Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Problems with the "Assigning responsibility" section

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.

---

While the article is in a state of (enforced) peace, I'd like to raise my concerns about the section titled "Assigning responsibility". It largely contains highly predictable allegations, presented as "The Ukrainian case" and "The Russian case". There are no final facts about who did what. There cannot be yet. Time will (hopefully) deliver facts, but for now we don't have them. I would like to suggest that those subsections at least, and a fair bit of the surrounding wording, simply be removed from the article for now. Once the truth is known, they will be replaced anyway. Why not get rid of them now? HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to write something about that section as well, though probably not what you had in mind. First NPOV does not mean "giving equal weight to different points of view". The weight, per WP:UNDUE, is based on how reliable source treat the subject. As such, the very organization of the section into "The Ukrainian case" and "The Russian case" is idiotic (and against policy). An encyclopedia article is not a high school debate match. Get rid of these headings, just freakin' report on what is known and what has been said.

Additionally, here's a list of specific problems:

• Several unsourced "citation needed" statements which need to be either sourced or simply removed. Pronto.
• The Vitaliy Yarema quote in the "The Ukrainian case" part is sourced to RT News. Putting aside that that's not a reliable source for anything but basic facts, in this particular instance RT doesn't even support the text. The current text makes it seem like Yarema is being quoted. Yarema is not even freakin' mentioned in the RT piece! Somebody's been engaged in blatant misrepresentation of sources (if someone feels like trawling through edit history of the article and finding out who, I'll be happy to take this to WP:AE) Remove this shite per WP:BLP immediately.
• All that crap about this "Carlos" is just idiotic rumor mongering, again sourced to junk sources and twitter. Junk this too.
• The sentence beginning with "On the ground near Lugansk,..." needs to be sourced or it needs to go.
• The paragraph beginning with "DPR representatives reported seeing that a military ..." repeat info that's already elsewhere in the article. The last two sentences of that paragraph are probably fine.

I'm fine with full protection and on balance I think it's a good idea. But please fix this quickly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - don't worry about the "probably not what you had in mind" thing. I think we're both in furious agreement that something needs to be done. You have just been less lazy than I was when I suggested deleting the whole mess. So good on you! Does one of our attending Admins who is watching want to tackle these concerns now? Or do we wait for more input here to find a consensus for when the protection is lifted? HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll wait until one more person comes along to support (assuming no dissent in the mean time), but with two caveats. (1) I'm going to bed soon: it's 1:15AM here, and church starts at 10:45AM. (2) As always, my decision holds sway only if nobody else comes along to make a decision first, whether "it should be done now" or "we should wait for more than just one additional supporter". Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the number and severity of problems in this section (falsely attributing a quote to a (B)LP!) I'm fine with "deleting the whole mess", or at least a good chunk of it. I expect the admins who fully protected the page to be on the ball about this since this is probably one of the most viewed Wikipedia articles right now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree with deleting the "whole mess". It is a mess, and a product of the recentism that I hope the protection will stop. It is in total violation of policy. We don't report a large pile of allegations. We are not an allegation aggregator. RGloucester — ☎ 05:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

On the 18th this page had over 400,000 page views, on the 19th it was down to 179,420, which is still a significant amount of readers looking for reliable and sourced material. I agree that any unsourced or poorly sourced material needs to be removed immediately, especially the "crap about Carlos" and the rest of it that is currently unsourced or is questionable. This is policy people, content must be sourced to a reliable and verifiable source.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And the falsely attributed quote. That's bordering on WP:HOAX right there. And it's a BLP issue. The rest can wait but these two things (the quote and "Carlos") should be done immediately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

My "wait a little longer" was made before I saw Isaidnoway's comment. I'll remove the whole section except for the external audio and the images, which I'll move somewhere else (probably an inconvenient spot, given my history...) of course. You'll have to wait for me to figure out whether I'm breaking any reference names before I do anything. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, removed the whole "assigning responsibility" section, plus the missile launcher photo and the Infrared Space Systems Directorate logo; I hope you don't mind that I removed them, because if I kept all of the images, there would be too many, pushing the moments of silence and Obama-on-telephone images into the notes and references. If you can think of a good place to put them, go ahead and request without waiting for consensus, because I would have kept them if I'd seen a better place to put them. Bedtime now for me. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And what about the material you deleted which was reliably sourced? Did you even consider that? Dustin (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the action which was just taken, but I still find it hard to believe there isn't any significant, reliably sourced information within those 20,000+ bytes of info which were removed. Dustin (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the article's glaring problems just vanished without requiring rewriting, but I think most of its substance went along with it. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec^2) Thank you! One thing though, the part on the alleged phone conversations is pretty important so the following text:

The [[Security Service of Ukraine]] (SBU) published what they said were wiretaps of separatist commanders reporting that a civilian airliner had been shot down.<ref name="sbu">{{cite web|title=СБУ перехопила переговори терористів: І.Бєзлєр ("Бєс") доповідає своєму куратору полковнику ГРУ ГШ ЗС РФ В.Гераніну про щойно збитий бойовиками цивільний літак |trans_title=SBU intercepted terrorist negotiations: I. Byezlyer ("Byes") reports its curator Colonel CPD Armed Forces V. Geranin just shot down militant civil aircraft |language=Ukrainian |date=17 July 2014 |work=Security Service of Ukraine |url=http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129035&cat_id=39574 |accessdate=17 July 2014}}</ref><ref>[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/news/1684798.html Над Донецкой областью разбился пассажирский Boeing, 295 человек погибли], by [[Novaya Gazeta]].</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAOTWPmMM4 | title=Боинг БУК М eng1 | publisher=[[Security Service of Ukraine]] | date=18 July 2014 | accessdate=18 July 2014}}</ref> According to one of the recordings, Flight 17 was shot down by a group of pro-Russian separatists manning a checkpoint near the village of [[Chornukhine]], [[Luhansk Oblast]], some {{convert|80|km|mi|abbr=on}} northeast of [[Donetsk]].<ref>[http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/separatists-admit-downing-a-civilian-plane-in-tapped-conversation-full-transcript-356545.html SBU intercepts phone conversations of separatists admitting downing a civilian plane (FULL TRANSCRIPT; VIDEO)], ''Kyiv Post'', 17 July 2014.</ref> Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew.<ref>[http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=129071&cat_id=39574 Obtained by SBU: talks amongst terrorists acknowledging receipt of the Buk-M anti-aircraft missile system with Russian crew] ''[[Security Service of Ukraine]]'' 18 July 2014</ref>

should be in the article. Possibly in the "Cause" section or the "Aftermath".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Being sourced is never enough reason on its own to justify inclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well sourced and widely reported. This is obviously a key part of the story.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with anything like that is the words "what they said were..." Until it's verified by someone independent and well outside the Ukraine/Russia propaganda battle, it's not safe to include it here. HiLo48 (talk)

No, that would only be true if we were stating that these recordings are genuine in Wikipedia voice. We're not. We are merely reporting that multiple noteworthy reliable sources have covered the fact that Ukrainian authorities have released these alleged conversations. Come on, every major newspaper has written about it, it's a big part of the picture, it needs to be in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, I agree that the above text needs some more non-primary sources. Which are plenty available, and if the article wasn't fully protected it'd be easy to add these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

However it is fully protected for obvious reasons and I warn that propaganda may soon end up on the page if we do use more non-primary research. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that this is an encyclopedia and not a research paper, we actually want to avoid primary sources and use secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Though in this case secondary and primary should be even. Furthermore we do need to point out what the IAC says about this aswell as the NTSB, AAIB, ATSB and Others. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

To respond to everyone up above, I removed the whole section because that was what people in this thread were saying, that the "whole mess" of the section ought to be removed immediately; I would have waited longer (or not done it at all) if people hadn't thought it basically an emergency. On sourcing, everything here is primary, for as the situation's still ongoing, it's impossible by definition for secondary sources to exist; this is why a just-happened and/or ongoing event cannot be considered to be notable, since secondary sources can't exist. Of course, rigourous enforcement of that would sometimes be counterproductive and harmful. That's why we have the ignore all rules policy, and heavily publicised air crashes are definitely a situation in which it's being employed, just like ongoing hurricanes, major elections, etc., because all of these situations will invariably get coverage in the future. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would consider the removal along the lines of WP:TNT. It was flawed beyond possibility of repair, and hence needs to be built from the ground up. I recommend someone here write a draft and propose it as an edit request. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 20 July 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.

