nonsense? Why is this conspiracy when we have already shown that it's not (see posts above).118.210.196.217 (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC) If it was a Buk I have not yet found a good reason for no vapour trail. Fine day no wind. What gives? BTW I have not seen the so called conspiracy sites. Can supporters of the Buk idea please explain with good refs why there is no plume from a Buk? SaintAviator lets talk 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Maybe they didnt ask enough people if they did see one? Or those who did are afraid to talk? We cant tell. Dont bring that up again until you have reliable sources which are helpful for the article. EOD per WP:forum and WP:No original research Alexpl (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC) This whole discussion is nonsense and a poor attempt at OR from ignorant POVs. (The ignorance is apparent from the observation that they confuse the vapour trail that an aircraft engine may produce with the exhaust from a rocket). Lklundin (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) This was claimed to be the trail of the missile, photographed ~ 6 minutes after the plane was hit, from a distance of ~ 10 km (obviously using a tele lens). This picture spread over the net already on 17 July. I guess the rocket would have flown for about 20-30 seconds from the claimed launch spot to 10 km above Roszypne (~ 25 km horizontal distance), where the plane was hit. As the trail is said to dissolve within 10 minutes, it may well look like this after 6 and a half minutes. --PM3 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks PM3, "no smoke without fire" as they say. Tempted to add image to the article, but there may be copyright problems, of course. (not really) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Here is a twitter link which proves that the picture was published already on July 17: [10]. The Ukrainian Secret Service reproduced it on 19 July: [11]. You can find it in many Blogs using Google picture search. --PM3 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I don't see what the point is of linking to an alleged photograph of a vapor trail of the SAM that allegedly shot down MH17 when there is a criminal investigation going on. The fact remains that there are videos of several eyewitnesses who say they saw MH17 who say they also saw a military plane near it. I have never heard of any eyewitnesses saying they saw a SAM contrail. You don't find it worrisome that we have no idea of where that photo came from? I think that the most significant recent development concerning MH17 is that the Dutch are expressing frustration at the US not giving them satellite imagery which the US claimed it has showing that the rebels had a Buk. It remains to be seen what the Russians do when the Dutch formally request them to hand over intelligence information they have. (Note by the way that the headline of the Reuters piece is "MH17 investigators still awaiting U.S., Russian intelligence reports", whereas in fact, Russia should not have been mentioned in the headline, since Holland has not yet formally asked Russia for any intelligence reports, so Holland can't "await" them.) – Herzen (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I thought we were discussing a vapour trail? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I posted this link to disprove the claim of 118.210.196.217 and SaintAviator that there are no indications of a vapor trail at all. This picture may show the trail of a SAM which shot down MH17, or it may show somehing else. But the claim that there is no evidence at all of a vapor trail is wrong, that's the point. And those who made the "Untold Story" documentary must have known that, so they probably lied. --PM3 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC) How would one verify the location at which the photograph was taken, the time and date it was taken, and the direction of the camera? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC) @PM3: Good point. PS to several. Please stop using 'contrail' and 'vapour trail' when we are discussing exhaust from a (solid-fuel) rocket. The rocket exhaust is smoke from a chemical reaction, while the contrail/vapour trail is a phase change of water already in the atmosphere due to pressure changes from a moving aircraft. They are two very different things. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Quite agree, it's not a contrail. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC) @Martinevans: This analysis (which as to my opinion has some flaws) shows how the location and direction may be determined. Regarding the time and date, there is no way to be sure, EXIF data can easily be faked. --PM3 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I would ask you what the flaws are. But, of course, this source is not considered WP:RS, so we can't even discuss it, can we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Hmmm a blog post from a pro-West Ukranian. We don't know where the photo came from. We don't know where it was taken. We don't know when it was taken. We don't know what is in the photo - it could be a trail left by the falling plane. None of the hundreds of witnesses saw a trail. The video of the crash that I linked to at the start doesn't show a trail either. In my mind the lack of the trail is the BEST evidence we have against the BUK theory and simply cannot be ignored.118.210.196.217 (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I really don't think anyone apart for your good-anon-ip-self (geolocated to Adelaide, Australia) claims this image shows "a trail left by the falling plane". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I am not claiming it, just saying that it is a possibility. It could also be clouds. The photo could have been taken at some other time. Oh no you know my city, my cover has been blown :) 118.210.196.217 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Nobody seeing an exhaust trail is one of the reasons why I think no Buk was fired. (Another reason is that the German government said that NATO received no indication from its AWACS that a SAM was fired.) But that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. It is absurd to pay attention to what is going on in social networking sites when there is an official criminal investigation underway (which USG is stonewalling, as I noted). If somebody hats or archives this Talk section, I would have no problem with that. There is no way to discuss the issue of the "vapor trail" based on reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC) What do you mean "nobody seeing"? Someone took a photo. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I guess he´s still talking about the crappy Russia Today documentary "MH17 - The untold Story". Guess who is quoted there: Peter Haisenko. Alexpl (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Watch out folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC) If someone took a photo, why hasn't he been interviewed by a TV network? This claiming that evidence exists that a Buk downed MH17 because someone uploaded a photo onto a social networking site is very primitive conspiracy theorizing. The truth is out there! I think this discussion should be hatted, but I can't do that, since I am not "uninvolved". Reliable sources have nothing to say about this, so all of the discussion in this section is OR. – Herzen (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Maybe he or she wants to remains anonymous? Maybe "TV networks" aren't interested? But hey, maybe we should give RT a call and get something set up? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Who are you kidding? The BBC is very interested. To quote the article: On 8 September BBC released a new material by John Sweeney who cited three civilian witnesses from Donbass who have seen the "Buk" launcher in the rebel-controlled territory on the day when MH17 crashed. Two witnesses said the crew of the launcher and a military vehicle escorting it did not have local accents and spoke with Muscovite accents. The BBC could dig up alleged witnesses of the proverbial Buk launcher in "rebel-controlled territory", but no witnesses who saw an exhaust trail. Really, I'm getting the impression that the only people who still believe that a Buk shot MH17 down are some English Wikipedia editors. – Herzen (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Buks fly oblique, on an angle to meet target, probably a 12,000 to 14,000 distinctive trail. It would have been over many houses, it it existed for 10 minutes. By now someone would have come forward, esp with so much controversy and emotion going on. SaintAviator lets talk 23:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC) There's a few sources on the matter (but not too many). "a surveillance photograph... showing a signature trail of smoke emanating from beyond a hill in rebel-held eastern Ukraine." - National Post, "based on a photograph of the missile's smoke trail released by Ukraine's Security Service." - The Telegraph, "Leaving a vapour trail in a clear blue sky, this was the scene seconds after a missile was sent screaming towards Flight MH17 at 1,900mph." - Daily Mail. Stickee (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC) From the first article "The location of the site tallies with a surveillance photograph, released by Ukraine’s intelligence service, showing a signature trail of smoke emanating from beyond a hill in rebel-held eastern Ukraine." Where is this surveillance photograph? Why was this information not used in the Dutch report?118.210.196.217 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC) BTW that hazy long range photo of some smoke someone posted above has an original time stamp and hour and a half or so after the crash. So the origin and the authenticity of this photo is so dubious I wonder why it was even posted. It keeps doing the rounds but its the same photo. Still no good refs for any vapour trail. I think its safe to say at this point, there isnt any and wont be any. Leaving a big hole in the Buk story. SaintAviator lets talk 04:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC) One more telling point. Where are the recorded live feeds from the 24/7 US satellites? Where is the undisputable US evidence mentioned? In such a politically charged case its hard to believe, IF it existed, its not all over You Tube by now damning the Pro Russian Rebels in guilt. Could it be its not been presented because there was no plume to film? There may be another reason for not releasing footage, but I cant think of it. SaintAviator lets talk 05:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOR. Volunteer Marek  05:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: Feel free to hat this discussion. You're not really involved, since all you've said is "not a forum"; I am. Since there is a criminal investigation underway, there is no need for the kind of speculation going on here. Very little of the discussion in this section is about how the article can be improved. (This is not to say that I do not believe that the RT "Untold Story" documentary is excellent. I do.) – Herzen (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Ah The point here is that the article under 'causes' is biased. It favours Buk. The neutrality is being questioned. No ones knows the cause yet do they? Thats why this little chat is not a forum. SaintAviator lets talk 06:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Sigh. Been over that more than ten times already. Volunteer Marek  06:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Sighs slightly longer. IKR its The Ghouta Gas Attack all over again. The article ends up being a convoluted piece with no real evidence either way. Yawns. Its still way biased SaintAviator lets talk 06:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC) I certainly agree that the "causes" section is ridiculously biased. It is a disjointed melange of speculation and tedious recitation of hearsay. And it's interesting that you mention Ghouta. Because that false flag made anyone who pays attention realize, as soon as the MH17 story broke, that the downing of MH17 was a Ukrainian false flag. The rebels had been warning for weeks that the Ukrainians were going to pull a false flag. – Herzen (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC) It´s not interesting - it comes in handy. If you have nothing to offer but unsourced allegations, this thread should end here. Alexpl (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Agree Herzen, I mean I like WP in general, but its articles like this with sections like 'Causes' that bring WP down. What does not amaze me anymore is trying to get it unbiased and NPOV. It wont happen. People tend to want to keep what they wrote. Its WPs big failure. Thats one of the reasons people dont take some WP articles seriously and indeed WP itself. I dont know if it started out better or became this way. It is what it is, but definitely its these high stakes articles that are a fail. For instance trying to even closes down discussion of an important piece of evidence. What should happen in a NPOV article is mention there was no plume trail, videotaped to date. The second plane theory gets an airing. That sort of thing. Frankly its disturbing. But I could be wrong, this thread may lead to a better causes section. SaintAviator lets talk 09:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Shall we all have a big circular rambling discussion here about what's wrong with WP? And throw in some edit warring for good measure? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No Cherrypicking

No cherrypicking please, see WP:CHERRYPICKING. User:Stickee and User:Lklundin. If you have issues, discuss here on the Talk page. As Stickee says that it is a quote from the article, we can consider putting your extract in quotes, as long as the statements correctly represent the source's contrast with Western media. Otherwise you are cherrypicking, contrary to WP policy NOR. Tennispompom (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The actual headline of the quoted source is: 'The Russian Public Has a Totally Different Understanding of What Happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17'. This does not contrast Russia with the West but Russia with everything. I do not see my quote from the article as cherrypicking. Lklundin (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I take it that you accept that cherrypicking is not according to WP policy. So, having established that fact, we can move on to whether it is cherry picking or not. The title doesn't say whose understanding differs from the Russian one. There is a single sentence in the summary which uses the ambiguous phrase "much of the rest of the world" - firstly, that doesn't mean "most of the rest of the world" and secondly it qualifies it by referring to the "stand-off". That stand off, is further elaborated in the source as being between West and Russia, and there are at least 5 references in the article which clearly contrast the Russian Opinion with that of the West. No other contrast is provided, no other world opinion is mentioned except the western and Russian. Any reader can see that is the case. Selectively picking an ambiguous phrase from the article instead of any of the numerous and specific phrases, constitutes cherrypicking.

Therefore, save me the effort of undoing your undo - and correct it back to state clearly and unambigusously "Western media", which is what it is. Let's not get into an edit war over a no brainer. Tennispompom (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Quote: "The picture of the catastrophe that the Russian people are seeing on their television screens is very different from that on screens in much of the rest of the world, and the discrepancy does not bode well for a sane resolution to this stand-off"? Where else in the body of article does the headline of that article refer if not to that sentence? Has the author cherry-picked her own headline? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Where? Here! Here are quotes from the source:-

1) "Western media has been vacillating for days ... But in Russia, television..."

2) "Though this is not true of Western media, Russian television has ..."

3) "But though it may look unconvincing to us in the West, that is because we have seen and read other things that contradict it. The Russian media space has ..."

4) "So whereas the West sees the crash as a game-changer, the Russians do not see why..."

5) "And the more we insist on it, the less likely the Russians are to agree." (Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of source was digital campaign strategist for the 2008 Obama Campaign, i.e. "we" is clearly Western).

To top it all, there is no contrast with any other named media except Western media. Are you looking at the right source? Tennispompom (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You are mixing up audience (We in the West) and references to Western media. Only the latter could do anything to support your point. Arnoutf (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree with Arnoutf. The Western media is part of the "rest of the world" and so can be used to provide examples of the more general statement. But I'd be interested to see how many examples there are of non-Russian coverage that supports the Russian view. And that this demonstrates that the "much of the rest of the world" is a misguided claim. Perhaps you can find a source that does this? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added another source to that part of the article in case Tennispompom still isn't happy with it (even though the current one still supports it). Stickee (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123, I don't understand the relevance of searching for "non-Russian coverage that supports the Russian view", except maybe in the context of a discussion re which view is right, but that's not what I'm doing and I hope no one else is either. As I've been arguing for weeks, there are other views, it isn't just Russia vs. West. Oddly enough, the Chinese have a different view from the West and Russia, so the generalisation that the rest of the world equals Western view is plain wrong. I'm putting together a statement referencing a Chinese source, but that's a different Talk section, see below. Tennispompom (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that your multiple revisions come across as supporting the view that Russia is not isolated from "most of the rest of the world" in its view of the shooting down of the airliner. I guess another, separate, Chinese view can only support that notion. Where did I say "the rest of the world equals Western view"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, If you had seen some of the discussions that have taken place on these Talk pages, you might come to a different view, that the objective is not to present a neutral article, but one which presents Russia as isolated and the Western position as the sole truth (viz. the unneccessary pseudo-restrictions to "reliable secondary source").

