Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Edit war

This section is part of an active edit war. There was no consensus to remove it. Whoever is edit warring, please discuss.

"In an interview with Der Spiegel, the chief Dutch MH17 prosecutor, Fred Westerbeke, said that a shooting down by surface to air missile is the most likely occurrence, saying "Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things may have happened differently." According to Westerbeke, investigators initially considered four scenarios: "An accident, a terrorist act, downing by a surface-to-air missile, or an attack from another airplane. After the release of the DSB preliminary report the accident and terror scenarios were eliminated. The two others remain." Westerbeke also said that investigators are in contact with the United States with regard to obtaining satellite imagery and are in the process of preparing a request to Russia to obtain radar data which it has indicated it possesses.Investigators have not yet received US intelligence materials on the crash because, according to the Dutch government, "In the American legal system it is judicially complicated to pass intelligence information to the criminal justice system."

USchick (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate thread. Being discussed here. Stickee (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see a discussion about edit warring there. I see no consensus to remove this latest development in the investigation. If people want to shorten the article, trimming back irrelevant opinions of non investigators would be much more appropriate. USchick (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Then discuss it there, rather than fragmenting discussion. Stickee (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see an edit war about this particular section, and I don't see a discussion there about this section. I invite the edit warring parties to discuss here, (this section only) since this seems to be the point of contention. USchick (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a closer look at this diff I posted 4 comments above, which is exactly about the edit in question. Pay particular attention to the link inside the diff. Stickee (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the link. I see the paragraph quoted at the top of this thread. This is the most recent update from the official investigation. My question is, why is it being removed? I don't see it in the article. Recentism would apply if it was a quote from a politician about something he said recently (and then changed his mind.) This particular paragraph is the latest development in the investigation. It's not clear to me who thinks it's not relevant and why. USchick (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt contain any hard facts. So why the excitement? Alexpl (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The hard fact is that this is the latest development in the official investigation. This is the only place in the article that mentions what is actually being investigated. Why is it being removed and all kinds of speculation is being added instead? USchick (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats not a development. The same text could have been written in the very first week of the investigation. Maybe you should consider to shorten the Westerbeke statement. Alexpl (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're following the 20+ discussion pages, you know that this statement was not supported earlier because the sources that said it were considered unreliable and it was too early, according to some editors. This statement is supported undeniably by more recent sources. If this statement could have been written earlier, why wasn't it, especially since editors have been asking for it all along? What's the reason for deleting it this time, since it's no longer "too soon"? If anything needs to be shortened, there's lots of opinionated commentary from uninvolved parties. Why not start with that? USchick (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The statement does not bring any new information and is therefor useless. If you find it noteworthy that they wait for some info or consider every option for the crash, go ahead and write that, but I dont think that its worth more than one phrase. Alexpl (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The exact wording has been reached by consensus and it's the paragraph at the top of this thread. If some people find it useless, that's ok, there's lots of other stuff in the article that's much more useless. This is part of the official investigation, sourced content, and previously agreed upon. I respectfully request for this content to be reinstated. USchick (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yea, I read that now. Its about Russia again. I sincerely hope that they had nothing to do with the crash, cause otherwise things could really nasty. But this interview doesnt really help anybody. Its just a statement that work is ongoing. Alexpl (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a statement that has consensus to be included in the article. To remove it, there needs to be a better reason than "it doesn't help anybody." I'm asking for reinstatement. USchick (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Where was this so called consensus to add this statement actively achieved. Arnoutf (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It was achieved in the article on Oct 27 with this edit [1] and in the archives of this talk page. Nothing has changed in the investigation since then, and there is no consensus to remove it. USchick (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that edit as evidence of consensus if and only if, it were the first addition of that argument. It was not. A similar argument had been reverted twice, just before. The refusal to get close to something like an edit war by those editors opposing the argument should never ever be construed as consensus; as that would validate aggressive behavior by editors willing to get close to sanction for edit warring just to push their point.

Instead I am looking for clear and unambiguous statements of all involved (even those originally opposing) where it is clearly stated that they agree it is indeed a good idea to add. I am pretty sure such active consensus was never reached. But since you claim it is, please provide a pointer to the relevant section in the archive (since I claim no such section exist, I cannot provide such a link by definition). Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I can point you to many discussions where people continue to ask for facts instead of opinions to be included in this article. This information is specifies to the investigation. It has been in the article by consensus since Oct 27. It is being chiseled away in favor of less factual information like the thread right above this one, and I request for it to be reinstated. USchick (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you were asking to "remove all speculation" in this section: No watertight evidence so far. Dutch investigator. USchick (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"It has been in the article by consensus since Oct 27." - no, it has NOT been in the article by consensus since Oct 27. It has been in the article since Oct 27 because one user edit warred to get it in. Personally I'm on the fence about it. But even if it stays, it's obviously cherry-picked to push a POV and give a false impression, and it is also too long. Volunteer Marek 04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean just like they edit warred to delete it? Considering that it's information about the official investigation, I'm very interested to know what makes it POV and a false impression? USchick (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Could editors please use out-denting rather than narrow indented paragraphs no one else is likely to read. TFD (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what this means. USchick (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The last few paragraphs above are hard to read. TFD (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What TFD said. See the first example at WP:OUTDENT. Stickee (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding the template {{outdent}} from time to time to jump back to the left margin.