Voting: Full protection of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

There is a voting about the full protection of this article. Enjoy. Normalgirl (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't vote here, particularly where POV pushing is rife. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we discuss. But the discussion on ANI was closed... My personal opinion: if people who actually edit this page want it unprotected and there is no too much damage to content (I do not see much damage), the page should be unprotected. If there is a couple of troublemakers around here (I am not sure), then an appropriate "boomerang" would be to sanction these troublemakers. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend's protection was a good idea. With topics like these, with many editors making many changes very quickly, and on a topic with real-life consequences, it's better to be safe than sorry. So sanctioning the troublemakers is a great idea, but in some cases it's better to head them off at the pass. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is much easier for admins, but usually does not improve content (which is the goal). I think the content of this article was quickly expanding/improving. Now, speaking about "not news", I believe it is important to have updated versions of our pages for high-profile events. But this is easy to say. I personally do not have much time to watch this page and discuss. I can only occasionally edit something... But if others want to contribute (and they do it in a good faith here), let's make it easier for them.My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I second Nyttend's decision to make this article fully protected, not only because right now it is possible that unwanted or inappropriate changes would be made, but also for any future possibilities of inappropriate editting. I understand a most recent as possible picture is preferred, but my personal opinion is that it is better to play it safe, especially considering the conspiracy theories that have started popping up. (The Mail Online had a good article on that.) Consensus can always decide whether or not an edit should be put through.AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I made the decision, but only because several other people had already suggested it; I basically implemented a consensus that was in the process of forming. Basically it was partly my decision, partly a community thing. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I personally think we ought to keep on the protection for another twelve hours then go from there, but that's just me. If vandalism occurs frequently after that, then we can have another discussion. Dustin (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't think indefinite protection a good idea, and I still wish some other admin would come around and impose an ending time. I picked indefinite so that it wouldn't end too soon (as opposed to something like a six-hour protection) and so that it would be obvious that we needed to change the time; imposing it for a month, for example, might not convey that necessity. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't think that indefinite protection was a good idea, then you probably shouldn't have done it. There was no consensus established at the discussion over at ANI for full-protection. In fact, more editors opposed it than supported it.— Isaidnoway (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in that sense: I believe that indefinite protection is better than the one-week semiprotection that it had. My point is that it definitely isn't ideal and that it really should have been given an end time/date some hours ago. Unless you're trying to convince me directly (and I'm quite open to that), discussions about the end of protection ought to be held at WP:ANI (where this whole matter arose) or at WP:RFPP, which is in general the venue where we discuss the increase or decrease of protection. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there something that is specifically preventing you from removing the protection, or giving an end time/date to the protection?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is best for the encyclopaedia that there is protection. He took a brave and proper move. RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

With a very current event, information will rapidly become outdated or possibly even be found to be incorrect. Like I said before, I would not support any more than a twelve-hour continuation of the current full-protection. Dustin (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to tell whether anything is incorrect or not, because we are too close to the event in time. If people want news, they can go to the pages of some yellow rag. We're here to write from a historical perspective. Not to be a news aggregator. WP:RECENTISM has been destroying the project in many ways as of late. We have no deadline. We write for an encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For the time being full protection's fine. But please be conscientious about implementing changes and fixing existing problems. And yes, it will have to be removed after 12 hours or so (it can be re-protected again if problems come back).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I too do not think that indefinite full protection should be implemented, however, given that especially in the first days after a disaster there tends to be a lot of people coming up with the euphemistic "alternative theories" and the still hectic situation around it, it is probably for the best to keep it on for at least 12 hours and at most 72 hours - then it will remain to be seen whether or not vandalism occurs/persists, and another possible full protection can be implemented based on the results of that.AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

After about three days, I don't think this article should be fully protected again. Any edit warring users who have been warned should be blocked and/or banned from editing this page. Just because two editors have problems with each other doesn't mean it should rub off on everyone else. Dustin (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

'Credible evidence' quote

The article currently states 'U.S. President Barack Obama, citing U.S. intelligence officials, said the plane was shot down by a missile and that there was "credible evidence" it was fired from a location held by pro-Russian rebels'. One given source is the New York Times story U.S. Sees Evidence of Russian Links to Jet’s Downing. The article itself says 'He sent his United Nations ambassador, Samantha Power, to the Security Council to describe what she called “credible evidence” that the separatists were responsible.”' Ms. Power said this, not Barack Obama. Small point maybe, but it's a bad start to an article to misattribute a quotation. - Crosbie 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As of July 19th, the USA has concluded that it was a Russian or separatist shootdown. http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html Hcobb (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is completely irrelevant. My point here is to note that the article attributes to Barack Obama the words 'credible evidence' that the source attributes to Samantha Power. When we put words in quotation marks and attribute them to a specific individual, that means that specific individual made that statement, not that somebody else made that statement. - Crosbie 15:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

A reference in the Aftermath section is incorrectly formatted and ugly. This is its current wiki code:

<ref>{{cite web|author=<%= item.timeFlag %> |url=http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741304 |title=ITAR-TASS: World - Russian Defense Ministry records Ukrainian missile defense radar on day of Boeing crash |publisher=En.itar-tass.com |date= |accessdate=19 July 2014}}</ref>

I request the reference is changed to this:

<ref name="itar-tass">{{cite news |url=http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741304 |title=Russian Defense Ministry records Ukrainian missile defense radar on day of Boeing crash |agency=[[ITAR-TASS]] |date=18 July 2014 |accessdate=19 July 2014}}</ref>

-- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Done as uncontroversial edit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I EC'ed, but Nyttend got it all the same. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis Brown, but what does EC mean? By the way, Nyttend doesn't appear to have done it. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

EC= edit conflict, or (edit conflict). He was working in that section, I had assumed he fixed it but he didn't, so I did just now with one change, using "publisher" instead of "agency". I'm trying to not do much direct editing and just do adminy things here on the the talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014 (minor interpuntion error)

At Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Events before the crash:

• 14 July 2014: A Ukrainian military An-26 transport aircraft flying at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) was shot down.[60] (confirmed to be shot using Buk).[61] U.S. officials would later say evidence suggested the aircraft had been fired on from inside Russian territory.[62]

—The dot after "shot down" should be removed. Mayast (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, uncontroversial--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dutch PM press statement - Netherlands will lead identification of victims

Just now we had an update from the Dutch PM. Number of issues that may be useful for the article. Dutch experts will lead the international expert team that will identify the victims. Special memorial session Monday with the PM and King present. Minister of foreign affairs Frans Timmermans flies to New York to talk to UN security council. Should we do something with this or let it lie for now. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-MH370 predictions of second Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 incident (and please don't censor others' comments again)

When MH370 disappeared, those who've been warning of false flag attempts to incriminate Russia (eg Infowars.com) predicted there would soon be a second Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 incident (presumably to allow the wreckage to be swapped for forensics, i.e. hide real accidental shoot-down of Chinese citizens on MH370 by putting time-bomb on MH17, then swap the wreckage). People were expecting this, and for the article to ignore such a striking prediction is kind of elephant-in-the-room stuff. Silent Key (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

NO per WP:Fringe. Arnoutf (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Arnoutf, and @Silent Key: your edit request needs to be far more specific to be acted on. Please read what the template says to do:

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately."added--220 of ^Borg 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Who are the "People (who) were expecting this"? --220 of ^Borg 17:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Economist blog notes speculation about Buk theft booty

I know, blog. I am not saying "on the basis of this blog the article should be changed". With that out of the way, a blogger for The Economist wrote here that:

Previously, there had been reports about separatist rebels boasting of having captured Buk missiles from a Ukrainian army base near Donetsk. The reports first surfaced on June 29th and were mainly carried by Russian state news agencies. According to sources, the story first ran on TV Zvezda, the news agency of the Russian defence ministry. A major question is whether the missile system was really stolen or whether the story was planted to provide cover for the Russians providing the rebels surreptitiously with advanced weaponry.