The reality is that until the Final DSB Report is published, none of us will actually know which of the multiple views is right. You could therefore also argue that ALL the views are isolated, because they are different from all others. Don't you find it irksome that competent intelligent people who have signed up to the Wikipedia neutrality policy are capable of producing such a blatantly biased article? Tennispompom (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a very interesting view of what "isolated" means. But I have to admit my bias here. I became convinced very early on that the airliner was shot down by a BUK missile, provided by Mr Putin, and fired by the militant Ukrainian separatists. The alternative theories put forward by Russian media have appeared to me like pathetic fairy stories. Sorry to be so blunt and to stray so far into WP:FORUM land. Please delete my comment if you find it disruptive. But you're right, we should all wait for the official report before we can say we have a fair article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should not get our hopes too high regarding the work of the DSB. It has not been possible to conduct a normal investigation of the crash and evidence may well be (doubted as) tainted. So both before and after DSB publishes their work, I think we need to go with what reliable sources in general can provide. Lklundin (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid you are right. And even worse, because of the problematic collection of evidence, whatever party will be blamed may start a media propaganda war to shed doubt on the outcomes; which some editors may feel to be a reliable and relevant point of view to include here. Arnoutf (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

SaintAviator

This discussion has been closed by Herzen. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed by Herzen. Please do not modify it.
Ok thats enough. Topics "Passenger had oxygen mask on" & "OCSE monitor mentions bullet holes in MH17" were both discussed before. No problem to find that discussion. What are the appropriate steps one can take now to prevent that user from doing this over and over again? Alexpl (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Agreed. The head of both the article and its talk page has warnings 'Please edit carefully' and 'Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting' which are not heeded. This is wasting time. Lklundin (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Many things have been discussed before without a conclusion being reached. Also this is a developing story where new evidence/articles comes in on a daily basis. So it doesn't hurt to bring up old topics once in a while, especially those in which consensus hasn't been reached. What are the appropriate steps one can take to prevent users from blocking edits, writing a non-neutral article and calling all other theories fringe? :) 118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Agree with OP here. Look through the archives, read those discussions, and don't bother restarting old discussions unless there is new info or sources to bring to the table. And IP, you probably know full well what steps are taken to get somebody blocked. Volunteer Marek  14:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC) At the anon editor - Stopping the push to include biased Russian sources promoting fringe theories would do a lot to achieve that aim. Arnoutf (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) I will have to check with a mod. I think its not the done thing to make my user name a topic thread. Guys its obvious why discussions are reopened, the neutrality tag dragging on for one is unsatisfactory and the lack of neutrality in the article. A few held by quite a few people. Another thing fellow editors, WP is not the place to let politics or emotions influence edits. Try something. Imagine you are totally neutral, have no position. Then examine all the best data on the net re MH17. Then read the article. If you can do this you will see how the article is not neutral. I actually dont care who did it. It doesn't matter. SaintAviator lets talk 22:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC) I think I'd better check with a mod too. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah a thread named after an editor who is only discussing and has done no edits or is in an edit war can be construed as a personal attack. In this case also the instigator of this post has had warnings for deleting my comments and lying about it. Lets stick to topic. Im opening a discussion on my talk page about neutrality. SaintAviator lets talk 23:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) I think Alexpl you should collapse this thread. Guys I had a chat with Iryna on Alexpls talk page. See ya. Keep it to a dull roar fellas. SaintAviator lets talk 01:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Passenger had oxygen mask on

This has been discussed before; the editor who opened this discussion has decided to no longer contribute to this article. – Herzen (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

PARIS — A senior Dutch government official’s disclosure that one victim of the Malaysia Airlines plane crash in eastern Ukraine had been found wearing an oxygen mask led to dismay on Thursday among investigators and outrage among victims’ relatives. [12] What does it mean? This undermines the story that the plane had exploded upon impact with the "Russian" missile. SaintAviator lets talk 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC) It does not mean anything, as per the article. Lklundin (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Please explain why you say that. SaintAviator lets talk 08:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC) “I can imagine a mask remaining around the neck as described,” Professor Bibel said. “The plane ripped apart, some of the oxygen masks deployed, somebody managed to put one on.” Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, likely. The duration between weapon impact and ripping apart is important. The idea in some papers was a 'blown apart' by a Buk. However coming apart more slowly would give O2 time to be put on. Coming apart more slowly may indicate an Aircraft attack. SaintAviator lets talk 09:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC) That's not my understanding of how a BUK destroys aircraft. It's not like a bomb. It's not instant. But we should report expert sources, of course, not construct our own theories. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Quoting from the article and its RS: 'a forensic investigation of the mask for fingerprints, saliva and DNA did not produce any results and that it is therefore not known how or when that mask got around the neck of the victim'. Please stop wasting time looking for mysteries where there are none - and come back with reliable sources if you think they can improve the article. Lklundin (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Also that there were no finger prints on the mark, which suggest an alternative explanation where the deployed oxygen mask was pulled over the head of a passenger by some piece of the plane. Note the oxygen mask was around the neck and not deployed at the mouth of the passenger. Or yet another explanation where one of the salvagers put it around the neck of the passenger possibly to clear some debris. A lot can have happened. And as far as I know the BUK detonates outside of the target creating a cloud of high velocity shrapnel aimed at doing maximum damage - but I am not expert. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should a tag be placed at the top of this article?

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

---

The argument about whether or not this tag belongs in the article caused an edit war that went all the way to ANI. The argument is still unresolved. Should this tag be placed at the top of the article? USchick (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. USchick (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment is irrelevant and meaningless if it does not refer to policy and explain specifically how it relates to this article. Spurious "IDONTLIKEIT vote. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit wars continue to erupt because the concerns of editors are being ignored by other editors who gang up on people whose opinion doesn't match their own. Numerous examples have been provided where sources are being cherry picked to support only one theory, when in reality, there are several. Also, there is a strong opposition to facts. Editors prefer speculation over facts in this article, only because that's what the Western media reports. Other media has been discounted as "unreliable." USchick (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Such sources have not been provided. Sources which discuss the fact that there are conspiracy theories out there or some opinion pieces from borderline reliable or non-reliable sources don't count, sorry. Volunteer Marek  06:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources have been provided and discounted for frivolous reasons, like for being Malaysian (which reeks of systemic bias). USchick (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the sources you provided - at least those where the links worked - either completely and absolutely did not discuss "other theories", like the German source you gave above (i.e. you just made some shit up and gave an irrelevant link) or they were sources which discussed the existence of conspiracy theories about the crash, like the Malaysian source (no, it was not discounted for being Malaysian, you're making shit up again). These sources did not give equal credence to all these "alternative theories", just noted their existence. Stuff like that could certainly go in an article on Conspiracy theories concerning the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they don't belong here. This is just more of the standard WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You, and Herzen, are simply wasting tons and tons of editor time. It's disruptive. Volunteer Marek  06:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

An example where you discount a proposal before you even know what it is [13], but you already don't like it. And you already discounted any sources that may support it. USchick (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What? You already explained what you wanted to do. You hadn't posted the exact text, but the overall idea was there. Stickee (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And New Straits Times was dismissed as unreliable simply for being Malaysian. USchick (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. With a diff from VM. It was never dismissed simply for being Malaysian. Stickee (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec, @USchick) No, the NST was NOT "dismissed as unreliable simply for being Malaysian". You are misrepresenting things. Again. Please stop it, it's a bad habit, and gets tiresome to point out that your comments are simple falsehoods. Also, you're indirectly insulting editors. One particular article from the NST was dismissed as unreliable because it relied on (and quoted?) globalresearch.com, a well known crazy-people-ran conspiracy site (some of these people have come to this article from there and have tried to do ... exactly what you and Herzen are trying to do). Please stop lying about other editors. It is NOT gonna help you get your way. Just the opposite. Volunteer Marek  07:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Direct quote from User:Geogene: "But I only oppose using NST in this particular article, I'm sure most of its uses elsewhere are fine." [14] At the same time, a discredited social media comment is still in the lede simply because it was "widely reported." Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Social media from Igor Girkin. My proposal to remove speculation out of the lede was also shot down with no good reason. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Proposal to remove all speculation out of the lede USchick (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, a discredited social media comment is still in the lede simply because it was "widely reported." Yes, per WP:WEIGHT. And your proposal to remove "speculation" from the lead goes against WP:LEAD, which says all prominent controversy should be summarized there. You need to go take those issues up at the relevant policy pages. Your slanderingmisrepresenting me, that I have taken to USChick's user talk page. Geogene (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)refactored Geogene (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, Geogene is saying that a Malaysian news source can't be trusted to choose the right side of the argument because sometimes they actually have an independently Malaysian viewpoint. Then he proceeds to cherry pick when NST can be trusted, and it turns out, only when they agree with Geogene. USchick (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, USchick is making stuff up again. "In case it's not clear, Geogene is saying that a Malaysian news source can't be trusted to choose the right side of the argument because sometimes they actually have an independently Malaysian viewpoint." - no, that's not what Geogene is saying at all. Geogene's was saying that that particle NST article is not reliable because it is based on a crazy conspiracy web site. It had *nothing* to do with the source being Malaysian. If it was an American source, a Russian source, a Mozambican source, a Wyomingian source, a source from Alpha Centauri, it would still be problematic precisely for this reason - it's based on a deceptive conspiracy website (which tries to pass itself off as a legit news organization). Nothing to do with Malaysianiness. Basically, by now, it's pretty clear that if USchick makes a claim, pretty much the opposite case is true. Volunteer Marek  21:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, User:Volunteer Marek please explain why you think this source [15] belongs in the lede since it also talks about an outlandish claim from a Russian social media site that has been discredited by other sources. Please post the explanation in a new section. I have asked repeatedly for this clarification. Thank you. USchick (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... because the CSM did not use a crazy ass conspiracy website as a basis for its report? Because there's another reliable source provided, The Guardian, which says the exact same thing? Because "outlandish" is your own original research and not based on any policy or source? Because "discredited by other sources" is your own opinion, not something actually based on sources? Because you are trying to establish some kind of equivalence between a batshit crazy source like globalresearch.com and respectable sources like The Guardian or The Christian Science Monitor? Because this has been explained repeatedly, and the fact that you keep repeating your objection (what you call "asking repeatedly for this clarification") is just your own WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and NOT a failure of others to explain it to you, which has been done, repeatedly? Because you're playing obnoxious games which do nothing but waste other people's time? Because you are not acting in good faith?  Volunteer Marek  00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your source is talking about Vkontakte, an outlandish website with a fake profile, which has already been established as fake, but because you have two whole sources that you like because they're cherry picked and American approved, that makes it ok. I see. It is my personal opinion that you're lying and trying to cover for your racist friend who doesn't like Malaysian sources, but that's just my opinion. In any case, this needs to stop. I'm willing to stop and only respond to content based discussions in new sections. USchick (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I reported USChick to AN/I for calling me a racist in the post above, as I had warned her I would do if her bad behavior continued. Geogene (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"You and Herzen"? That's the second time you've used that phrase. Do I detect a little battleground attitude here? After USchick posted this RfC, I looked at her user page, and was surprised to learn that she calls herself a Ukrainian, and indeed has За єдину Україну! on her Talk page. If even self-identifying Ukrainians find this article to be biased because it only considers what Kiev and Washington say about MH17 (and PM3 has made this point as well, although he only brought up Washington), your absolute determination to fight to the last breadth the possibility that MH17 might have been downed by fire from a fighter jet can only be viewed as fanatical. – Herzen (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Russians and Ukrainians united in an effort for balance in this article even though they are divided about the war in Ukraine! lol USchick (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - This has been discussed at #spurious tag - again and many other discussions. It isn't a badge of shame. This is a controversial topic under ARBEE discretionary sanctions, and as such the neutrality will always be disputed. Stickee (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no discussion at #spurious tag - again. One editor stated why there was not going to be a tag. Period. USchick (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet Stickee, neutrality can be achieved, no need to abandon it just because it requires effort. Please read my reasons for Supporting, and then my EXPLICIT proposal on restructuring. Tennispompom (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as the person who was denounced to ANI by Stickee, who could not do me the courtesy of explaining that putting back a {{POV}} tag technically counts as a revert, if that article has ever had a POV tag on it before. Fortunately, I did not get sanctioned, thanks largely to the kind intervention of Volunteer Marek. – Herzen (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment is irrelevant and meaningless if it does not refer to policy and explain specifically how it relates to this article. Spurious "IDONTLIKEIT vote. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've explained at great length, over the months, why this article suffers from systemic bias. That it clearly does gives one all the policy basis required to justify giving this article a POV tag. – Herzen (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but your definition of "systemic bias" is equivalent to "article follows reliable sources, I just don't like what reliable sources say". That is the *exact opposite* of NPOV. Volunteer Marek  05:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and the RfC is misfiled. You don't decide whether or not a tag belong in the article based on an RfC. The template specifically says: 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. In other words, it's not a vote. The tag needs to be meaningfully substantiated, which means that it needs to be explained in detail which parts and how are in violation of policy. This hasn't been done. Not once. By any of the users who've edited warred to put the tag in the article. Indeed, each time the edit war errupted, the taggers did not even bother starting discussion or justifying their reasons, it was left to other editors to query the tag. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is NOT a valid reason for atag. Volunteer Marek  05:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Which template? Please provide a link. The dispute section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution states “RfC discussions related to article content take place on article Talk pages.”. A tab is part of article content. You then say “The tag needs to be meaningfully substantiated, which means that it needs to be explained in detail which parts and how are in violation of policy. This hasn't been done. Not once. ” – please see my comments on this talk page, and my response to RfC where I have been specific AND detailed. Tennispompom (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This template: Template:POV. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Volunteer Marek, I see exactly what you mean! The Template says one thing, while the WP:NPOV says another! The Template does indeed say “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.” Unfortunately, the Template isn’t fully consistent with Wikipedia policies, I quote a couple:-

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

“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.” Note the use of phrase "reliable sources", instead of "reliable secondary sources" per Template. The core policy does not exclude the use of reliable primary and tertiary sources. The core policy is further reinforced on the following excellent link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources", which goes on to explain the subtleties under various headings:-

• "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good"
• "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad"
• "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?"