More on topic. Silence is not consensus; although in low traffic articles you may consider an unopposed edit to be consensual after a few months. You yourself raised BRD, which requires consensus for addition but not for the original revert. Do not twist the policies around making the revert the topic for discussion. As I have said in previous posts - every good investigator should keep all possibilities however unlikely in mind until they can be excluded; so even if there is a 1/1000 chance it was a fighter the investigator should not exclude that. That does not say that investigator claims all possibilities are equally likely. Arnoutf (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That the criminal investigation originally considered four possibilities, and cut that down to two possibilities once the DSB preliminary report came out, is certainly notable, especially when compared to all the discussion of what was said on social media which, incredibly, seems to make up the bulk of this article. The edit in question makes clear that the Buk theory is the theory favored by Dutch investigators, so your comment does not in the least give an explanation justifying the deletion in question. Here are the two comments that were made in Talk to justify this suppression of this well sourced content:

Just to clarify my opinion, yes, I self-reverted for the time being [15], but I still believe these insignificant details of ongoing investigation should be removed per WP:recentism. And I think they will certainly be removed sooner or later by someone.My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that the only argument given for suppression of the material is that "details" about the investigation which is tasked with determining who shot MH17 down amount to recenticism. How does recentism apply to the main criminal investigator telling a major news weekly what progress the investigation has made to date? Even if at a future date, the investigation narrows down the scenarios considered to just one, that would not make its narrowing them down from four to two not notable. I feel that I have to argue the most obvious points here. And note that My very best wishes says "I still believe…", which suggests that even he realizes that he doesn't have an argument and is just insistently not liking this. And Stickee is not any better. He makes no effort to provide a less ridiculous argument, but pretends that consensus has been obtained to delete material which had remained in this highly contentious article for days. And to see just how loony this all is, consider what my very best wishes wrote elsewhere:

I think such reports by independent investigative journalists [Bellingcat blog] are significantly more reliable and informative than vague claims by state-controlled organizations, such as German intelligence, or meaningless statements by official investigators who do not reveal their data before the end of their investigation.

My very best wishes thinks that a blog is more reliable than statements made by the relevant investigative authority, which is engaged in the largest criminal investigation in Dutch history. Are editors really going to try to pretend that there is consensus for this madness? – Herzen (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

bellingcat report was picked up by multiple RS - you are protesting too much methinks - belingcat pointed out blatant lies from the Russians concerning where certain vehicles were - perhaps its that that drives your determination to rubbish the messenger. I like the way you don't mention what was in the bellingcat report - just denigrate it - lowbrow stuff really. Sayerslle (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. Just because I point out that bellingcat is a blog doesn't mean that I'm denigrating it. I take your putting words into my mouth to be hostile. I never tried to delete any bellingcat-related material. And this isn't about bellingcat. It is about the Spiegel interview with the Dutch chief prosecutor, which was also "picked up by multiple RS", but which the editors who act as if they own this article are determined to suppress anyway. – Herzen (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The fun is here

I see nothing good coming out of this

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[2]. I really can't believe that USchick's behavior is being tolerated. Volunteer Marek 01:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

doesn't look fun really - hopefully it wont be tolerated. Sayerslle (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, regarding the ANI an admin came along and was dismissive using about the same language as Volunteer Marek, so I guess VM can keep his chin up and continue his remarkable effort here. Unless of course someone accuses that admin of being his sockpuppet. That would really take the cake. Lklundin (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work VM. It is clear that USchick is just pushing POV. He repeatedly ignores points made by others, mischaracterizes whether a general consensus has been reached, and muddies up the talk page. He is waging a war of attrition against the other editors on this page, which cannot be accepted.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This entire WP:BATTLE is a sad farce. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

BRD Let's discuss

The edit in question is this one:

Abbott also said in an interview on 13 October 2014, in anticipation of Russia's President Vladimir Putin's attendance at the 2014 G20 summit, scheduled for mid-November 2014 in Brisbane, Australia: "Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this."[3]