I'm unsure of how broadly this speculation has been made or whether it has been made by any sources more reliable than the above blog. I feel this would need more and better sources if any mention were to be made on our article.

At present, the article notes reports of the theft without mention of these claims being (speculatively) disputed. This may well be the correct handling, depending on who has been speculating to this effect/how strongly/etc. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that such speculation exists and may warrant inclusion in the article if it has broad or high-level incidence. Vague | Rant 15:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look around for some reliable sources on this and found an editorial piece from Foreign Policy with the following:

The Buk may have been stolen from Ukrainian government stocks, as they and Moscow claim. Or it may have come directly from Russia. It makes little difference.

The speculation doesn't appear to have been addressed in any mainstream news articles that I found, only editorials such as these. PJ Media engaged in some skepticism over the source of the missiles in a piece called (perhaps a little sensationally) "Did the Russians Plant a Cover Story to Hand Separatists the BUK Missile System?" This article largely cited reporting from a live blog by the Institute of Modern Russia's The Interpreter:

In the report above they mention that the rebels were bragging about capturing Buk missiles. On June 29th there were articles published to this effect, but the stories seem to only be carried by Russian state-operated news agencies. The original source for the story appears to be TV Zvezda, the news agency for the Russian Ministry of Defense. It's not clear that the separatists ever captured Buks from the Ukrainian military or whether these stories were a front to explain how the rebels obtained such advance weaponry.

So such speculation does seem somewhat common (at least in online sources), but I'm not sure whether any of this adds up to something worthy of noting here. Vague | Rant 15:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It seem contextually highly antisemantic to to use words still , theft, most frequently connotated to silent clandestine operation; Imagine during wartime to take posesion of diesel propelled caterpillar vehicle, and what? Push it slowly or harness horses? Not to mention to take it from presumably armed guards. If the above equipment takeover is true use terms booty or at least armed robery. I know the editorials push they bias siding with Jacyniuk Junta but enemy should be respected to preserve humanity. Otherwise is the shambles of war crimes, similar to what they are penning elsewehre. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

With respect, this is a talk page, not an encyclopedia article. If you object to a talk page's word usage, then you're welcome to express that, but there's no pressing need to go in directly and alter other users' English usage to your preference.

In addition and without meaning any offense, it doesn't seem that English is your native language, so I'm not sure your generalizations about the connotations of English words are fair to make. I don't believe most native English speakers would infer that theft or stealing (which I assume is what you mean by "still", do clarify if I am mistaken), in particular during wartime, refer to clandestine efforts.

I do see, however, that a word like "capture" may be preferable to some as it skims over issues of lawfulness. Yet either choice could be seen as editorializing, the latter if only by omission. Regardless, the article at present reports that separatists "had access to a Buk after taking control of a Ukrainian air defense base", so this discussion at present seems irrelevant to the quality of our article. None of the words you object to appear in the article, so I see no further need to debate them. Vague | Rant 11:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, IP does have a point IMO. I believe it's not customary to refer to deaths in a war or civil conflict as "murders", nor would it be appropriate to refer to captured military equipment as "stolen". Whatever the moral underpinnings of this conflict, we can be sure that ordinary criminal terms don't quite apply. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014: Dutch commercials

Dutch reaction, something like:
In the first week after the crash, the main Dutch travel agencies did not make commercials for flight holidays. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not acting in either way here, but will just say this seems rather minor considering the circumstances. (readded, someone clumsily edit conflicted it out). Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• I agree, Dennis. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, too minor a response in the larger picture (although it is a rare sign of respect of Dutch travel agencies). Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Create a separate section for airspace/aircraft restrictions/activity

Much of the information regarding the warnings given to airlines, what they did (or didn't do) about it, and which other flights/airlines were still operating in the area at the time of the crash, is scattered all over the article. Much of it has been lumped into that horrendous 'Events before the crash' timeline, rendering it pretty unparsable as a topic in of itself. I would like to change this by putting it all in its own topical section (and add some more info I've found that's not in the article), but the current situation, where it appears even though Wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit", each individual change has to be listed here in detail and voted on first, makes this impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoryMig (talk • contribs)

• The article is protected for very good reasons. Also, please sign your name. As for your question, information on other flights, warnings, airspace etc. is simply not directly relevant to this article. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not directly relevant? It's not directly relevant to this crash to discuss what civilian airlines were advised/warned to do about this particular bit of sky? It's not directly relevant to note which other airlines/aircraft were it the airspace on the same day? Are you for real? And how exactly do I sign my name on a computer? "Yours faithfully, Rory?"
    • a. please read WP:INDENT. It helps visually, you know--as supported by scientific research. b. type four tildes: it's all over the project. Like this: ~~~~. I'll do it again: Drmies (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you. I can see from the sarcasm that that must have been very difficult thing for you to do. And for the record, I've never seen any scientific research dealing with what formatting style helps people communicate on Wikipedia. I've seen a bucket load about the differences between how the brain processes pictures versus text, but I appear to be the only one here who has. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any people interested in such things here, even though it has people calling themselves doctors. You must be the medical kind. Gums I'm assuming. RoryMig (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• RoryMig does have a point about the section in general, which is indeed pretty unparsable. Perhaps individual edits can be proposed to clean that up some--maybe in the way Nyttend dealt with that other section. :) Drmies (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • I don't know what Nyttend did, but for me, the idea that such a change could be detailed here beforehand in individual steps is absurd. I'm talking about moving a large number of paragraphs from various different places, and adding some more info, with all the changes in wording and structure that entails. Ridiculous. No, if the "good reasons" for the protection do really exist (still not seeing where they've ever been explained), then they will have to justify people not being able to properly read information like this in topical sections, unless or until its not protected, and people like me can actually improve the article. Assuming of course, people aren't going to stop the work on the idiotic basis that such information isn't "directly relevant". RoryMig (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Passenger/crew manifest

The airline has released a passenger/crew manifest that appears to be complete, the numbers agree with the current article. It is in a very rough form; one has to deduce from the rest of the entires that KAMSMA/MATTHEUSMR means Mr. Mattheus Kamsma and KAMSMA/QIUMSTR means Mr. Qiu Kamsma. I would be willing to create a table from this data that could be included with a {{Collapse}}. I have laser-like attention to detail, so I'm perfect for the job; however, to avoid wasting a ton of time, I would want to be sure that it would be used; and I don't want to duplicate someone else's effort. Mandruss (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? What is the added value for Wikipedia to list a long list of people? Is n't this going rather far into the privacy of the families? As far as I know the lists were made public so that people could see whether someone they know had died, not to create a permanent record. In other words, I my opinion such a list should not be placed anywhere on Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This really wouldn't be very useful, as the Wikipedia is not a memorial. The article mentions some of the notable casualties, but we can't have the entire list. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, consider it not done. I can't say it was something I was looking forward to doing. Thanks! Mandruss (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The only people that should be mentioned by name are those that are notable enough to have, or be able to have, an article on Wikipedia. Take a look at BOAC Flight 712 (a Good Article) and you will see that very few of the passengers are actually named. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cargo manifest shows L-ion batteries