The last section is definitely recommended reading for all editors on this article, because it shows that the many items in the MH17 article are in fact primary sources (either outright or by Wikipedia policy), even when we mistakenly think of them as "secondary".
The Template has been in existence since Dec 2003. The phrase “reliable secondary sources” wording was first introduced on 27 January 2008 by User CBM, who is an Administrator and mainly writes on mathematical logic, per his User page. It is a different world in the arena of academic and scientific articles, where use of primary sources is generally not helpful (quote from Wikipedia docs: " 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.", an educated person would NOT be able to understand a specialist subject, therefore not allowed). The Template can be corrected quite easily by removing the word “secondary” and perhaps adding an explanation for different arenas, e.g. current events, scientific research, etc. Using proper Wikipedia process, of course! It could be a simple error, or perhaps the rules have changed but the template was mnot updated. I’ll leave a note on CBM User page. If anyone knows the process for alerting Template editors, or even finding out who they are, please help me here - I'm still a newbie, and alert them to a request for Template update in line with the current Wikipedia policy. Tennispompom (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The arguments against this article's NPOV have been repeatedly refuted and yet persist because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT approaches by certain editors. If valid NPOV concerns grounded in Wikipedia policy are clearly articulated and there is a serious content dispute, the tag would be appropriate. I don't think that is the case right now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It has already explained in detail multiple times by now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose When a talk page has deteriorated to the point of holding an RfC over whether the article should carry a POV tag, there's something seriously wrong with the calibre of contributor it has attracted. I've read the article (again) and have seen nothing of great significance to merit re-tagging. For those who want to indulge in being journalists, or turning this into an alternative new blog, try contributing for Wikinews. You're welcome to go ballistic there. This is a tawdry bid by POV-ers to get their way. Try writing an article for WSWS. I guarantee it'll be rejected for being the bourgeois, 'small L liberalism' tripe it is. Wikipedia does not strive to be cutting edge news. It's meant to be boring and conservative because it follows strict policies being twisted all over this talk page. Don't like it? It's not compulsory. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of a personal attack on "the calibre of contributor" who holds a different political opinion than the one presented in this article. Any attempt to introduce facts into the article is discredited as a hoax. USchick (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not trying to introduce "facts" into the article, you're trying to introduce wacky conspiracy theories. Volunteer Marek  06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the difference between a "non-mainstream point of view" and a "conspiracy theory". The term "conspiracy theory" only applies to crazy claims that the plane was filled with corpses, etc.,etc., while the suggestion that the Ukrainians shot down the plane is a valid point of view, which simply isn't covered by mainstream media. By the way, the Ukrainian SBU's official version is itself a rather wacky conspiracy theory, according to which the rebels were planning to take down a Russian civil airliner to pin it on Ukraine, and the article has no problems quoting Kyiv Post on this (while RT and Ria Novosti are a no-no). Buzz105 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of insulting other editors, why don't you ask yourself why German Wikipedia can manage to consider three different scenarios of how MH17 was shot down – two of those involving the Ukrainian military doing it – while English Wikipedia can't even manage two? German Wikipedia has the same policies as English Wikipedia. Have Germans become so undisciplined that the editors of German Wikipedia do not "follow strict policies" the way that English Wikipedia editors do? No, the more likely explanation is that, since Germany lies between Russia and the West (in Mitteleuropa), German Wikipedia editors are less prone to systemic bias than Anglophone Wikipedia editors are. – Herzen (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, what German, or any other Wikipedia does, is completely irrelevant. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT^10. Volunteer Marek  06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe to you it's irrelevant, but many editors work across languages, like this Category:Featured articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias. USchick (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with this issue? Nothing. Just more obfuscation and obstinacy. Volunteer Marek  06:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're talking crud again, USchick. That's not an attack, it's called WP:SPADE. Should we have everyone toddle over to the Russia and Ukraine article talk pages earlier this year where you were trying to hold the map showing Crimea as disputed territory in the infoboxes hostage to whatever policy you could throw at it. I recall NPOV and RECENTISM as your mainstay because the 'global community' don't recognise Crimea as having been legally taken over. According to you alone, Crimea was to remain as part of Ukraine as if nothing had happened. Strange to find that, while other language Wikipedias were already displaying Crimea as disputed, you weren't concerned about cross-wiki consistency for one moment, nor were you concerned with widely reported facts on the ground (i.e., you would have had to been in a coma not to know what had been going on). I don't think anyone can even make out what your position is other than WP:CHEESE. I've gone through your 'arguments' on this page and haven't been able to establish what aspects of the article are wanting. It's all a little bit of this or a little bit of that. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone has to like the method for it to be excellent. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can we stick to one article at a time please? I have stated numerous times that my specific objection is that there are several theories about who shot down the plane. There's an investigation because no one knows what happened. This article outlines only one version, supported by one political side, and discounts other versions as "conspiracy theories" even though there are numerous sources that talk about various versions of what could have happened. USchick (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No it is not, because comparing what English Wikipedia does to what other Wikipedias do is an excellent method for assessing whether a given English Wikipedia article suffers from systemic bias, and striving to avoid systemic bias, and hence achieving NPOV, is one of the main policies of Wikipedia. You can only argue that what other Wikipedias do "is completely irrelevant" by assuming that it is not a policy of English Wikipedia to strive to elliminate systemic bias, which of course would be a false assumption. – Herzen (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) No, it is not an excellent method, because it could very well be that other Wikipedias are the ones with the problem. It is not an excellent method because different Wikipedias have different policies, rules and guidelines. It is not an excellent method because different Wikipedias have different cultures. Most of all it is not an excellent method - in fact it would be a method which directly violates English Wikipedia's policies - because we base our articles on reliable, secondary sources, not tertiary non-reliable sources like other Wikipedias. *That* why it's completely irrelevant, not because it has anything to do with "systemic bias" (and even that essay is not in fact a policy). Now. How many times has this been explained? Right. Volunteer Marek  07:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Comparing foreign language articles is what editors do when they collaborate in an effort to stay neutral. USchick (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's what two editors do when they are trying to push a POV on an article. That's not collaboration, that's just straight up POV pushing. You can't get reliable sources for what you want to do, so you start running around yelling about how "other Wikipedias do it" (and that's granting that you are accurately describing "how other Wikipedias do it", which given how many things you've completely misrepresented in these discussions, is a big assumption in and of itself). Volunteer Marek  07:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you don't cross reference, since you only work in one language, but that's what a lot of other editors do who work across languages. This article spans languages and politics. To represent only one viewpoint form one country that's not even directly involved is POV and UNDUE. USchick (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please drop your "maybes". I actually do "work" in more than one language. But when I work in one language I stick to the policies of that particular Wikipedia, rather than try to use "what other Wikipedias do" as an excuse to push POV. And we are NOT representing "only one viewpoint" from "one country". We are representing what reliable sources say. You don't like what they say. Fine, that's your business. But your personal preferences isn't what we base articles on. Not in English Wikipedias. Volunteer Marek  07:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You work in more than one language, do you? Then why don't you have a global account? It's not as if your user name is in such high demand that you couldn't have gotten a global account for it.

Actually, never mind. Looking at that search for your global account, I see that you do work in more than one language. Your other language is Polish. I should have guessed, given your user name. Since the only countries that matter are Poland, the UK, and the US, it is not hard to understand why you never bothered to get a global account. – Herzen (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Great. Now you're making racist remarks. I've held off on reporting you for disruptive behavior before, but you're repeatedly crossing the line here. Volunteer Marek  13:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please spare us from the boring Russian bias. Alexpl (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If you find Russian bias so boring, why do you bother responding to it? Wenn Du gelangweilt bist, Du sollst schweigen. – Herzen (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The first part was correct, but you totally screwed up the second one. Racist bias is WP:NPA. Alexpl (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The article not only reflects the imbalance of POVs in the Western media sources (as was stated above), but is unbalanced itself. For instance, it extensively quotes the Ukrainian officials, like Vitaly Nayda, but makes only brief mentions of the Russians' statements; at the same time, there is a separate section called "Russian media coverage", thus implying a priori that Russia is misbehaving (the neutral approach would be to describe how the accident was covered in different countries, including Russia, allowing the reader to come to his/her own conclusions). Buzz105 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we start a betting pool on how many throw-away sock puppets accounts show up here?  Volunteer Marek  13:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The article not only reflects the imbalance of POVs in the Western media sources In that case the article is neutral per NPOV. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The coverage in "the West" is different from publication to publication - its that free-press stuff. In Russia its only one big state-info-block. From RT, over NTV, Russia-1 & 2, TASS to RIA Novosti its all the same. Novaya Gazeta is the big exeption. So we could write: The Washington Post wrote XYZ, while russian state opinion was ABC, while the Guardian wrote VFG. You cant artificially create diversity were none exists. Alexpl (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose User:USchick claims that the matter "isn't settled", in reality she and a couple of other tendentious editors just can't let it go. Geogene (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

See the number of edit wars outlined directly below this section. And that's just the main ones. USchick (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're counting "edit wars" now. Does it mean that information is being suppressed contrary to guidelines, or does it mean that at least one "side" in a content dispute is prone to warring? In any case, I don't see the wisdom in citing bad behavior as an effort to give legitimacy to the use of the tag. Geogene (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, information is being suppressed. Anything not consistent with one particular political opinion is automatically dismissed as "irrelevant." USchick (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Most everything that is being "suppressed" is coming from sources of low weight and doubtful (or at least easily questioned) reliability. Most of the arguments used against it are based on core policy like reliability, neutrality, and weight. The most common appeal for other viewpoints are based on an essay about systemic bias. Usually the systemic bias argument includes an admission that most of the sources have an Anglo-American bias. Of course the other viewpoints don't have much of a chance here, they never did. Wikipedia itself is structurally biased against them. At least you could avoid blaming other editors for this situation. Geogene (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why you dismissed a Malaysian source that reported about an online source, but other online crap is in the lede because it's "widely reported" by sources that you happen to like. This is called cherry picking sources, and this is what makes this article POV. USchick (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not under any obligation to "explain" anything to you. I did make a good faith effort on your Talk page. But now might be a good time for you to realize that flinging accusations is not a good way to persuade others to your viewpoint. Geogene (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

On my talk page you made a personal attack against me by accusing me of "slander" when in reality, you simply discounted a reliable source. USchick (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake! You *lied* about what Geogene said. Completely and absolutely. And it's not like it's that hard to check that you lied, or like there's room for interpretation. One way or another, that's slander. And it's not like this was some isolated instance of you completely misrepresenting editors or sources, you've been doing it consistently and repeatedly, I can list at least four different examples off the top of my head. Geogene pointed out that you were completely misrepresenting his statement in a bad faithed attempt to make him/her look. And now you turn around and claim that pointing this out is a "personal attack"! As in "it's okay for me to lie my ass off about you but if you dare to point out that I'm misrepresenting you in order to make you look bad, gosh darn it, golly gee wilkers, how dare you sir!!!???!! I am outraged, that's a personal attack!!!!!". Gimme a break. Quit while you're... before your hole gets any deeper. Volunteer Marek  00:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