The reason for keeping it was, "it's still notable that he said it." Can someone please clarify what makes this quote notable enough to keep? The preliminary report did not arrive at this conclusion. Does anyone else think this quote needs to be kept? USchick (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's notable because it was such a strong statement by a leader of a major country, whose citizens were a good percentage of those murdered. Why shouldn't it be kept? Volunteer Marek 06:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hot tempered leaders say all kinds of things, but when it was time to do it, he didn't go through with it. This has more to do with personal relationships and nothing to do with this crash. USchick (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

He "didn't go through" with what? What does that have to do with the quote? Where do you see "personal relationships"? Can you make some sense please? Volunteer Marek 06:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote is being taken out of context. Here it is in full: TONY ABBOTT: Look, I'm going to shirt-front Mr Putin. You bet you are - you bet I am. I am going to be saying to Mr Putin, "Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this." USchick (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Out of context" implies that the quote misrepresents something. It doesn't. Also: [4]. Volunteer Marek 06:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Here's what was said less than 24 hours ago: "Mr Abbott told Mr Putin he had evidence that Russia had armed the rebels who shot down the aircraft and killed 38 Australians." [5] Stickee (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That quote is more appropriate than a quote that he was going to say, but then never said. He's not the only one who claims to have evidence. Why is he being singled out? Do we need to make a section and include all the evidence people claim they have? USchick (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at the list of people that were murdered. Then try your hardest to figure it out. That's why he's "being singled out". Volunteer Marek 06:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I would like to hear from others what they think. There are other people who claim to have evidence. If this is important, we need to create a section and outline all those claims, and list all the evidence. To single out one person who claims they have evidence is undue. However, VM seems to be moving the goalpost about what this discussion is about. It started out about a very specific quote that Abbott was going to say, but then he never said it. USchick (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"he was going to say": He did say it. It's on his official website: Joint Doorstop Interview, Queensland | Prime Minister of Australia. Stickee (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"we need to create a section and outline all those claims" - we need to do no such thing. Volunteer Marek 07:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is how The Independent reported the meeting of Abbott with Putin: No sign of Tony Abbott 'shirtfronting' Vladimir Putin over MH17 at Apec summit:

Telling journalists that Putin had stressed Russia has always insisted on “an unbiased, quick and effective investigation,” [Putin's press secretary] said that the meeting went “without harsh phrasing” and that Abbott “has not attempted” to shirtfront the President.

The Sydney Morning Herald also noted the warmth of their conversation, saying it was understood to have been “measured and respectful in tone”.

As I said in my edit summary, this is old news. There is nothing notable about Abbott having blurted out that he was going to shirtfront Putin, given that when he actually met Putin, the interaction was cordial. This is just the usual "If it puts Putin and/or Russia in a bad light, it is highly notable and must be put/kept in, but if it gives the impression that Russia is just another country doing what normal countries do, looking after their own interests and going about their business, then it is not at all notable and must be kept out." – Herzen (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything he said [6] that matches the quote at the top of this page. USchick (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly there. The 7th response of "PRIME MINISTER". A copy and paste from it: "Australians were murdered and they were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this." Stickee (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

He is saying what he is going to say to Putin. Then when he talked to Putin, he said something different. So this particular quote at the top of this thread is taken out of context. USchick (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you know what "taken out of context" means. The proper context for the quote is actually provided. Volunteer Marek 08:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean? I understand this quote to be a lie. He said he was going to say something, and then he didn't. To leave this quote after the fact is to misrepresent what he actually said. Also, please explain why unidentified evidence from this man is important, but named evidence requested by the investigators is not important to mention? USchick (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Can you please explain what you mean": He's saying the 26 words preceding the quote provide the context. Plus the quote is still accurate: "...Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's allegation that [Russia] had a role in the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17" ([7]). Stickee (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please address the issue, which is, this quote is a lie. If the actual quote is, "Russia had a role," that's not what's being quoted at the top of this thread. Can you please address why you insist on presenting this man's evidence in the article, which he claims to have, but he doesn't say what it is, but actual evidence that the investigators requested is not allowed to be mentioned? USchick (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