Wonder if these had a role to play as well http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/content/dam/malaysia-airlines/mas/PDF/MH17/MH017%20-%20Cargo%20Manifest%203.pdf there was also live cargo consisting of two dogs and nine boxes of birds.inspector (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be virtually impossible for you to cite that document in a useful way without committing OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The birds and dogs are already mentioned, with a source? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not anymore; removed pointless OR. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be trivial, even pointless. But why is that OR? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Deciding what facts or aspects of a topic to emphasize requires editorial judgment, which is something WP generally outsources to reliable sources. By mining a primary document for factual tidbits to put in an article without any guidance by reputable secondary sources, an editor is implicitly performing analysis and interpretation — that is, he is analyzing the primary source and concluding that those specific factual tidbits are noteworthy and relevant to the article topic. If the noteworthiness or relevance were obvious, this might not be an issue. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times, Daily Mail, Borneo Post, ITV, ABC13, etc., etc? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Confused, what is your question exactly? Are you asking whether those sources look like reliable sources? Yes, they do. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I was suggesting that using any of those sources would avoid the charge of WP:OR. I think most editors would agree that the fact there were dogs, birds, cut-flowers and machinery, or whatever else, in the cargo, is quite irrelevant. Just as it was (very probably) for MH370 (although there were questions about lithium batteries over there as well causing lots of excitement). There were certainly no dead bodies in the cargo. It's not that any particular part of the cargo was notable - my point is that that readers may simply want to know that there was nothing hazardous. The article makes it clear the aircraft was shot down, but it may still be useful to point out that the official contents of the cargo were fully known and documented. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So you no longer see a need to use the primary source, I assume? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't really ever arguing that the primary source had to be used. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

Under the responses section, ICAO's response should read (flag) ICAO - ICAO declared that it was ... In order for it to be consistent with other responses. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

Copyedit: please change the sentence "ICAO declared that it's sending its team of experts to assist Ukrainian National Bureau of Incidents and Accidents Investigation of Civil Aircraft (NBAAII), which according to ICAO is the country in charge of the investigation under Article 26 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation." in the "Reactions" section to "ICAO – ICAO declared that it would send a team of experts to assist the National Bureau of Incidents and Accidents Investigation of Civil Aircraft (NBAAII) of the Ukraine, which according to ICAO is the country in charge of the investigation under Article 26 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation." —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the verb, that's not such a big deal, but I added the wikilink, piped to Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, and the rephrasing. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Update to lead

In the lead please add the airline name to fourth paragraph. I was reading the lead and saw that the fourth paragraph is the first that discusses the airline and events related to it.

< The crash was the airline's second major incident of the year.

> The crash was Malaysia Airlines' second major incident of the year.

Thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, uncontroversial--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Separatists were expecting Ukrainian cargo plane

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.

---

According to Oleg Kashin (independent journalist), separatists were expecting a Ukrainian cargo plane at the same time at the same place where MH17 crashed. They have a source of information about cargo flight details in Ukrainian military. That's why separatists were sure that they shot An-26.

I think this info should be added to the timeline section of the article.

Yozh (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above, please propose precise wording that you'd like to see added. Of course, if you don't have precise wording in mind, and you just want us to know about it, that's completely fine, and you have my thanks. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Precice words to be inserted in the end of "Crash" section after "An-26 had been shot down by the militia near Torez at around 16:00 local time." and before "U.S. analysis of the launch plume and trajectory suggested": According to sources of Oleg Kashin separatists had a source in Ukraine military, and they expected an Ukrainian cargo plane, that's why they were sure that they shot An-26. <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.facebook.com/oleg.kashin/posts/10152616292098112 |last=Kashin |first=Oleg |accessdate=20 July 2014}}</ref> Yozh (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And NATO can't wash its hands of bloodbaths in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen. 92.40.250.86 (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Dustin (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 20 July 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.

One more

Please remove the following paragraph:

On 18 July a Russian Defence Ministry spokesman reported to journalists that "Russian radar facilities during 17 July detected work of 9S18 "Kupol" (radar station of detection and targeting for 9K37-1 SAM "Buk-M1" squadron), stationed near Ukrainian-controlled village Styla (30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Donetsk)"[87] Ukraine's foreign minister, Pavlo Klimkin stated that Ukraine did not have sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems in the area, and that none had been seized by separatist groups in recent weeks.[88]

It doesn't add anything to the article except muddy the waters, it's just a bunch of (outdated) he-said-she-said. At the very least it does not belong in the "aftermath" section. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• That seems fair. Without further detail this is as-yet unrelated bickering. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Full protection should not be applied by admins without non-admins nominating the page for full protection

So there are edit warriors out there. There always is. The job of admins to keep THOSE edit warriors from editing, by warnings, bans, whatever. The general editing community is also not so helpless that it cannot organically marginalize non-consensus editors to a large degree without unsolicited "help". Where is the Talk page thread where ordinary editors were complaining of being overwhelmed by edit warriors and expressing little hope that ordinary measures can deal with it? The job of admins is not to restrict the pool of editors to themselves. I've been editing Wikipedia for nine years and haven't felt a need for admin tools because I was mostly just interested in building content. In my opinion we're seeing another precedent develop here for a hierarchy whereby admin status provides more editing rights. The content community has dealt with edit wars for years, without admins coming over the top to impose indiscriminate restrictions.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I do think violating editors should just be banned from editing this article or blocked. That's why I think article-selective blocks should be made possible for the MediaWiki software. Dustin (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

While no fan of full protection, yesterdays edit wars (flags in/out/in/out; conspiracy theories in/out..... pro/anti Russian ranting in/out) makes it for this article a relevant issue in my opinion. At least for now.

Note that controlling such a high traffic article would otherwise place an unfair burden on the admins. (and no I am no admin myself). Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This presumes that we really need "control". If you want a "controlled" article there's always Britannica. What I object to here is the unstated presumption that the wiki concept does not work.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's beyond stupid what protecting this article means for people like me, who can see what flaws it has, and what needs to be added/changed. Just look at the nonsense you have to endure above - requests for sources, after they've been given. Repeated claims that obviously relevant information is not important. It's just total idiocy. Whatever problems the protection supposedly fixed, it's obviously being outweighed by this farce. RoryMig (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

At this stage severe limitation to the number of edits seems in place. Yesterday much of everybody's time was taken up by reorganizing the article dozens of times, every hour. I fully expect that this is a temporary measure and in some time, when the first storm has died down the article will set free for further development. Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Once everyone's stopped reading it. Excellent idea. I came here wanting to know more about which airlines were and weren't flying over the area at the time. I couldn't find it here (because it's both horribly disorganised, and not up to date), and I can't fix it. Rather than wait a few days and come back to it, I think most people will do what I did instead (what some people here seem think everyone should do) and just rely on other information sources. At the end of the day, if you don't want people to come to Wikipedia to read about developing stories (and contribute them by editing them), don't link to them from the front page in the "news" section. Just replace it with another feature on something a little more "encylopedic" (a biography of a painter that's been dead for 200 hundred years, for example). RoryMig (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also the response of RoryMig shows the relevance of a protected page. Keeping editors like RoryMig from aggressively putting their own ideas in would just take up too much effort. Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