LIED???? I completely stand behind my comments even though I'm being attacked again by someone who's not at all involved. USchick (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, USchick, someone who tells untruths in order to WP:WIN is a liar. It's called WP:SPADE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesus! USchick identifies as a Ukrainian on her user page for Christ's sake. She's on your side! Attack me all you want. I don't identify myself as Russian on my user page, but I do imply that I am, since I indicate that my mother tongue is Russian. Also, I have made it clear that I believe that Kiev shot down MH17, unlike any other editor as far as I know. USchick has expressed no such belief. All she is asking for is a minimal, tiny amount of objectivity in this article. And for that, you and Volunteer Marek viciously attack her. It is as if at English Wikipedia we have a miniature version of what is going on in the Ukraine. – Herzen (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about with someone being on 'my side' or not on 'my side' nonsense? I'm on the side of Wikipedia's policies and the spirit of the project, not on the side of making concessions to any theory before there is even any reliable scholarly research on a WP:RECENTISM matter. I've only just told you on another talk page not to make assumptions about where editors stand on any matter, yet you're doing exactly the same thing moments later. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I'm confused. You voted "opposed" to a POV tag being placed on this article. Then why did you thank me for this edit, for which Stickee instantly denounced me to ANI? – Herzen (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor pedantry: AN3, not ANI. Stickee (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-minor pedantry: the belief that "person X is of nationality/ethnicity Y, therefore they are on side Z" is almost the textbook definition of prejudice. Cut it out Herzen, POV pushing is one thing, bigotry is another. Personally I couldn't give a flip what nationality or ethnicity any of you are. It's about whether or not you're willing to respect Wikipedia policies, NPOV, RS, NOR etc. Volunteer Marek  06:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling the views of a people that a group with which you identify has a long-standing animosity with conspiracy theories, which you obsessively do, is a "textbook definition of prejudice", in my book. But of course, in your case, it's not prejudice. It's observing Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: If I thanked you for that edit, it was by accident. I must have had a few tabs open and clicked in the wrong tab. I shouldn't be so careless now that there's a double-check before thanking. Don't let it go to your head. I'm retracting it manually right here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: "Don't let it go to your head"? Your level of hostility and seeing WP as a battleground are amazing. But of course, you're here to build an encyclopedia, not to push your POV with incredible rudeness. – Herzen (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support User:Herzen. A minimal, tiny amount of objectivity in this article is all I ask. USchick (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article has problems (eg undue attention to speculation), but NPOV is not a major one of those. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf. Major or minor, there is a neutrality issue which needs to be addressed. There is no single universally accepted theory on the cause of the crash, but only one of them colours the article and gives the impression that Wikipedia subscribes to it. This has arisen mainly by inapropriate application of various Wikipedia principles, which I have been reading about a lot recently LOL! It is quite a complex topic and needs more in depth attention than it has received so far. I’ve analysed the issues and proposed a way to rectify it within Wikipedia rules. Please have a look at my response to this RfC, which explains my reasoning, and then look at my proposal to restructure the article, which shows how neutrality and balance can be achieved. Tennispompom (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support The article has major NPOV issues, which must be addressed if Wikipedia neutrality is to have any meaning.

To address the longstanding NPOV issues on this politically sensitive article, it is necessary to tackle head on the RS and Opinion vs. Fact rules which have been arbitrarily and inappropriately applied, resulting in low quality, poor balance and exclusion of key elements of the article, practically amounting to censorship). Specifically:-

* main competing theories on the downing have been excluded by using RS as reason for not including them

* attempts to reverse the use of RS as a tool of censorship, have been locked out by using the NOR rule inappropriately, creating confusion between fact and opinion

* over-enthusiastic editors have allowed their views to cloud to impose a decision making process based on personal likes and dislikes, instead of on rational application of Wikipedia rules

* the polarisation of personal views has contributed to a disrespectful atmosphere, where one single viewpoint has been superimposed on the article, in a world where no universal paradigm exists

* NOR (synthesis) rule has been broken, as follows. Citing from the Wikipedia NOR Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, Section: Related Policies, Subsection Neutral Point of View states: ""Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative."

To address the neutrality issues and rescue the article, it is first necessary to revisit the how RS should be applied in this politically sensitive article, how to distinguish between what is reported as fact and what is reported as opinion, and then to restructure the article in a way which allows it to comply with Wikipedia principles. By taking this approach, none of the existing work needs to be removed, it needs to be restructured and missing theories and events added in. Thus neutrality, due weight and balance will automatically follow.

RATIONALE on RS

In the context of a politically contentious article, media organisations cease to be mere sources, they are ACTORS. They provide a platform for information to be disseminated to the public, and colour it by what they chose to put in or leave out, by their positive or negative comment and to whom they chose to provide give a platform. The press and broadcasters exercise the power of information. Some abuse it some try not to, but they all filter information in accordance to their stance, be it party-political or otherwise.

In any state, whether it is democratic or authoritarian, the press, media and other information outlets to the public generally go hand in hand with the government and other institutions of that country, whether that be by threat of law, or by more subtle means such as appointing your pal to be the chief editor. While a certain level of watchful press should act as a guardian over the actions of the political establishment, e.g. exposing corruption, threats, etc in government, in an extreme cases, the state would cease to function if the main media was in direct conflict with the political establishment and government of the same country. There has to be a high degree of co-operation between the two, a mutual vision.

Lack of press freedom in an authoritatian state is often given as a reason for excluding a media source on RS grounds. However, in a politically sensitive topic, the media is an actor in its own right, and not a mere source, where Wikipedia is required to rubberstamp (or otherwise) the reliability of the information which the media source presents.

In an authoritarian state, the freedom of the press is curtailed by the state in order to control the people. What difference does that make in the context of reliable reporting in Wikipedia? None - Wikipedia shouldn't have a blind spot to reporting on the media actions in authoritarian states. In an authoritarian state it probably doesn't make much difference what the public think and know through their "subjected" media, because the public in an authoritarian state can be coerced rather than persuaded. Obviously any autocrat wants the people not to raise a rebellion in order to perpetuate his position of power, but if they get the information control wrong, they have more leeway to "fix it" by other powers at their disposal.

Let's look at democracies now. One can argue that the extent of concord between the political establishment and the mainstream media is much more necessary in a democracy than it is in an authoritarian state, because the mainstream media are almost the sole means by which the political system communicates with their voting public, and uses it to form and mould the public opinion (i.e. voters). A democracy also wants to propagate itself, and maintain the political system which they have in place (think of a democratic political system as a cartel between the current government and the opposition, who accept the rules and know that they are effectively power-sharing over time). A democracy therefore has a much greater incentive to control how the power of information is used in order to maintain the trust and cooperation of their voters, and hence a much greater incentive to interfere with the freedom of the press.

The conclusion must be that the use or abuse of power of information happens in all political systems. Just think of Berlusconi (italy), recent Leveson Enquiry in the UK and the resulting criminal prosecutions, and attempts to impose an enforceable Code of Conduct on the press. I'm not picking on UK, I just happen to be more familiar with the local events, it's just an example of what can go wrong with the press in a democracy. So when people proudly say that there's freedom of the press in their country, one should also ask "free to do what?"

In the context of a politically sensitive article, it doesn't matter whether the press is "free" or not, or even how free they are, what really matters is how is it acting.

It is a fact that power of information is used as a tool in all types of political systems, and the RS argument is irrelevant when reporting on the use of power of information, as exercised through the mainstream media of any type of state.

Also, it doesn't matter whether the power of information is being used or abused. In the context of a neutral Wikipedia, it is not for us to make a judgement call and try to justify the stance taken by any one media house, along the lines of "BBC is good, Pravda is bad". Our role is to report what they are doing. They are an actor in this context just as much as other actors such as ICAO or UN SC.

The Reliable Source rule has therefore been misapplied in this article. It has been mistakenly used to exclude certain sources as unreliable, and the result has been to throw out the baby with the bathwater, to censor the existence of alternative theories, presenting an unbalanced, biased view where one theory has been superimposed on the article as a global paraiogm (which it is not), while the other mainstream theories have been suppressed.

Reliable Source in this context is a red herring. There can be no more reliable source of how a mainstream media is choosing to act than the media source itself. Therefore the BBC is the best source to link to when presenting their use of power of information and Pravda is the best source to link to when presenting their use of power of information.

This is not a scientific article, where someone in Wikipedia rightly judges that the Beano is not a reliable source for Einstein's quantum theory. This is a politically sensitive article, where public opinion and the use of power of information matters. RS should not be applied as prohibition for inclusion in this type of article.

RATIONALE - fact and opinion

I'll illustrate using a more familiar scenario. When a murder takes place, especially of a celebrity, the press usually go haywire. All kinds of stuff is reported in the media, much of which eventually turns out to be wrong. Official investigators, usually the police, are appointed, the official invetigation begins, and when it eventually comes to trial, it all goes sub judice, the media have to exercise self-discipline on pain of all kinds of nasty sanctions if they misbehave. Eventually, the courts follow a process and pronounce judgement, and (barring appeals), it's generally the end of the matter - the official judgement becomes FACT. Of course there will be dissenting oppinions and views, criticisms, campaigns to reverse a perceived miscarriage of justice, etc. But the official processes (investigation, trial and judgement) create a fact. For example, Pistorius not guilty of murder is now fact; when the courts pronounce the sentence, no one in their right mind would say that the sentence is an "opinion". And it is in the light of that officially determined facts that all the previous media twists, opinions and speculations can now be assessed, impacting on their reputations in the public perception.

In the context of the international incident such as MH17, there is no concept of international sub judice, and it's all voluntary, depending on how the foreign policy of the any one country wants to play things. In the case of such a politically charged topic, the press and media are not being coerced to exercise restraint, we can expect all kinds of views and theories from all sides, there is an information war out there after all. However, the fact that an agreed international investigation exists, makes things very easy for a Wikipedia article: the rule to follow is that only the official authorised investigation generates facts, onlt the official state players generate facts, and all other reporting in the media, is an action by the media, who deliberately chosing which opinions and views to use to form public opinion. We don't know whether they are right or wrong, until the official investigations and official criminal trials, appeals etc., are completed. Therefore, there is no need for Wikipedia to take sides, no need to decide which theory is right or wrong, we only need to report a sensible gist of how the various mainstream media are exercising their power of information in this context.

There will be official statements by the institutions, e.g. Foreign minsters, e.g. Malaysia Airlines. What they say is an official statement, and (right or wrong), it should be reported as fact, because it is an action by the officially involved institution.

However, when an entity or person who is not part of the official investigations and the future trial process makes a statement, then the question arises, how do they know what they are saying? The answer is that by not being involved in the official investigation, what they say has no official standing, and should be treated as an action by the broadcasting house or newspaper who chose to provide it with a platform in order to influence public opinion. For example, when anonimous intelligence officers' views are reported by the BBC, this should not be viewed as the unnamed officers' action (we don't know who they are), this is the action of the BBC, who chose to give them a platform.

If everyone accepts this approach, then editors can achieve NPOV quite easily: it allows us all to temprarily sit on the fence while the official investigations are ongoing, even if we lean in opposite directions. It also resolves the RS issue and the Fact vs Opinion issues.

Please refer to my specific PROPOSAL - RESTRUCTURING BELOW

Tennispompom (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm pulling out the WP:TL;DR. Read WP:TALK properly. Keep comments as succinct as possible: no-one is obliged to, nor should we be compelled to, read a treatise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Iryna Harpy, apologies, I tried to address Volunteer Marek criticism (quote "The tag needs to be meaningfully substantiated, which means that it needs to be explained in detail which parts and how are in violation of policy. This hasn't been done. Not once.") Sorry, and thanks for links. Tennispompom (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, the lead for example jumps to speculations and judges without knowing the facts. The article should not make conclusions based on mainstream media reports. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The lede does no such thing. What some keep insisting on calling "speculation" (a purely rhetorical trick devoid of substance) is just info straight out of reliable sources. You don't like what reliable sources say? Go edit somewhere else because that's how we do it here on Wikipedia. I'm getting tired of saying this. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Social media comments attributed to fake profiles is speculation, even if reliable sources have a slow news day and have nothing better to report. USchick (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "social media comments attributed to fake profiles", this is The Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor, both very reliable sources. Quit misrepresentin'. Volunteer Marek  19:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been pointed out many times that the claim that the article must stay as it is because "we use reliable sources" is nothing but "a purely rhetorical trick devoid of substance". Or wait, it does have substance. "We use reliable sources" is Wikispeak for "I own this article." – Herzen (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That comment makes no sense what so ever. "We use reliable sources" is NOT a rhetorical trick, it's Wikipedia policy. "We use reliable sources" ... I don't know what Wikispeak is, but again, it's not in any way "I own this article", it's Wikipedia policy. Again. If you don't think we should use reliable sources go edit somewhere else and quit wasting our time. Volunteer Marek  20:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, using reliable sources is Wikipedia policy, but your ceaseless incantation of using reliable sources is a rhetorical trick. As is your rhetoric in which you talk as if Wikipedia policy and you are the same thing, whereas somebody who disagrees with you violates Wikipedia policy. Your rhetoric has become stale. – Herzen (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll happily cease to bring up Wikipedia policy, as soon as you start following Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek  20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not following wp policy. You are rejecting reliable sources, abusing new users, spamming talk, trolling, reverting edits, pushing uour pov and rejecting other views. I vote to ban this user.118.210.196.217 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing.  Volunteer Marek  00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Currently the article is not neutral and pushing a western pov without giving much credit to other theories. The current editors are refusing to negotiate and work as a team. They are rejecting other reliable sources. Furthermore, the article is poorly written and reads like a dogs breakfast. Not a tasty one... 118.210.196.217 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Single purpose account, basically complaining about the fact that they're not allowed to use this article as their POV propaganda platform. Too bad. Volunteer Marek  00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

So that makes it 2 sketchy throw away accounts showing up so far, the second one most certainly a banned sockpuppet. I say that before this is over we'll get to at least 5. Anyone wanna take the bet?  Volunteer Marek  21:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. Get back to the topic of conversation.118.210.196.217 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been all this time, and now Legobot has dragged me back to this talk page for this RFC, so, just to see if I can possibly contribute to this discussion without having to read this entire huge wall of text, would anyone be willing to say briefly what arguments and whatnot have already been presented, so I can avoid just repeating others? This may very well be asking too much, but there is no way that I'm reading all of this. Dustin (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt anyone involved would be able to give you a balanced summary of what has been said. I guess just read the actual base-level comments and not the huge back and forth discussion (which mostly went off track at times). Stickee (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• 'Oppose - What, exactly, is the problem? That the article is not consistent with the typical Kremlin-affiliated source? That is not an objection if those sources are unreliable, and we've been over that particular issue many times before. You cannot shortcut that debate about source reliability by slapping a tag on the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not Sure and offering Idea: At first I was support, but now I am not sure. I think that the article is cursed to be NPOV because of the drastically different portrayal and coverage of the events, by reliable sources. I don't know that any of the editors involved would be entirely to blame for the edit warring. I suggest that the lede of the article include something about the divergent coverage of the events and then rather than have a Russian Media Coverage have a "Divergent Media Coverage" section where the differences in coverage would be discussed. I think it is one of the more important parts of the story from a historical perspective. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good suggestion Elmmapleoakpine, it's what I've been suggesting all along: restructure to include world media coverage in a neutral manner. One of the issues has been a misinterpretation of WP policy to exclude all except secondary sources, whereas reliable primary sources are perfectly adequate and advocated in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. As Brian Dell put it nicely in another section, "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." . The Novaya Gazeta fails on undue weight grounds, but the principle applies to due weight media views, such as those from China and India (2/3 of global population). Have a look at my Restructuring proposal. Tennispompom (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your maths - China and India (both about 1B inhab) make up for 2/6 of the world population - not 2/3

Also if we go for a one man one vote system in the media than we should reduce Dutch and Australian media to almost nothing, while we desperately would need Brasilian insights etc. I don't think that would improve the article.

Distinguishing between involved (plane and passenger; country over which it happened) and uninvolved may help a bit, but that leave Russia as problematic. Russia claims to be uninvolved (rendering their media irrelevant); but if they are indeed involved their statements on this case are proven to be unreliable (as they claim they are not). Arnoutf (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any interest in distinguishing between involved and uninvolved parties? Does anyone want to see an RfC about that? USchick (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the direction of "involved/uninvolved" parties is a slippery slope back into edit warring. My suggestion about a divergent media coverage section is about helping to segregate the undisputed facts from the whatever geopolitical bias exists in the various media coverage. There was an event. There are verifiable facts about that event that everyone agrees upon. There are unverifiable facts that have been widely speculated upon. Having a divergent media coverage section allows the various speculations to be covered in the article while arguing over whether they are true facts. So and So said X, So and so said Y. I think could spare everyone a lot of arguing. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW- I do understand that Russian media coverage is vastly different from that of most other media outlets. I am simply trying to offer a way of avoiding the ongoing dispute of facts elsewhere in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Any RFC about placing NPOV label is waste of time and disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support See vapour trail thread. The Bias in the 'Causes' section is embarrassing for an encyclopedia. Its the same old WP problem. Remember the Wikiscanner? Heres a reminder. In a few months in 2007 IPs were scanned. "The results have been astounding -- tens of millions of anonymous edits, performed by more than 180,000 organizations, some of them in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Among the many organizations cited: the FBI, CIA, Britain's Labour Party, the Vatican, Wal-Mart, the Republican Party, the Church of Scientology, Dell Computers, Microsoft, Apple and the United Nations". Has anything changed? SaintAviator lets talk 02:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose RFC is not really required for assuring the use of NPOV tag. You have to make sure that you have resolved all issues with the neutrality, if you have any issues, just discuss about them and consider opening a new RFC which would be related with the article content. Noteswork (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support The article is obviously biased. MarchHare1977 (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Is this article biased?

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

Another stick hitting the dead horse. I guess we'll wait for six months or twelve to find out whether NPOV will have been adhered. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Does this article adhere to the "neutral point of view" policy? (By the way, there was no consensus to add the NPOV template in the previous RFC. Re-propose adding it somewhere in the talk page but not in this section.) --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this just running in circles? Isn't this just wasting others' time?  Volunteer Marek  03:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were other discussions besides the previous RFC. Can you show me examples? --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just go into the archives and search "NPOV" or "POV". Ctrl+F tells me those words are mentioned over a hundred times in the last 3 archives (archives 18-20, not archive 21). Stickee (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is running in circles and guess why? It is because of people like you who are clearly preventing a neutral article!118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The above close...

We're all not stupid. Move on. If you have no light, don't contribute heat. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...pretty much answers the question in the affirmative. HiLo48 (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "In the affirmative" ... as in "yes, it does adhere to neutral point of view". Thank you. Volunteer Marek  01:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Typical smartarse response. I know you're not really that stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Take care with your words then. Oh, and don't make grandiose pronouncements that have no basis in fact. Volunteer Marek  01:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Kind of confusing when the title of the section and the opening question are opposites. Stickee (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Agreed, but I still insist that Volunteer Marek isn't that stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Umm... the question was "Is the article biased?". If the close answers the question in affirmative then the article IS biased. Case closed. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OCSE monitor mentions bullet holes in MH17

This has been discussed before; furthermore, now that there is a criminal investigation underway, there is no point in speculating. Also, the editor who opened this discussion has decided to no longer contribute to this article. – Herzen (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[16]original source [17] SaintAviator lets talk 07:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC) That's not the actual headline. The headline is "MH17 Pieces With Shrapnel-Like Holes, OSCE Says" Stickee (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC) I never said it was the headline. Im saying the OCSE monitor mentions bullet holes in MH17. SaintAviator lets talk 08:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "It almost looks like machine-gun fire". Hmmm, is Michael Bociurkiw a ballistics expert? I think we should be told. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Still is it better or worse than some of the included material now in causes, or about as good, Hmm? Take this from 'causes' 'An unnamed American intelligence official stated'. Seriously Guys, its embarrassing. SaintAviator lets talk 09:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) [18] Sayerslle (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia editor mentions alien death ray (in fact I did just now). Arnoutf (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC) "'An unnamed American intelligence official stated'. Seriously Guys, its embarrassing." - Have you ever read this thing called a "newspaper"?  Volunteer Marek  19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What criminal investigation?Tobeortobe (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your question. The article has a section called "Criminal investigation". – Herzen (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It´s in the article. Of course this conserved section does not contain the full quote of this "OSCE official" - that he is not trained to identify that sort of damage.[19]. Disinformation. Alexpl (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Notable that Russia now admits it was a Buk?

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140911/192823230/Fragments-Found-in-Bodies-of-MH17-Pilots-Could-Be-Buk-Missile-Shrapnel.html

Add that in next to the fighter mention? Hcobb (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Russian government always simultaneously argued for two mutually contradictory explanations (in addition to about half a dozen completely ridiculous scenarios). "It wasn't a BUK, that's "Western propaganda", it was a Ukrainian fighter jet flying at an impossible altitude that shot it down!" and then "It was a BUK fired by the Ukrainians! Here is some blurry photographs with a little block dot on it! It proves it!" and then "Stop talking about any BUKs! It was a fighter jet!" etc. etc. etc. It's classic disinformation tactic, where what you say doesn't have to make sense, just confuse people. I guess this might be an indication that now that the evidence is coming in they might settle on one of them. Too bad for all you guys that've been running around with this conspiracy-website based fighter jet nonsense. That oughta teach ya to listen to propaganda outlets. Probably won't though. Volunteer Marek  22:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts (again) on how evil the Russian Government is. Any thoughts on improving the article? HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if they're evil or not. I know they're lying their asses off and the proof is right there. Volunteer Marek  23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Tempted to paste this on as a banner headline above the lede, regardless of how evil it is. Well, maybe not an improvement, so perhaps not yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Russian government just thinks that all relevant scenarios should be considered, unlike some Wikipedia editors. In other words, it just humors conspiracy theorists with their crackpot Buk theory. The rebels thought they were shooting at a Ukrainian military plane and hit MH17 by mistake. No wait, the rebels conspired with Russia to shoot down a Russian airliner and hit a Malaysian airliner by mistake. – Herzen (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The "crackpot Buk theory" that they themselves propagate, just claiming it was a Ukrainian Buk? The "crackpot Buk theory" which has helluva more support than any of the ridiculous scenarios presented by either Russian government or the conspiracy websites? The "crackpot Buk theory" which now even RIA Novosti is starting to admit there's evidence for? You know, at some point this is going to get very difficult for you.

And as to your last sentence, that was already explained to you, several times I believe. It's one thing to speculate about the *motives* of the shooters. Motives are not observables, absent explicit testimony. So it's perfectly legit to think that they might have shot it down by mistake or that they might have shot it down for some other reasons. What is not legit is to give two mutually contradictory explanations for observable outcomes and insist that they're both correct. This is elementary. Just takes a bit of thought and reflection. Volunteer Marek  23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I would oppose including any info from that article, since it's not a reliable source. Wait to see if this is confirmed by RSs. Volunteer Marek  23:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Alexpl (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I support both edits. Lklundin (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the The Sydney Morning Herald a RS?

Is the The Sydney Morning Herald a RS?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/russian-military-provided-mh17-missile-launcher-says-report-20141109-11jhb0.html Good enough to include? Or too biased? Hcobb (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Duplicate: this story is already being discussed in the section #Updated Bellingcat report on the origin of a Buk launcher. Stickee (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) To answer the question, yes, the SMH is one of the most reliable sources in Australia. It is probably very accurately reporting what that crowd-sourced enquiry has found. Doesn't prove much though. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

China opinion

I've found a brilliant source for Chinese take on the tragedy. Where shall I include it? Separate section on "Chinese Media Coverage" or under "Reactions"? Ideas please. Tennispompom (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems like you're just playing games here. No need to create a new section to prove a point when your comment clearly relates to the dispute in the section above. Stickee (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. As China is about as involved as Tuvalu, we might have to consider adding a Tuvalu media coverage section too. Arnoutf (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Playing games?!? USER: Stickee, please remember good faith principle. I've been recommending a restructuring of this article for reasons of neutrality for weeks now, this should not come as a surprise. As the restructuring didn't get much support, I can accept it, and am trying to fit in within the existing structure. Tuvaly is a ridiculous example, because it would clearly fail on undue weight grounds. China and India do not - one could argue that their views are more due weight than the US view, but I won't go there. I will be adding India's view too, when I have found out what it is. I am not playing games here. Perhaps the Talk section on Restructuring which i proposed earlier, should be brought back for a review. Tennispompom (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you really insist, throw them in International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown. Stickee (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A China section might get priority over Tuvalu, but should not over New Zealand and Belgium (who suffered casualties and are thus involved). We cannot start all these sections so if relevant it should go in a larger section indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf, if you followed that logic consistently, you would be excluding US and Russian views too - clearly nonsensensical. There needs to be a neutral and consistent approach, and - as I suggested many times before - the list must not be of editors' own making (to avoid NOR rule), it needs to be based on Wikipedia guidelines on due weight and neutrality: per WP, this is dictated by majority and significant minority views. Majority are clearly China and India (2/3 of global population) and significant minorities - participants in the official investigation, and - as you suggest - parties who suffered casualties. So please do suggest which section to include China, bearing in mind I'll be adding India next weekend. Tennispompom (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what's this "brilliant source" that you've found, Tennispompom? Do the views of Chinese and Indian media represent some kind of "neutral perspective"? How can we know? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Tennispompom where did you get the idea that the majority of the population of the world is always the relevant mainstream view?

Also you have serious problems with your maths (as I pointed out before). India and China have both about pop 1 Bilion. The world have about 6. 2/6 is not the same as 2/3.

In any case there is no policy that claims we always need global majorities and to be honest it would be ridiculous to demand that for many articles such as demanding inclusion of Chinese/Indian sources for the Barneveld article.

I do however agree with your analysis that Russian point of view is largely irrelevant, go ahead and remove it. Arnoutf (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Acting in good faith is more important than assuming good faith. This proposal clearly fails that. Volunteer Marek  04:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Arnoutf, how on earth can an intelligent person interpret a statement that the Russian POV is irrelevant, in a section proposing inclusion of Chinese view, as a recommendation to remove the Russian position from the article? Taking statements out of context seems like deliberate obtuseness!