My own ideas? Like the stuff in sources? I hope everyone is getting a good look at people like you, so they get a good idea whether or not it's worth editing Wikipedia at all - do they really want to be associated with people like you? RoryMig (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rory, the autocratic admins have become the message here. Juan Riley (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Mr Rory, I do apologise, be we are not a newspaper. We are an encyclopaedia. If you'd like some news, please do go to WikiNews, or to any other news website. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously, why do people think that making such obviously idiotic comments add anything? If you meant to say, Wikipedia doesn't do news, then why is the article even here? If you meant to say something else, engage your brain, and try again, because I haven't got a clue what your point is supposed to be. RoryMig (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And when exactly were you planning on removing the full protection? (to sysops) Dustin (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• MrRGloucester: then stop pretending you are anything else. Juan Riley (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The full-protection was initiated over a discussion at ANI which involved a dispute between two editors - the airplane guy and john. So in order to prevent those two from editing the article, full-protection was initiated. There was no discussion opened anywhere, as far as I know, that included community input on full-protection. And while this idea that we are not a newspaper is certainly true, once a current event article is created, then we are obligated to support the current event article by inclusion of reliably sourced information. We shouldn't just take the stance of - go somewhere else to find out what's happening.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought full protection was to solve editing disputes which it was between airplaneguy and John, but it seems the reasoning now is to slow editing down because WP:NOTNEWS. I am in favor of the protection being removed as this is an ongoing current event, things in the article can be dated quickly or become non-facual anymore, as an encyclopedia we must also write the truth. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If, in fact, we are WP:NOTNEWS, then I don't see why the entire article isn't prohibited until x amount of time after the event. That would prevent a ton of problems now being experienced. The article was created literally within minutes of the story breaking. How is that "not news"? Just one noob's naive viewpoint. Mandruss (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd vouch for pending changes protection. This would allow contribution, but would help filter out some of the nonsense. Seems like the perfect solution in this instance. RGloucester — ☎ 19:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I thought of that RGloucester, but the reason why full protection was alleged to be in place is because of an edit dispute between two editors, one an admin and the other a registered editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  No, the reason was massive reverts of information by multiple editors. In particular, you should be lucky that you were not blocked for your five reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the discussion that was opened at ANI was in regards to those two users mentioned, if there was an issue with other massive reverts, then a discussion should have been opened to allow community input on that issue and in regards for full-protection.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you actually suggest that no artice can be protected withot a long and advertized community discussion? It would be great to back up this suggestion with a policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was fully protected with this edit summary: "Changed protection level of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Edit warring / content dispute: See discussion at WP:ANI, section "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, TheAirplaneGuy and John" as of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6" It does not mention WP:NOTNEWS anywhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The same person who locks down the page, @Nyttend, is the same person who then proceeded to delete a massive amount of material with the misleading edit summary "removing a section per Talk". Where was the consensus for such a sweeping change? Where was the consensus to remove "Ukrainian authorities said another recording indicated that the weapons system had arrived from Russia with a Russian crew", just to take an example? If you look at the U.S. statement of the evidence on the Ukraine embassy page, a lot of that evidence was in the article UNTIL Nyttend locked down the page and took it out. Nyttend would likely have been reverted and called upon to justify his removals in detail had he not just denied the community the opportunity to revert.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• PC would not work. For example, yesterdays flags were rolled back and forth 8 times (each direction), with one editor exceeding 3RR and another one, after I warned them that the fourth revert would result in a block, answered that they believe they are reverting vndalis and therefore they do not care about 3RR. PC could not solve this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

But blocking those particular editors would. Using full page protection punishes all editors for the actions of a few. —Lowellian (reply) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

And now all those busy-bee little admins are still toying with the flag question....sigh. How about you Ymblanter? 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please express your ideas in a more clear way? I am not able to understand what you want to know.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think a more reasonable solution would be semi-protection, with an admin or two watching the article. I also think 1RR is a terrific idea in that it encourages discussion on the talk page for consensus, which is our standard protocol. In the event of content disputes, we would follow the other regular channels for resolution, such as RfC or other remedies that are readily available per our policies and guidelines. I would also suggest that admins use discretionary sanctions to discourage disruptive editors.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  The page was semi-protected almost from the very beginning. It did not help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It did not help because the disruptive editors were not being blocked. Full protection punishes all editors for the actions of a few disruptive ones. —Lowellian (reply) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Make it be 1RR then per Isaidnoway's argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That is just a silly idea. Reverting will start right back up. WP:NOTNEWS applies in this situation. In a few weeks when activity calms down, the article can be fixed. I stand behind the admins 100% on this. United States Man (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying that you "stand behind the admins 100%" incorrectly implies the admins are all in agreement that full page protection is the way to go. Some admins oppose full page protection. —Lowellian (reply) 19:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In light of US Mans suggestions, I suggest new lead: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Something happened, 298 died.Juan Riley (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just lowered the protection level from full protection to semi-protection. In my protection log comment, I wrote that it has been "24 hours since full protection". I only realized after lowering the protection level that it has actually been only 20 hours, not 24 hours, a mistake I made due to time zone differences, but I think 20 hours is close enough to 24 to let the lowered protection level stand; furthermore, earlier on this page, it was suggested by other editors that the period of full page protection only be for 12 hours, so 20 hours of protection is already significantly longer than that. I will note that the original decision to implement full protection was made without clear consensus and over significant opposition, as seen in the comments on this talk page and on WP:ANI. —Lowellian (reply) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For whatever reasons, this WP article is no longer listed (as of this moment) by google news on MA17 incident. I just hope it is because of this admin nonsense and not (as I fear) some other site just getting higher ratings. Why is it that WP should care? 20:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

On 18 July The Daily Telegraph reported that the Russian government had allegedly modified or deleted information on Wikipedia pages relating to the MH17 incident, to remove claims that it helped provide the missile system used to shoot down the aircraft. Among the pages edited was the Russian version of an article listing civil aviation incidents, to claim that "the plane [flight MH17] was shot down by Ukrainian soldiers".

The edit itself for reference, also it's not the only occurrence where Russian governmental structures edit Wikipedia articles. In fact they've been streaming such government edits since some time here using the @RuGovEdits handle (also here through dumps.wikimedia.org ). It wasn't the government itself that edited it, but the All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company that is owned by it. --Arseny1992 (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really notable nobody would be surprised that the Russian government doesnt edit Russian Wikipedia, even on English wikipedia we have loads of single interest groups editing this article and related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably relevant to the Russian Wikipedia article, but not here at this stage in the developing story (perhaps later if it has political consequences in the aftermath). Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's very exciting stuff, but it's not for here. As for who edited, what our article says is what the headline says--there's a bit more specificity in the article, but if the Daily Telegraph considers that "government" is proper to use here, then that's what we should go by. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the issue is notable depends on whether or not it is widely covered in reliable sources. Whether the edit was done at English wikipedia or Russian wikipedia is irrelevant. Whether Russian government editing Wikipedia is "surprising" or not is irrelevant. If Russian government edited the Fijian Wikipedia and everyone knew that they always edit Fijian Wikipedia BUT reliable sources for some reason covered their edits extensively then it would STILL be a reason for inclusion.