Yes, China and India are about 1/3 world population, not 2/3. Excuse the typo. Of course their views are relevant - this is an international incident, nothing "local" about this one. In this atricle, the Western view is being presented as a single global view, which it clearly is not. And of course Chinese view is even more significant than Indian, coming so soon after the disappearance of MH370 and considerable Chinese casualties. I'm guessing you don't know what Chinese view is, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to exclude it. Chinese view is that MAS were sloppy and should be blamed for risking the lives of the passengers by flying over a conflict zone, when other Asian airlines had stopped flying over it a while back. They also accuse the West of hypocrisy in being outraged over 300 deaths on MH17, but ignoring the much greater number of deaths in Eastern Ukraine through bombing, which caused the rebels to shoot at aircraft in the first place.

Chinese view isn't any more neutral than any other view, but they do have the point which should not be silenced. MAS took the risk of flying over a conflict zone, and when the risk materialised, 300 people lost their lives. Tennispompom (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The relation with MH370 is synthesis. The issue about flying the detour is mentioned elsewhere too (and Singapore airlines was also in the air corridor so not all Asian....). There is nothing hypocritical about caring more about people close to you than about others. This idea of social distance (we care more about families, colleagues, country people) than about strangers (also labelled as social distance) is human. In fact if we follow this through to the letter the Chinese should argue the West is hypocritical that we don't object to the many casualties in China due to bad labour conditions and smog created to make our products.

Also following your size of population logic China's view (1.3 B pop) should only be marginally more important than India's view (1.2 B) nowadays. So where is the Indian POV?

The view point presented should be based on relevance (hypocrisy is not relevant to this particular article but maybe to the larger theatre; the issue of choosing to fly over is dealt with by other sources too) not on population number. In the latter case the Dutch view should only receive about 1/1000 of the attention of the Indian view. I hope you agree that would be ridiculous. Arnoutf (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Dutch prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down MH17

Reuters: MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner - Der Spiegel

Dutch prosecutors investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 believe the aircraft might have been shot down from the air but that a ground-to-air missile attack is more likely, a senior prosecutor said in a German media interview. …

In an interview published by German newsmagazine Der Spiegel on Monday, prosecutor Fred Westerbeke said the Dutch would ask Moscow to provide the information that had led them to believe a Ukrainian aircraft was nearby.

"Based on the information available, a shooting-down by a ground-to-air missile is the most likely scenario, but we aren't closing our eyes to the possibility that it could have happened differently," Der Spiegel quoted him as saying.

Dutch prosecutors are open to the possibility that a fighter plane shot down MH17, but some editors game the system to prevent English Wikipedia being open to that possibility. Are our the truth is out there editors now going to tell us that Dutch prosecutors are conspiracy theorists and FRINGE?
Spiegel article: MH17-Chefermittler Westerbeke: "Wissen die Russen womöglich mehr?"
Herzen (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Spiegel International: Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence' SPIEGEL: So you're saying there hasn't been any watertight evidence so far?

Westerbeke: No. If you read the newspapers, though, they suggest it has always been obvious what happened to the airplane and who is responsible. But if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one.

SPIEGEL: Moscow has been spreading its own version for some time now, namely that the passenger jet was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet. Do you believe such a scenario is possible?

Westerbeke: Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have happened differently.

Unlike Dutch prosecutors, some Wikipedia editors do close their eyes, because they already know the truth. – Herzen (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You and your truth. In the specific case you left out the most significant statement from Westerbeke: 'We are preparing a request to Moscow for information ... including the radar data with which the Russians wanted to prove that a Ukrainian military jet was nearby". He is basically calling the bluff of Moscow and asks to see what cards they hold - and the fact that he uses the past tense (the Russians wanted to prove) is rather telling of his expectations. This puts Moscov in quite a dilemma. Moscov's decades of experience in faking evidence presented to the public via state controlled media will be hard pressed to come up with something that holds water in an actual forensic analysis. Time will tell how that goes. Lklundin (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case, this is what any investigator should do. Keep all options that are not proven nonsense open; however implausible/unlikely. If they would say anything else the investigation would be flawed. However as the investigator also states is that they think the SAM missile theory most probable. So this does not change anything to our discussion Arnoutf (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If investigators are keeping all options open, why don't Wikipedia editors do the same? USchick (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE WP:UNDUE.

Also a new version must require consensus before adding; the mere removal shows no consensus and puts the onus of bringing it to the talk page on the editors who want it in. Not the editor who removed the addition. Arnoutf (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please link to a policy with that requirement. A brief statement properly sourced does not need special approval as far as i can tell. WP:BRD USchick (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe that you're still clinging to the FRINGE smear. If Reuters runs a story with the headline "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner" which many news Web sites pick up, this theory is not fringe. And as I said below, reporting what the chief prosecutor says is UNDUE. The chief prosecutor is quite possibly the main actor now when it comes to MH17. – Herzen (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in your OR. I can see that you honestly believe the preposterous theory that the rebels shot down MH17 with a Buk missile. Russian "state controlled media" don't have anything to worry about: Russia did not botch a false flag: Ukraine did. As for cherry picking, instead of adding "the most significant statement from Westerbek", Arnoutf just reverted my edit, instead of raising his objections to my edit here, which is what he should have done.

This is his edit summary: "Sorry but words like "preferred" are non neutral by nature. Also the lenght makes this unduly long." Why was that "unduly long"? That was an interview with the chief prosecutor. Significant further developments regarding MH17 will now come from the criminal investigation arena, not the technical investigation. So making my addition to the article any shorter would not have given due weight to this interview. As for "preferred", I really don't see what's wrong with that, but I can easily take it out. Doggedly sticking to his battleground attitude, instead of discussing what edits could be made to the text I added, Arnoutf unilaterally undid the edit. Such behavior makes it very hard for one to assume that Arnoutf is here to build an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin: If that is "the most significant statement from Westerbeke", then why doesn't the English Spiegel article mention it? – Herzen (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

First, my contributions are not belief-driven I just report from reliable sources (although I allow myself some digression on the talk-pages). Also, I am not convinced that it was rebels who actually pulled the trigger on the BUK, it could also have been 'green men' from Russia. If you like to refer to that as 'preposterous' then that says a lot about the strength of your beliefs. As for Westerbeke I don't consider any of his statements regarding the super-capable SU-25 as notable - with a possible exception if they cause Moscow to show their hand. But I cannot speak for Der Spiegel. Dismiss also this as OR if you like. (PS. If I inserted this reply in the wrong place, then I am sorry - I am unsure about the meaning of the highly variable indentation in this thread). Lklundin (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) This is an obvious attempt at a ... creative, interpretation of a source in order to push a POV. Volunteer Marek  20:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

a) It is not brief. b) it is not properly sourced. See my analysis of the most obvious problems in this 'short' section.

As I was unable to edit bias information about MH17 so I went here to look at the discussion and realize POVs are the real editor. Clearly the relevant information from Westerbeke is a) No info from US 100+ days after accusations, b) They now ask Moscow for evidence, AND c) They do not rule out the version Moscow have presented on the 21st of July. Sadly there are several bias history writing examples, i.e. citing a Polish source for RT claiming mistaken identity with Putins plane. Reading the *actual* RT story clearly shows wiki-article is factually wrong and only serves to ridicule and cast doubt on anything coming from Russia. Godvad (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Time magazine --Unencyclopedic to quote a secondary source like this--, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred --Highly biased word; is not in the source hence original research--. in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing --biased word; is not in the source hence original research--. theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.[200] In an interview with Der Spiegel, the chief Dutch MH17 prosecutor Fred Westerbeke indicated that he is open to theory --not what the source states. The source states that they do not close their eyes to the possibility which is magnitude of order less than being open -- that another plane shot down the airliner, saying "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one." -- This now looks like it is on the plane shooting down, but it is not. Take out of context hence clear violation of orginal research/synthesis ---

And these are only a few obvious problems. The last remark of Herzen is clear violation of WP:AGF and pretty close to a personal attack. Arnoutf (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Time magazine, there are conflicting claims. Would anyone like to talk about that now? USchick (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not the topic of this thread. So no. Arnoutf (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It happens to be the topic of the current edit war and the topic of your preceding comment, so feel free to discuss it at any location you feel is appropriate. USchick (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

What don't you understand in this Reuters headline: "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner"? Please stop making false allegations against me. – Herzen (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are talking about me: The phrase "Doggedly sticking to his battleground attitude, instead of discussing what edits could be made to the text I added, Arnoutf unilaterally undid the edit. Such behavior makes it very hard for one to assume that Arnoutf is here to build an encyclopedia. " Is a smoking gun for WP:AGF. The claim "false allegations" is another. Arnoutf (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• One should really read the publication by Reuters quoted above [20]. It tells: "An interim report issued by the Dutch Safety Board, which investigates air crashes, listed several passenger jets in flight MH17's vicinity, but no military aircraft that would have been capable of shooting it down.", and also: "The Russian government has always said it has radar imagery proving the fully laden Boeing 777 was shot down by a Ukrainian military aircraft flying in its vicinity, but Western officials have never publicly accepted this scenario." Dutch investigators believe that the plane was shot down by BUK missile, however, they are ready to examine Russian radar data (meaning no one provided them such data so far). This is far from endorsing the alternative version. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Quoting from the publication; "We are preparing a request to Moscow for information ... including the radar data with which the Russians wanted to prove that a Ukrainian military jet was nearby," he added. Dated today, Mon Oct 27. So we already have the initial report, but the request is still being prepared. No endorsement has been made yet. Also, The Russian government is just as uninvolved as the American government. In order to include either opinion, it would be helpful to explain why their opinion counts. Right? USchick (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@USchick. If and when they receive these data and come up with new conclusions, that could be a time for revision, but I do not see any new information about the crash right now. Filing a request by investigators is hardly something notable.My very best wishes (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Quoting more: Dutch prosecutors investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 believe the aircraft might have been shot down from the air... What's new about this is now we have an RS (dated today) that says the investigators believe in an alternative theory. Not fringe, not POV, investigators are considering this as a real possibility and requesting more evidence. It seems like it's time to update the article with this new information. USchick (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

False, the source does not say that "investigators believe in an alternative theory". This is just more misrepresentation. Volunteer Marek  00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"shot down from the air" is not the same as "shot down from the ground" USchick (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

and your "..." = "but that a ground-to-air missile attack is more likely". Stop playing games. Volunteer Marek  00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So even you admit, there is more than one possibility, and the investigators are considering ALL of them. USchick (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It was precisely my point (see above) that Dutch investigators do not believe in alternative theory, which is clear after reading whole article. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigators investigate and report. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant. And the same should go for Wikipedia editors. USchick (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. There is no reason to think that prosecutors "believe" the Buk missile theory, either. What the chief prosecutor said was that "it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario." He was careful not to say that "it is my opinion that a surface to air missile shot down MH17." He said that he believes that that is the most likely scenario. And he is clear about there being two main theories, with one more likely to be true than the other. This article must consider both theories, because Wikipedia policy is to " describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"." You do not stop insisting that there is one "best view". The only conclusion I can draw is that you do not understand the Five Pillars. – Herzen (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that prosecutors "believe" the Buk missile theory, either. Uhh, yes there is. The "most likely" part. Volunteer Marek  02:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between "It is more likely that event A occurred than that event B occurred" and "event A occurred", then there is no point in having a discussion with you. Also, why do you insist on using OR to read investigators' minds? The chief prosecutor is a lawyer; hence he chooses his words carefully. Why not let Wikipedia report what he says, instead of making guesses about what he thinks? You are not even trying to maintain the appearance of being reasonable anymore – just making wild, unprovable claims. – Herzen (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Look, I'm not interested in a discussion about epistemic logic so let's just say that the prosecutor obviously believes that the most likely explanation is that it was a BUK. Yes, we can say that. But we can't cherry pick, twist his words, or quote them out of context, as you and USchick are trying to do. *That* is OR. Volunteer Marek  04:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How is giving an extended quotation "twisting words"? And the quotation I gave actually provided context: the investigation, unlike the press, needs evidence, precisely because it is a criminal investigation. That is the context of the investigators' remarks. I let the investigator provide this context by letting him speak for himeslf; Tlsandy took that context setting out. And how are cherry picking – which is precisely what you want this article to continue to do – and "twisting words" OR? All I can see going on here is one sustained IDONTHEAR and various random incoherent arguments produced to game the system so that editors who are here to build an encyclopedia are disrupted at every turn to prevent them from making the article attain neutrality. What part of "we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"" don't you understand? – Herzen (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Toronto Sun and Chicago Tribune have picked up the story. [21] [22] And The Sydney Morning Herald [23], MSN Phillipines [24], Irish Independent [25], NDTV India [26] USchick (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, they're all the same Reuters story, "This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source". Stickee (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It's the same story. Reuters is a wire service. Volunteer Marek  04:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, both of those are the Reuters story, as Stickee points out. AP and AFP have not picked this up. Predictably, the usual suspects – the NY Times, Wash Post, BBC, and Guardian – are ignoring it. I found one German story which, like the Reuters story, reports on the Spiegel article:

Schon länger gibt es die Theorie, dass ein Kampfjet den Flug MH17 im Juli abgeschossen hat. Nun äußert sich erstmals der holländische Chef-Ermittler zu der Frage. Er erklärt, dass sein Team nur noch von zwei Szenarien ausgeht.

For some time it has been theorized that a fighter shot down flight MH17 in July. Now for the first time the Dutch chief investigator has expressed himself on the question. He explains that his team goes out from only two scenarios.

So the journalist who wrote that can understand what the chief prosecutor said, even though some editors here can't. Also, it's funny how Dutch prosecutors are considering the exact same two theories that the Russian engineers' report considers. – Herzen (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if it's the same story according to Wiki policy, there's no question now about what the investigators are investigating. Can we please update the article? USchick (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed regarding the (criminal) investigation since a month ago when he said they're still investigating. There's no new information presented. Stickee (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why is there a news wire? The headline could have been, "No New Information" but that's not what it says. And it confirms what the Malaysian and other international sources have been saying all along. See "Conflicting claims" section for links. USchick (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it would be a bit hard to sell newspapers with a headline like that. Stickee (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys Im curious, for the Buk proponents, where was the 10,000 plus metre 5 min lasting massive smoke plume? No one saw it, or filmed it. Nothing. Odd. SaintAviator lets talk 07:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Lklundin (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

True but its on topic, the Dutch will know this about the plume, hence the interest in the 2nd aircraft theory. There is too much counter evidence for the Dutch to ignore it. If this encyclopedia article is to be balanced, well it needs to be constantly updated by NPOV entries.SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Its not on topic. You just assume that there is always a massive smoketrail which stays there for minutes - based upon what? Maybe a youtubevideo? Leave that to the investigators. Alexpl (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Theres no need to get personal. WP itself covers the fuel supply of rockets. Unless you know something rocket scientists dont know, ie a source of smokeless fuel, I suggest you do some research. SaintAviator lets talk 23:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean exotic stuff like wind, clouds and the effects of a hot summer day? Good point. Alexpl (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if Alexpl proves himself to be an actual rocket scientist the suggested research would still be OR. Btw my own, non-notable experience with rockets is that while a large rocket like the Space Shuttle Booster leaves a smoke trail visible from far away, a much smaller (BUK-sized) rocket can leave a thin trail that quickly becomes difficult to see. Lklundin (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a fine clear day wind very low, you guys should know this. Buks are not small. A visible plume would point to a Buk. The lack of a plume has not been explained adequately by team Buk SaintAviator lets talk 09:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no "team BUK". The highly questionable experts, who promoted the SU-25 theory, are the only reason, why the BUK theory seems to be dominant. Maybe you should send an email to the dutch investigators and point them to the smoketrail. But we cant help you. Alexpl (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There most certainly is a team Buk 'out there'. Its naive to ignore the politics, but WP should, I repeat should, be above it. Im not going to send an email to the dutch investigators nor Im sure have you. There was no Buk plume, perhaps you need to think on that and stay away from personal attacks to distract from the point. SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You did not really think that through. "The West" with all its conflictive movements is stable and diverse enough to life with every possible "truth" coming up. Russia is not.

Again: EOD until you bring something sourced and helpful. Alexpl (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

---

On my Talk page, Adjwilley accused me of engaging in a slow edit war with Tlsandy. (The concept of a slow edit war is another Wikipedia concept I was not aware of before.) The passage in question is this:

According to Westerbeke, investigators initially considered four scenarios: "An accident, a terrorist act, downing by a surface-to-air missile, or an attack from another airplane. After the release of the DSB preliminary report the accident and terror scenarios were eliminated. The two others remain."

That is my translation of the direct quote that was given of Westerbeke in the German Spiegel article. I did not raise the issue of whether this passage should be included in the article in Talk because after I added it, it stayed there for a few days. And then, when it started getting deleted, the only people who did so were not editors I have interacted with concerning this article in the past, but My very best wishes (who self-reverted the last time he took this passage out) and Tlsandy, who is an obvious SPA. Thus, the problem here is that a SPA is reverting pertinent well-sourced information, without ever explaining his continual reverts in Talk.
One can say that there are three dimensions to the MH17 incident: the incident itself, the technical investigation, and the criminal investigation. The direct quote of the chief prosecutor I give that Tlsandy keeps on deleting concisely explains how the technical investigation has influenced the criminal investigation. If Wikipedia did not explain this connection, it would simply not be doing its job as an encyclopedia.
Is anyone willing to argue that this passage must be deleted from the article? If not, do we have a consensus that it belongs there? – Herzen (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The comments at 22:51 and 00:24 appear to disagree with it. Stickee (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not an answer. (1) Both of those comments were made before I inserted the text in question into the article, so they were about something else. (2) The comment at 22:51 was made by My very best wishes who, as I noted, self-reverted the last time he deleted the text in question, which indicates that he has changed his mind. (3) The comment at 00:24 by Volunteer Marek was about a specific paraphrase of mine, whereas the text that is being fought over now is a direct quotation of the chief prosecutor, who is now effectively the foremost authority on MH17. – Herzen (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't there when this all went down so perhaps I'm missing something, but it looks like My very best wishes had some help with the self-reverting. [27]. If you're talking about this self-revert then I would question your conclusion that they changed their mind, since the edit summary says, "this should not be included...". Either way, you need to work out some sort of consensus or compromise on this before any more reverting takes place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: "Changed his mind" was perhaps an unfortunate formulation. I took his self-revert to mean that he felt that the case for the deletion of this passage could not be successfully made, even though he personally disliked it. As for working out a consensus or compromise, I created this Talk section and made a lot of comments in it, whereas the only editor who is now reverting the passage in question has made zero comments. Nobody has been able to produce an argument for why a direct quotation of the chief prosecutor of how the Dutch Safety Board investigation of the MH17 crash has influenced the criminal investigation should not be included in the article. So I have grounds for considering that a consensus has already been reached. What is going on is that one SPA has been continually deleting this passage, without even once deigning to participate in the discussion in Talk. – Herzen (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess I'll take a stab at it. You attempted to insert a sentence at the start of this thread, and it was reverted. When the conversation finished on the 28 October (ignoring SaintAviator's foruming), the section looked like this (note that it doesn't contain that sentence). You've now attempted to insert a similar one (7 times!) here. Stickee (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify my opinion, yes, I self-reverted for the time being [28], but I still believe these insignificant details of ongoing investigation should be removed per WP:recentism. And I think they will certainly be removed sooner or later by someone.My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep I've done this now. Stickee (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Pure disinformation.

No single mention of the bullet decalls holes in the Plane debris. This its a shame of article. A complete whitewash, and "investigations are under way" panflet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Not sure what a "bullet decalls hole" is, can you please explain and provide a reliable source that whatever it is is relevant, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC) MilborneOne If you don't know what the IP is referring to I suggest you do a search for the name German name Biedermann and MH17.Tobeortobe (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Updated Bellingcat report on the origin of a Buk launcher

• HTML version
• PDF Version
• Kyiv Post article

This should soon be replicated by other sources. --PM3 (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure this adds much of relevance to what we already have in the article and already know. Especially since a ranking rebel commander (Aleksander Chodakovski - Dutch transliteration) already acknowledged in an interview with Dutch media that the rebels had a captured Ukranian BUK, that they did not fire it, and that they moved it out of the region to avoid being (unjustly) blamed. [29] NB This is what he said, not necessarily what I believe happened. Let's not speculate about this until we know more. Arnoutf (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I knew you'd be interested in this! It's got the attention of a lot of the Dutch media already:

• [30] - PowNed
• [31] - BNR News
• [32] - RTL Nederland
• [33] - Suomen Tietotoimisto (Finnish News Agency)
• [34] De Telegraaf (This is from ANP agency).
• [35] De Dagelijkse Standaard

Stickee (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Stickee. @Arnoutf: Chodakovski did not say anything in the interview about the origin of the Buk [36].

One new thing about this new Bellingcat article is that it thoroughly analyses the sidelines of Buk systems on different photos. That's nice evidence to find out which photos show the same Buk starter. The WP article currently speaks of "markings and lorry registration plates" which were analysed in the first Bellingcat report. So it may be noted that Bellingcat found more evidence which confirms their first conclusions. Also, this second report was not just made by Igor Ostanin, but a team of bloggers/journalists including Eliot Higgins. --PM3 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I think these new publications and conclusions should be reflected in the page, with appropriate attribution. BTW, I think such reports by independent investigative journalists are significantly more reliable and informative than vague claims by state-controlled organizations, such as German intelligence, or meaningless statements by official investigators who do not reveal their data before the end of their investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The section that talks about Igor Ostanin would likely be the best place, as suggested by PM3. The current sentence as its own paragraph in the lead (placed by Sayerslle) is kind of strange by itself. Stickee (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Since my last post there's now been some English-language articles out about the Bellingcat report:

• MH17 was brought down by weapon supplied by Russian military': Report claims 'undeniable evidence' that missile launcher was provided to rebels in Ukraine - Daily Mail
• Crowd-funded report reveals ‘undeniable evidence’ missile that shot down MH17 supplied by Russia - News Corp
• Russian military provided MH17 missile launcher, says report - SMH
• Russian missile, separatists took out MH17: report - NL Times
• MH17 Update: Missile That Took Down Airline ‘Undeniably’ Provided By Russian – Report - IB Times
• Missile launcher used to shoot down MH17 provided by Russia, says report - The Malaysian Insider

Not full articles, but also mentions in ABC [37], Business Insider [38], Deutsche Welle [39]. Stickee (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Abbott's Position

There's been a bit of back-and-forth about this (the edit in question), so I've made a section here. From what I can tell, none of the sources are saying that his position has "softened", especially the source given. A quote by Abbott from another article:

"Abbott was asked ... whether he stood by his early strong statements. The Australian leader said his remarks were based on intelligence and he had not seen any evidence to contradict the initial conclusions: “We were given very strong security advice in the days following the atrocity … and there’s been nothing since then to question that original security advice.”" - The Guardian, 6 November 2014

This was only a few days ago, so it seems he and The Guardian have explicitly stated that their position has not changed. Stickee (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Abbott is being a typical politician and avoiding answering the real question. His initial comments were made within hours of the downing of the plane, not days, which is the period after which he says he received his "intelligence". His initial comments were made before that alleged intelligence arrived, and were completely in line with the nasty things he had been saying about those evil Russians in Ukraine long before the crash. He is playing with words. He is a politician. They do that. He became a subject of ridicule in much of Australia after declaring he would shirtfront Putin. See here for what that means to many Australians. We eagerly await this event. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

'we eager await this event' - what is the point of such asinine forum-ish posturing remarks. wp:notforum.Sayerslle (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my typo. I've fixed it. My post clarifies some obfuscation by a politician, obfuscation which editors from outside Australia may not understand. I'm helping you learn the truth. I'll await your thanks for that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

it wasn't the typo I was pointing out it was your endless pointless asinine remarks that serve only to raise temperatures and are forum-ish claptrap. as for your mockery of the idea of evil i'll pass this on to you from charles Baudelaire - 'La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas.' - don't thank me, just remember it next time you mock the idea of political leaders as evil . Sayerslle (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying Abbott is evil? (The thread is about him.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that HiLo48 was mocking "the idea of political leaders as evil". He was mocking the evident conceit of Western news media that Russians are evil. As far as I am aware, no one here has suggested that none of the political leaders of NATO and Anglophone countries are evil, so you don't have to worry that anyone is under the illusion that no political leaders are evil. American conservatives, for example, understand that not only is Putin not evil, but he is in fact the leader of the moral world; however, that Russian leaders are not evil does not imply that some Western politicians are not evil. I hope this has cleared up any misunderstanding. – Herzen (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

drivel. Sayerslle (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have posted in a couple of places elsewhere about how a group of Putin hating, self appointed owners of this article reject all other views without intelligent (or in some cases, any) conversation. Thank you for proving my point. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about putin-haters, - its about Reuters, and such, other RS. -and not paraphrasing them in a rubbish way - not our 'views' Sayerslle (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Persistent put-downs of others' edits is another problem I mentioned. I think much of the current content is rubbish. Better rubbish than it used to be, but still displaying a massive anti-Putin, anti-separatist bias. And don't try to tell me about reliable sources. We disagree on that too. That's where the ownership comes in. I'm waiting for some sanity to prevail. HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to Abbott, I can assure that in Australia he has been the subject of considerable mockery for his over-the-top comments about Putin. His personal popularity in polls is currently quite poor. Using him to try to strengthen your case against Putin may not be wise. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedians who are convinced they know the truth and wish to impose this truth on others are really not useful, see WP:SOAP. What is useful here is WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what the truth is. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The truth as far as we know now is that a civilian airliner was destroyed by the impact of a large number of high speed objects. This is consistent only be an attack with military means. That is what we know for sure. Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct. The subject of this thread, however, has acted from a time only hours after the downing of the plane as if he knows far more. HiLo48 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is real politician who plays with words. No need to repeat all his words here. If he "had softened" or not his position is simply not worth mentioning here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we already have quite a bit from Abbott in the article, mainly his initial, rather rabid allegations that basically said Russia did it. I'm not sure who wants that in the article, those who also think Russia is to blame and that having Abbott agree makes their case stronger, or those who think Abbott is a fool and quoting him reinforces that view. His position has definitely softened to a more sane position, but I wasn't allowed to add that to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Except his position hasn't changed, according to the Guardian quote. Stickee (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

His position has definitely changed, no matter what the Guardian says. I wish I could find the text of what I heard on the radio news this morning from Australia's national broadcaster. They were quite clear on the matter. So is any rational reading of his words. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

there is this in the smh [40]- though this wasn't the article sourced when hilo wrote his softened material - i agree with my very best wishes really anyhow - is the detected change in this politcians rhetoric that the smh comments on very important to the article? Sayerslle (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

His early comments were significant because they were probably the most aggressively anti-Russian of all the politicians quoted, and this from the Prime Minister of the country with the second largest loss of life in this crash. If he is now no long taking that extreme position, it's significant. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The usual game of accusation of OR when all that is being done is an editor pointing out what is obvious to anyone who is paying attention, and of claiming that something is undue if an editor doesn't like it is being played against you. So you have to find a secondary source that says that Abbott has softened his position. I think I have:

Mr Abbott is likely to hold a short meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he vowed recently to "shirt front" over the shooting down of Flight MH17, resulting in the death of 38 Australians.