So yes, this information belongs in this article in the "Aftermath" section. Nothing major - WP:WEIGHT - still applies. But a sentence or so is very appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Some sources, after a less-than-one-minute search: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]... and I could keep going but I think you get the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

But the issue is: Is this of central relevance to the development of actual crash and the aftermath. In my opinion it is not. It may be of central relevance to other articles that explicitly deal with Russian Wikipedia, state propaganda/censorship etc; but not at this moment to this specific article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue. If it was of "central" relevance then not only would it need to be in the article, it would also need to be in the lede. Actually, you cut everything that is not of "central" relevance, you're not gonna have much of an article left (and what the hey is 'central' relevance anyway?) The issue is whether it is of relevance and whether or not it has been extensively covered by reliable sources. Yes and yes. Do I really need to put up another dozen sources about this topic? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We will have to prioritise to avoid making the article too long to be readable. That means some marginally relevant issues should not be mentioned. In my view this is one such issue; but let's wait for others to comment, as it seems the only thing we agree about in this thread is that we disagree. Arnoutf (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

locations of the crash site and missile launch post

the crash site map on the New York Times centered at about (48.127, 38.620). there is no contradiction that can be found in photos and videos I have seen so far. there is no photo of the launch post but it's said near Snizhne or somewhere between Snizhne and Torez (as found in the same page see link below). a reference site might be (48.055, 38.762), the rocket engine may have fallen near Stryukove. source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/maps-of-the-crash-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.111.176.89 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And there is only one misile flying there since 3/3 ? Why it have to be surface to air and not aa misile? Or box cutters in cocpit? Also if Ukrainian Army shoot down the airliner how we know the army units where not infiltrated by agents disobeing Jacyniuk orders and working against  ? One source is not sufficeint. But two another copies usually are OK 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources for your wild and outlandish theories? WP:FORUM applies. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't we all wish we did? =) Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Would detailed analysis of the wreckage ever determine the direction from which a missile was fired? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Alas, probably not. It's a missile, not an artillery shell, so no matter where it was fired from, it's last turn is to come up on the plane from behind. A missile doesn't carry a shaped charge for precisely this reason, so the explosion is isotropic (equal in all directions). So that won't give any clues either. Finally, given the great height of the plane (11km), where the missile exploded in relation to the plane (ie, left, right, front or rear) is not all that relevant.

101.161.75.79 (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there's a chance the location of the launch could still be determined. Because a) the missile was assisted by a radar which could be read both ways at the time of the crash, so NASA only has to check its satellite archives from the area, b) the angle at which the airplane felt corresponds to the protrusion force angle of the missile, so whether it was front or rear, its protrusion can still be calculated (of course, providing the remaining parts of the plane weren't looted) and c) the missile itself bore serial numbers on its tail, if the tail survived the fall it would be the best evidence they could ever get. However the real problem here isn't finding the location of the launch (like I said below), it's understanding the sequence of events leading to it. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but I think it's hard to tell at this altitude. I find it weird that some bodies present signs of intoxication, although it might have come from the smoke. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

How is that determined without a post-mortem examination? Do you have a source for that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I said "might", didn't I? Besides, we can't rule anything out without thorough investigation here, be it for the missile launch or for the intoxication. DPR is clearly doing anything possible to prevent the investigation. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The "might" you have used applies to the smoke. Are you just making this up? There was a report that the rebel gunman who shot into the air was intoxicated? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, please stop it. We're clearly speculating. And I'm guessing you don't have the proof of the "rebel" shooting the Buk, do you? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop what? Wrong gunman: [14]. So you are making it all up. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about the serum presumably found in several corpses. We were both at the ends of the discussion. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Serum? sorry?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I welcome you to read the reference before we talk about it. I'm not going to explain the whole thing, but if you have questions thereafter I would be glad to answer them. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have provided a reference? Sorry, User:Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass, which one is that? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the map as it is pure speculation at this point. The source is not from the NYT, if you look closely you can see "Source: Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense" as in this is what Ukraine says and while I can agree to that it has not been confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored this highly relevant, impeccably sourced map. Please state a policy objection before removing it again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The policy here is WP:REDFLAG I believe, the information in the source is not verified or confirmed. We can all agree that the NYT is a reliable source but it is where they are getting the information from is the issue. The claim by Ukraine is contested and without a confirmation it cant be included here as being true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but The New York Times is an exceptional source. Furthermore, a quick read of the relevant guideline language reveals it to be utterly inapplicable here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The NYT is just parroting what Ukraine says, it does not make it confirmed . The policy says "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest" The claim is challenged it needs more than a source from the Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the kind of "conflict of interest" the policy guideline refers to, as is clear from the footnote offering examples of possible conflicts. It's simply not the place of WP editors to question material published in utterly reliable sources, based on the WP editor's belief that the RS is simply "parroting" suspect information. Any valid neutrality concerns can be addressed via judicious attribution. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The image is in the "The Ukrainian Case" section. It's totally acceptable to add images here which were made on the base of the Ukrainian data--Alex1961 (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions ?

Now that this article has been taken from full protection to semi-protection, my question (to which I think the answer is yes) is whether discretionary sanctions for edit-warring are applicable under WP:ARBEE? Is Ukraine in Eastern Europe as usually defined? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes and yes. In particular, while it's unlikely that the admins will start edit warring, it's still possible for someone to get themselves discretion'd for talk page misconduct.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I reckon so. I think semi-protection is very unwise, and I will take this opportunity to withdraw and see if a nap is in the cards. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected rather than fully protected, and editors should be aware that discretionary sanctions can be applied. (The availability of discretionary sanctions makes full protection less important than if Ukraine were in Western Europe.) As Volunteer Marek implies, discretionary sanctions are also available for talk page misconduct, such as personal attacks or improper refactoring. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As indicated by the "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages" template message at the top of this talk page, discretionary sanctions are fully applicable. Full protection effectively blocks and punishes all editors for the actions of a few disruptive ones. It is better to block just the disruptive editors so that not all editors are blocked from editing, which is one of the purposes for which discretionary sanctions were designed. —Lowellian (reply) 20:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope Lowellian that you will stay here and participate in blocking the editors violating 1RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, who imposed a 1RR here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought it belongs to discretionary sanctions in this case? If not, I apologize.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it's not automatic. Somebody would have to impose it as an article-level sanction, but I don't see that it's anywhere near that level at the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Good lord...if the admins don't have any weapons what are they to do? Juan Riley (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Good, thanks for clarifying.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

JuanRiley: Oh, they have lots of options. With discretionary sanctions, they can basically take anybody out whose behaviour is less than constructive, in whatever way. All I'm saying is it's not automatically linked to a mechanical bright-line revert count thing (which is good, because an inflexicble revert-count rule is often actually counterproductive in situations of heavy and fast-paced editing.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Fut. Plu. Perf. I am just noting that after today I care naught about any of the options they have. Juan Riley (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Juan, there are many admins on Wikipedia. In fact everybody showing long term commitment to, and respect for the rules of Wikipedia can become admin.

In general admins do good work, some are nice and helpful, others less so. Sometimes they can be overly bureaucratic. Actually they are normal volunteer editors like you and me. The number of truly disruptive editors among admins is very rare (and they are very harsh on their own so they don't tend to last long)

Admins sometimes limit what can be done like here, but generally for good reasons. If you tried to edit this article yesterday you may have noticed that sometimes the whole article was reorganized in the matter of minutes, while other editors were still putting in information at places now utterly disconnected from the flow of the article. That needed to be calmed down and it was. Far from ideal as the article is not in a good shape, but in my view the lesser of two evils. Arnoutf (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request Timeline/Events before crash

Suggest adding:

• 30 June 2014: In a press conference, General Philip Breedlove (NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe) stated that the Russian government had been training pro-Russian separatists inside Russia to have an "anti-aircraft capability" and specifically mentioned “we have seen vehicle-borne capability being trained.”

ref: http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5456 Juan Riley (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not - unless we have a source which explicitly links this statement with the flight 17 shoot-down, it is WP:OR (and probably a violation of WP:NPOV) to make the connection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That may be true in some strict interpretation ...on the other hand then the same could be said about at least several of the items noted in "events before the crash" timeline. Indeed nothing is directly relevant to the crash other than the crash itself. Juan Riley (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously relevant, especially coming as it did from SACEUR.