But Mr Abbott signalled a change in his approach to the meeting, saying his discussion with Mr Putin would not be the biggest part of his agenda either at APEC or the G20.

"It wasn't a tragedy, it is an atrocity, it was a crime. Russia has said it will do everything to bring the perpetrators to justice," he said. "Good on Russia for saying that. I will just be looking for an assurance from the President that what they said then, they meant."

That sounds like a softening of one's position to me. And yes, it is noteworthy, because talk of shirtfronting the leader of one of the world's two nuclear superpowers (the one that does not make a habit of destroying countries the governments of which are not willing to get with the program) was scandalous. – Herzen (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the SMH article linked to above is even more explicit: Tony Abbott again softens tone against Vladimir Putin over downing of MH17. But no, even though one of the main Australian newspapers finds it worth running a whole story about this development, Wikipedia should ignore this because most editors really don't like Putin. The position that the editors who think they own the Ukraine related articles will take on a given matter is perfectly predictable: if it helps bash Russia and Putin, put it in; if it in any way gives the impression that Russia is just another country which is trying to look after its interests, keep it out. I would say about 80% of the comments here follow that logic. They have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the SMH article: a change in rhetoric/tone (to a more diplomatic language) isn't a change in position. No source have said his position has changed. In fact the sources have said the opposite: he "stands by" it. Stickee (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@User talk:Herzen: You like to quote the wikipedia policies, so here is one for you: don't use wikipedia as a soapbox. Or did you write the parenthesized part thinking you were on the talk-page of Anti-US sentiment? Lastly, even though Ukraine gave up its significant nuclear arsenal in exchange for a guarantee of its independence and sovereignity from Russia, USA and the UK, there are still more than two nuclear powers in the World. Lklundin (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin: If you don't have any suggestions to make regarding the subject of this thread, why are you posting a comment in it? The only explanation I can think of is that you like to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, instead of being here to build an encyclopedia. And I wrote "nuclear superpowers", not "nuclear powers". So you appear to be yet another non-native English speaker who has problems with English comprehension. The only two countries with a strategic triad are the US and the RF, which means that there are only two nuclear superpowers. – Herzen (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, don't get sucked in by the Putin/Russia haters. There are many people I know who believe the Russians are evil (without ever having met one.). These are people who tune their radios and TVs to stations that push a line similar to Fox in the USA. The degree of evilness they are willing to attribute to Russia is unbelievable. They are not well informed, and very easily influenced by propaganda, and there was an awful lot of that around BEFORE this plane crashed. People like Abbott, and similar pollies in the USA and elsewhere, saw it as an opportunity to blame it all on Russia. Clearly Abbott's minders have told him to ease off. (His popularity is not good in Australia.) I suspect the "evil Russia" propaganda will now begin to ease off in the west overall, and we will gradually see some sanity over these issues. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense. Or you hang out with some very strange people. Even Fox News doesn't go around saying "Russians are evil". People are blaming Russia because the Russian government *is* to blame. There's no "evil Russia" propaganda. There is reporting about all the f-ed up things Russia is doing. If someone kills someone and you say "you killed someone", that person has no right to whine about "you just hate me because my name is Bob!". Volunteer Marek  00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, beware of that different group of people who dislike imperialism in any form. As such I can bash the US with the best of them. I just don't do it (much) on Wikipedia. Also, you are welcome to check out my user page, to get an indication of my experience with different countries. Lklundin (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, it's not always about you. I was describing people in my own country, people who would have been the target of Abbott's earlier, anti-Russian tirades. I've never met you. I wouldn't describe you as someone I know. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, 'nuclear' is redundant together with 'superpower', so don't lecture me on my English. As for Russia's nuclear triad, I will just say that 'The Soviet knight is dying inside his armour' with the low point being the sinking of 'Kursk' (when it had all been taken over by Russia. I still remember Putin in his rolled up shirt sleeves at the Black See ensuring the world that he had no need for help, while the last seamen of the 'Kursk' were suffocating). And in spite of the huge Russian spending, that knight has not recovered. Poor Russians, so much ambition and so little capability. Lklundin (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lklundin: OK, we are definitely engaging in forum-like activity now, but I think it is permissible in this case, since this helps us to understand each other better. Russia is a superpower in terms of nuclear deterrence but not in terms of manufacturing capability, finance, or soft power, so the "nuclear" in the term "superpower" is not at all redundant when it comes to Russia.

Yes, the Kursk incident was certainly a low point in post-Soviet Russian history. But note that Putin became president on 7 May 2000, while the Kursk disaster occurred on 12 August 2000. Thus, Putin had only been in power for three months when the disaster occurred. (Putin had been appointed as prime minister a year earlier.) Nobody such as myself who considers Russia to be the main defender and representative of European civilization at the present time denies that Russia under Yeltsin was a complete basket case and essentially a colony of the US, in the same way that the EU is now a colony of the US. What one needs to understand is that once Yeltsin was gone, Putin began to restore the functionality of the Russian state, and in the past few years, to restore the functionality of the Russian military. One can see that in the contrast between how the Russian military performed in the Georgian crisis and how it performed in the liberation of Crimea (which wasn't a crisis at all, because the Russian military and intelligence services were so effective).

You wrote, "Poor Russians, so much ambition and so little capability." Why don't you also write, "Poor Americans, so much ambition and so little capability"? Because the US has not managed to win any of the wars it started since World War II, other than against countries with a trivial military. You do realize that the US lost the Vietnam, Afghan, and Iraq wars, don't you? Since World War II, Russia only lost the Afghan war that the virulent Russophobe Zbig tricked it into entering. So who has the "little capability", Russia or the US? And why, being a European, do you identify with the US, which is not European but is on the other side of an ocean from Europe, instead of with Russia, which most definitely is European? – Herzen (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Watch BLP. And stop soapboaxing (although... if Russia won all but one of its war and US lost all of them... how come US way richer, powerful and a better place to live than Russia?). Volunteer Marek  00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Abbott has now met with Putin]. he didn't shirt-front him, as he had promised. I suspect both will now declare that they will be working together in a friendly manner. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

An option is to add Abbott's recent statement without interpreting whether or not the difference in his wording constitutes a difference in position. Lklundin (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It already is. See this. Stickee (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: To answer your first question: I did not write that because we are currently discussing Russia, not the USA. But I agree with you (and now you got me started), that the global influence of the USA is being severely hampered by its terrible, terrible internal problems. (Although they are not nearly as terrible as Russia's). I take great offence when you assume that I 'identify with the US'. And you are gravely mistaken when you consider 'Russia to be the main defender and representative of European civilization' - and I don't think I am alone here (try and ask people from former WAPA-countries about that). The world does not need Russia nor the USA to defend or to represent European civilization. Please do not misrepresent my opinions again. Thank you (and I will try not to continue this digression). Lklundin (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway. Hat this stuff as off topic and forum'in. Volunteer Marek  00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No watertight evidence so far. Dutch investigator

SPIEGEL: So you're saying there hasn't been any watertight evidence so far? Westerbeke: No. If you read the newspapers, though, they suggest it has always been obvious what happened to the airplane and who is responsible. But if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one.

There are no High-resolution images from US spy satellites either, after all these months. [41]

These points should go in 'causes' section to reduce bias. See whats happening? The lack of real evidence is apparent to the Dutch. SaintAviator lets talk 04:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The first time I added the Spiegel interview with Westerbeke, I included part of that quote, but it got deleted, apparently because editors don't like the point that "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet". Earlier, I added another Spiegel story (which appeared only in the German edition) about the German government saying it has no certain information about the downing, but that was deleted, too. The government said that NATO AWACS lost contact with MH17 half an hour before it crashed and did not detect a SAM launch, but editors did not find that to be noteworthy. Unconfirmed accounts of rebels having a Buk launcher or telling their GRU handler over an open line that they screwed up and shot down a civilian plane by mistake are very noteworthy, however. – Herzen (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh no. Not again. The key factor of your Spiegel article is, like I told you before, that the Germans do have additional info, which they dont make public. Alexpl (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, that doesn't go for radar data. The German government has said that NATO has no radar data that would help to establish how MH17 was downed. It said that it can't reveal other information for reasons of secrecy. And sure eough, the USG is not handing over satellite imagery it claims it has to the Dutch criminal investigators. Do you really think it is going to do that? I certainly don't. If it handed over evidence, the evidence would have to be faked to incriminate the rebels, but if the US faked evidence, the Russians could demonstrate that the evidence was faked, so the US is not going to hand over anything. (end of crystal balling) – Herzen (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the USA has had time to hand anything over. Alexpl, we have to think of the neutral reader> Its not reading neutral. SaintAviator lets talk 06:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As have the Russians by the way; in handing over evidence the Russian have been considerably less helpful than the Americans so far. You are making a classical logical fallacy in your arguments: If one party behaves imperfectly then by definition the opposite party must be completely right. Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation please, giving evidence as to how "the Russian have been considerably less helpful than the Americans so far"? Last I heard, the Dutch criminal investigators have made a formal request for information about the MH17 downing to USG, but not to RF. – Herzen (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation please - where did you hear that by 3 November 2014 the Dutch (1) made a request to USG with a reasonable time span for USG to provide the information (2) The USG did not provide such information (3) Did not make such a request to Russia. Arnoutf (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Our article explains this? To quote the source cited:

Dutch prosecutors are still awaiting U.S. intelligence reports on the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 but American laws on passing on such information to criminal investigations are complicating the process, the Dutch government said on Tuesday. …

Prosecutors have also said they plan to ask Russian authorities for radar data supposedly in Russian possession that shows a Ukrainian fighter was in the vicinity of the airliner, German magazine Der Spiegel reported on Monday.

So USG is stonewalling, but RF isn't. By the way, since you are Dutch, you may find this to be illuminating;

The Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism, and the Atlanticist Faith

In much of the European Union the general understanding of global reality since the horrible fate of the people on board the Malaysian Airliner comes from mainstream newspapers and TV which have copied the approach of Anglo-American mainstream media, and have presented ‘news’ in which insinuation and vilification substitute for proper reporting.

Given that you are an academic, I am mystified as to why you appear to be completely oblivious to this problem. – Herzen (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the dumbest thing I've read in awhile. Err. I mean outside of Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly argued on this talk page that we should remove all speculation (Russian and Western) from the causes section for exactly that reason. However, while the western media is probably somewhat biased there are at least checks and balances in place; that makes in my view these media at least somewhat reliable (for example the article you quote above is published in Western media and Der Spiegel is a mainstream source). The Russian media is largely non-free as evidenced by licenses withdrawn and unpunished violence against journalists, making those media in my view generally unreliable. That leaves us with the dilemma if we refuse to cut out all speculation, have a somewhat biased view based on marginally reliable sources, or create the illusion of neutrality by balancing this with outright unreliable sources. As two wrongs do not make one right I do not go for the latter; and would choose for what in my view is the lesser of two evils. Arnoutf (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the effort to remove all speculation on both sides. USchick (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Truce

There's enough information to create a separate investigation article. I will let you decide how much you want to summarize here. USchick (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a classic case of WP:POVFORKing. Volunteer Marek  17:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. USchick (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to assume anything, I can see it for realz. Volunteer Marek  17:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Before creating the WP:POVFORK how about making a proposal here first?  Volunteer Marek  17:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I asked as nicely as I know how. If you consider that a personal attack, I feel sorry for you. USchick (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Don't be daft. Acting in good faith is more important than "assuming" good faith. Volunteer Marek  18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC) In what universe is calling someone daft an example of acting in good faith? HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC) We're discussing it in ANI. USchick (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC) It's all just been hatted. I have probably never seen a less helpful hatting. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Now it's been unhatted. But I'll bet the mad hatter suffers no consequence. AN/I, just like this article, is a disaster area. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)