Not answered to my satisfaction. Not meaning to say that I insist said addition be made, but WP:acronymic criteria should be consistently applied...or not? Juan Riley (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'll be more expansive, then: no, it's Original Research coming from a Primary Source. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Purely then as a matter of interest, is the problem that the reference I gave is primary? If so the media references to the press conference were deleted yesterday and I would have to go back and find them. If not then (a) save me time and (b) I still do not understand the demarcation. Juan Riley (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A few secondary sources citing the Breedlove press conference after the fact and hence obviously making a connection:

• ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/separatists-said-to-have-had-anti-aircraft-training-in-russia/2014/07/18/0af398f2-0e82-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html
• ref: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/obama-mh17-wake-up-call-europe-ukraine-russia
• ref: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/18/mh17-pro-russian-separatists-blame-downed-malaysia/

Juan Riley (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I apologize for elevating again...just not sure an admin will answer otherwise. Juan Riley (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Apology accepted; no problem. The Guardian says, "[Kirby] stopped short of saying he had indications that the Russian battalions had moved Buk missiles across the border, something the Nato commander, Air Force General Philip Breedlove, told reporters on 30 June that he expected." So at best we could say that someone afterward did not say something that what someone said beforehand. The WP says just a bit more--but why should be re-report such speculation? Drmies (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• You have read one reference as far as you required to refute the quote. Bravo! Or should I call it reverse synthesis? Juan Riley (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• You can call it what you will. The burden is on you to prove that something that was said to have happened and is suggested to be relevant should be included. You can clamor about "autocratic admins" as much as you like--but you should ask yourself whether such yelling is helpful or not. I think someone with your background would know better how to do rhetoric. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am not an admin. Twas I think four of you that decided arbitrarily to say no without explanation. And now shall you go on record that you don't want to add to or subtract from a WP article because it is my burden to convince you (after you have made up your mind and I have given primary and secondary references) of something. Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn. You are now just trying to say haha I am right. Nice! Juan Riley (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Andy is exactly correct, and I suppose Drmies as well. This is what is known as synthesis of sources and is not allowed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis? As in making things up? And what, exactly, is Juan trying to make up here? He has provided a direct quote, from a senior NATO commander, which was reported in reliable sources after the fact. It is obviously relevant to the article. Stop this nonsense and just add it. Whatever the "good reasons" are for preventing people editing this article, they are surely being out-weighed by the fact that eminently worthwhile additions like this are being prevented, for no good reason at all. RoryMig (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Admins are now being arbitrary and uninformative. I am so sorry I asked you to tell me explicit reasons that the suggested addition is any different from other events given in the timeline. At some stage this just becomes inane. By my current understanding the article should read: ""Something happened...people died"". Oh and yes..I am sure an admin will put a warning on my talk page. We should have barnstars for being warned by autocratic admins. Juan Riley (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I don't get what you're trying to add or why. This is an article about a crash on 17 July. Sources from June are unlikely to be relevant by themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Coincidence (MH370)

I have posted it in [Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 unofficial disappearance_theories#Events_in_Ukraine], but because it is relevant, would like to post here as well: I wouldn't be completely surprised if there would be reliable sources about connection between these two events. These two events are completely unrelated and that makes it even more incredible of a coincidence. First, Malaysian airplane disappears and then, another one is being shot down. (Karma? Coincidence? Something more deeper?). But in any case, we cannot ignore the fact that two of the most unusual events in aviation history are involving Malaysian Airways and happened in a relatively condensed period of time. If there will be reliable sources about that, I think we can either post them in this (the one mentioned above) article, unless "unofficial theories" article will be created for this one. Dmatteng (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless and until we have reliable sources making connections, this article won't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What Andy said. This is somewhere between FRINGE and Original Research, and doesn't belong in either article. If there weren't such a thing as "coincidence", then we wouldn't have a word for it. Until something is definitively found and sourced, we assume it is just a coincidence. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I will be stronger, even if we have sources that claim such a relation, it is still a fringe theory and should not be added. Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of reliable sources making the connection, and not just because the basic coincidence (and since when was it not important to note such coincidences?). It is also being discussed in depth, both in terms of the historical rarity of a single airline suffering the loss of two major airliners like the triple 7 in the space of months, as well as the possible financial impact on the airline due to the effect of such a coincidence on their brand in passengers minds. If the article wasn't protected for supposedly "good reasons" (according to Drmies), I could probably add something about that. RoryMig (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the reliable sources that make the connection and nowhere suggest it is a conspiracy theory/fringe theory. Actually your remark "I could probably add something about that" is a very good argument to keep the article protected for the time being. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Say what? The fact it stops me from adding relevant material to the article is somehow a "very good argument" for keeping it protected? Either you've not been reading a newspaper in the last few days, or you're trying to somehow insinuate I would add garbage to the article. Either way, I'm wondering what it is you're bringing to the table here. For me, if you want sources, I'll just put these here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/second-disaster-strikes-malaysia-airlines-as-jet-goes-down-over-ukraine/story-e6frg6so-1226992992291?nk=4ee621ae8ebac3ffcf8e8078b38f6add and

http://www.newsday.com/business/what-to-know-how-malaysia-airlines-can-salvage-its-brand-1.8850131 The first calls the coincidence unprecedented, the second goes into great detail about its effect of the brand. I've not looked properly, but I'd say it's a good bet neither of them even mention conspiracy theory. RoryMig (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple accidents are not as rare as you think. In 1950 two Air France DC-4s operating the same route crashed at the same place two days apart with the combinbed loss of 86 people. MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah; almost 65 years ago. During the intervening decades, virtually the entire history of commercial aviation happened. Semantics? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a compelling argument that they were a complete coincidence though (and their combination into a single article rather goes against that idea too). RoryMig (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The two DC-4 accidents were anything but a complete coincidence, as the article makes clear. Meanwhile, per WP policy, this article will make no assertions regarding any link between flights 370 and 17 unless and until reliable sources do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

They already have, I just gave two links above. Can't you read? RoryMig (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The factual information you can get from your sources is already in the article. In the lead: "The crash was the airline's second major incident of the year. Flight 370 (Boeing 777-200ER 9M-MRO) disappeared on 8 March en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur" Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That said, it is generally not a good idea to have information in the lead nowhere in the main article. Can we add the following lines to the end of the airline section: "The crash was the second major incident for Malaysia Airlines in 2014. In March 2014 another of their Boeing 777-200ER 9M-MRO; Flight 370 disappeared en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur and was still missing at the time of MH17 crash." Arnoutf (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't talk utter crap. I didn't even have to go past the second sentence in the newsday link before I found a piece of "factual information" not currently in this article. And examining the other source, it seems to me your idea of factual information excludes the opinions of aviation experts/analysts - so good luck with chopping all the other examples of such that are already in the article. RoryMig (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The second line of the newsday link is about the past financial performance of the airliner. How is that relevant to this article? Arnoutf (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? This is like talking to kindergarteners. As I have already said, the coincidence has been dealt with in some sources in the context of the effect on the company's financial health. If the airline was in rude health financially, that would mean the brand would need to be seriously damaged to have an effect. If it was already in trouble, it wouldn't take much. Do you want me to use simpler words or something? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse? RoryMig (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Australian quotes a single aviation expert on the rarity (“Either one of these events has an unbelievably low probability,’’ said John Cox, president and CEO of Safety Operating Systems and a former airline pilot and accident investigator. “To have two in a just a few months of each other is certainly unprecedented.’’). We could add a few words to my suggested my earlier suggestion: "The crash was an unprecedentedly rare in being the second major incident for Malaysia Airlines in 2014. In March 2014 another of their Boeing 777-200ER 9M-MRO; Flight 370 disappeared en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur and was still missing at the time of MH17 crash." We could use the Australian as source for that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't provide the link as a basis for any particular edit, I merely provided it to prove they exist and they discuss the things I said they were. If or when the protection is removed, I may or may not think about exactly what I want to add, and therefore see which sources are best to use. I'm certainly not going to waste my time drafting it here for your approval, not when it's pretty clear you have serious reading/comprehension problems (and have already basically said I'm only here to add crap). RoryMig (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The idea is that we now work together to create text in mutual collaboration which is the core idea of Wikipedia. The talk page is intented to discuss topics and contents geared towards a particular edit. Wikipedia is not what anyone wants to add as that is violation of the core policy prohibiting claiming ownership of parts of or whole articles. My problem with your suggestions is that many of them imply that you would like to add fringe and conspiracy theories. That is also against what Wikipedia stands for as these are almost always unduly supporting irrelevant details. So far about contents, your personal aggressive, uncivil tone of voice and the way you respond to criticism on your suggestions suggests that you do not assume good faith of other editors as a first starting point. This does not help your point to come across, as editors may take offense to the tone and subsequently reject also more relevant elements of whatever you say. Arnoutf (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown, I don't know how you managed to misread what I have written. I have clearly said:

• I wouldn't be surprised... reliable sources. I didn't propose any edit and I mentioned at the same time about reliable sources. So I'm not sure what OR do you mean.
• There is also another aspect I should mention, due to the coincidence or "coincidence" some people probably wouldn't like to fly the Malaysian Airway. And why it is most probably not their fault, it will affect their finances. I think there will be some reliable sources about it too.
• Regarding 'fringe' there is already an article about unofficial theories of MH370. We can as well have the information posted there, create "unofficial theories" for this one, or have the information in the main article. I'm not sure what consensus will be.
• In any case, I'm expecting more reliable sources talking about the "coincidence" over time. I'm in no way suggesting OR. Dmatteng (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is the deal: We are dealing so many edit requests, we can't keep up. This isn't a a forum to talk about what might be, and opining just takes up resources we don't have. If you have specific text and reliable sources, then fine, but otherwise, we don't have time to chat about it in all the fury that is going on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I didn't post it as an edit request, but a discussion towards possible sources. In any case, I see one source that was introduced by an user: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/second-disaster-strikes-malaysia-airlines-as-jet-goes-down-over-ukraine/story-e6frg6so-1226992992291?nk=4ee621ae8ebac3ffcf8e8078b38f6add. It doesn't go into coincidence-karma thing and keeps things pretty mainstream. Do you think this source could be used - to signify the "coincidental nature" of the second Malaysian Airways plane to be down in relation to the first one (in just 4 months)? Certainly, more "esoteric" information could be given consideration later on, once the fury will subside, as you say. Dmatteng (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Russian Case"

I started going over the cites in this section, and found that several were things like Facebook pages, and one was a hate-filled blog by an anonymous party who asserts that the MH17 downing was a false flag operation by the Mossad. Finding some reliable sources for this section might be good! Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If one assumes that a pro-Russian or Russian force shot down the plane, you are going to have a hard time finding reliable sources to the contrary. --Simfan34 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the entire section "Assigning responsibility" is highly problematic right now. First, dividing this to "Russian" and "Ukrainian" causes is problematic. The "Ukrainian" cause is actually the one described in vast majority of sources (basically in all non-Russian sources). This section now includes a lot of statements by rebels. Second, this section is full of WP:OR. For example,

After the crash, Ukraine immediately blamed the separatists, while Russia blamed Ukraine for failing to agree to a cease fire, and has gone on to suggest that a Ukrainian anti-aircraft battery shot down the aircraft. Much of the evidence presented by each side relies heavily upon unverified social media accounts.

No, it does not "relies heavily upon unverified social media accounts". This is OR.

Ukraine claim that pro-Russian separatists shot down the aircraft using a BUK missile launcher is based upon an alleged set of phone intercepts that were released in a YouTube video shortly after the crash, in which the voices of two alleged pro-Russian separatists are heard discussing the shooting down of a plane.

No, Ukrainian claims are not based on this. They are based on their intelligence data (not YouTube!), the admissions by rebels (yes, that were published on YouTube, but then republished in multiple RS), and circumstancial evidence, such as another plane recently downed by missiles from rebels etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear whether Strelkov had actual knowledge of a BUK battery firing a missile, or whether he and his men saw the crash and simply assumed that their forces had downed another Ukrainian military aircraft and took public credit for it. This is OR.

And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected your indent for better reading. Sorry if anything. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur. The "Russian Case" section is appallingly cited and written, and the assembling of the two cases establishes a false parity from the perspective of a lay reader. It should immediately be pared down to a small paragraph, if that.Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Part of the Russian case was based upon the [MH17 crash: 10 questions Russia wants Ukraine to answer] publicly asked of Ukraine by Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov and reported in the Russian media as referenced above. One of the 10 questions refered to "Carlos" the alleged Spanish ATC in Kiev with the @spainbuca Twitter account which has since been deleted. This necessitated linking to other sites that had preserved or translated that twitter feed prior to its deletion. Cadwallader (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Black boxes

There is very little in the current version of the article about the fate/finding of the black boxes, which is obviously a very important aspect of this tragedy. I don't have time at the moment to formulate a proper edit request but perhaps someone else could suggest something. Here is one source [15], others should be easy to find.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that very much about the black boxes is speculative so far. So we should probably be a bit careful. BTW the article went to semiprotected so if you put something together you should be able to put it in yourself.

Also it seems from Dutch comments on TV that in this rare case black boxes will probably tell little we do not already know. Most likely they will be something like (all systems fine, all systems fine ...... END) in case it was a direct hit on the hull, if it took out a wing it would probably say (all systems fine, all systems fine, enginefire-multipleenginefailure-lossofavionitronics ...... END).

That said black boxes are important and should be discussed although perhaps not to the extent as in many other crash articles. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Much more should be added. I suggested an addition, with a source saying "'Second black box recovered' from crash site." yesterday at 14:04, in the "Bodies" thread. I recently saw a headline saying that "Russia does not want them". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I added a little about this. Welcome to add more or correct my recent edits.My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

To note that Tony Abbott stated that this was not an accident but was a crime. As noted by [Tony Abbott's response to MH17] I ask it be noted in the Reactions by Country under the section of Australia. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 06:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@TheGRVOfLightning: As per the template I think you need to be much more specific about the change you want: ie. what it says now, and what you want to change it to, or exactly what you want added and where, ie. "Australian PM Tony Abbott said "..." --220 of ^Borg 06:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

TheGRVOfLightning - What makes Abbott's assertions more meaningful than all the other claims floating about that Russia is evil and it was all Russia's fault? Do you have evidence that he knows things the rest of us don't know? Or might he just be making the sort of political noises he thinks his voters might like? That's what politicians do, you know. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 - I was merely requesting to add to the section to give it some more context and I believe you arn't holding a neutral point of view. I further request to you HiLo48 if you take issue that you raise the issue at my talk page. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why should we do that? This is the place to discuss what goes in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Would like to point out that this is not a matter of whether Mr Abbott PM is proclaiming to speak the unfallable truth, but that just the inclusion of his response be considered and taken care of under "reactions". Whether or not Mr Abbott is actually speaking the truth about the situation is an entirely different matter that stands separate from the reaction itself. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@AnnaOurLittleAlice: Yes. That was exactly what I was intending. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Regardless, 220 is correct. These requests need to be very specific or they aren't actionable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I was explaining the situation explicitly to HiLo48. Indeed, I am aware that a more complete quote must be given in order for it to be added. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Little need to expand in such detail on every comment made about the case; section on Australian response pretty much covers those allegations already. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that there has been no investigation of the crash site yet, I think it is highly premature to include the "reactions" section at all. The majority of the parties "reacting" lack any objective intelligence to react to at this point other than the self-promoting blather coming out of US and NATO. These are the same intel agencies who told us that Iraq had chemical weapons in 2003 and that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people in 2013 - and later turned out to be lying to advance the political objective of invasion. Is this a voting contest based on knee jerk reactions? That isn't exactly encyclopaedic material. So until an intel agency releases hard data, like the GPS coordinates of the plume they detected, these world leaders are talking off the tops of their heads, and don't really know what they're talking about. Cadwallader (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)