??? How is the quote a "lie"? Volunteer Marek 14:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

tony abbot calls for apology and compensation - doesn't seem that cordial, herzen, really Sayerslle (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of Russian-Australian cordiality, the Russian navy has decided to exercise its freedom of navigation in international waters, North of the Australian cost: Russia sends warships towards Australia before G20 meeting. Subtle. Lklundin (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how statement by Abbott can be viewed as something about "personal relationships". Agree with Marek: this should stay for now. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This statement is a lie because it was a claim about something that was going to happen at a specific event, and then it never happened. To claim that it happened is to misrepresent sources. On purpose, in bad faith. In a deliberate lie. USchick (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a "lie" is. At best what we got here is a broken promise (and not even that). If you say "I will do x in the future" but then you change your mind that's not a lie. If you tell untruth about something that's happened in the past (or is happening) that's a lie. As in, if you say "it was decided at AN/I that a source should be used" where in fact "it was decided at AN/I that you shouldn't accuse people of being racist without basis". That's an example of an actual lie. Volunteer Marek 18:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What's the reason for including this "broken promise?" USchick (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you see the words "At" and "best" up there? Volunteer Marek 22:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead of making me guess, and in case I guess wrong, would you please kindly tell us the reason? USchick (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A major reason for this quote being notable is that, in the eyes of Australians who didn't vote for his party (and in the eyes of many who did) it makes Abbott look like a fool, and people feel good when they laugh at politicians who are fools. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think if we use the quote we should use the whole quote, including the threat to "shirt-front" and not that it is Australian slang for a type of assault, according to the urban dictionary.[8] But I think it would be better to provide an official statement from the Australian government, rather than some rant. TFD (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you would get that "official statement". HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to remind editors that we still need to establish what makes this quote notable. The idea of making people look like a fool doesn't translate to people unfamiliar with Australian politics. And to assert this idea, we would need RS. After notability is established, the entire quote needs to be used, not just parts of it. USchick (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The most important question here is: what is/was Abbott's position on the matter? In July it was "Russian controlled territory, Russian-backed rebels, quite likely a Russian supplied weapon - Russia can’t wash its hands of this". In August it was "the Russian-backed rebels who shot their plane out of the sky". In September, "Russian-backed rebels shot down Flight MH17 using Russian-supplied weapons, thus murdering 38 Australians". In October, "They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment." And now in November, "Thirty-eight Australians were murdered" and "MH17 was destroyed by a missile from a launcher that had come out of Russia".

From those quotes alone it's pretty clear what his position has always been, and still is. Stickee (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Audio record of Pro-Russian rebels discuss the shooting down of an aircraft

The audio record is not credible. The date of creation of first file published on YouTube was July 16, 2014 19:07:41 – about 18 hours before the crash. Minimum it must to be noticed. קירה (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Google employee says it was their fault and there was a "bug that has led to inaccurate timestamps being inserted into MP4 files served from YouTube" ([9]). There's also a more technical explanation (not from Google) here. Stickee (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It explains the upload date only, not the creation date. קירה (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats what I thought SaintAviator lets talk 10:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Not the case: "The "creation_time" in the metadata on the screenshot is the same data that has been returned by the mediainfo command under "Encoded date". It is the same thing."

This is not a forum anyway. Stickee (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly Stickee, its the place we discuss the validity of refs. Correct. Otherwise WP loses respect when nonsense is put in like the Heavy weather plane divert BBC fabrication. Remember that? SaintAviator lets talk 22:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times and also in many, many refs. There's no reason to discuss it any more. It was always an incredibly stupid claim given that it could be debunked with the simplest OR and understanding. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact the 'upload date' (I presume you mean the date shown on Youtube) is unaffected. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Flight path of MH17

I do not see anything about flight path of MH17. Is it true that this particular flight on that particular day was instructed to fly a couple of hundred miles south (into that area, where it was finally shut down) as compared to its usual route? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.161.109 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)

No. Not everything you read on the internet is true or even non-ridiculous. In fact, most of it, the opposite. Volunteer Marek 06:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

See below edit request. Stickee (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, and not every information that the English Wikipedia takes as granted to be the truth is necessarily the truth. Who should be trusted, after all? AAIB, or a group of online comentators? There are plenty of online comentators! There are comentators saying that MH370 was downed by a cyber-attack or even abducted by aliens!... Well, that would be surprising. There are truthers saying that September 11 was an inside job citing the evidence of nano-thermite!... It's just as fair to accept that theory as it is to accept these arguments stated by this group of comentators. By the way, this article is too big, given that the AAIB hasn't yet released any report.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes its way to big. We need to trim it. In its bloated state there is an ongoing attempt in many little edits to preempt the investigation to insinuate The Pro Russians did it. Im dissapointed people cant just read a NPOV encyclopedia about MH 17. WP works well in many 1000's of articles, but is a failure on these types of articles where politics not reason dominates. A complete failure as a respected encyclopedia. I blame the Pro West editors here. This is not a forum, but it needed to be said, at least once. Discussion open on my talk page. SaintAviator lets talk 00:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2014

This edit request to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A very important point - as I see - is NOT mentioned in the article: why was the flight MH17 on that particular date instructed by the Ukrainian air-control people to fly a couple of hundred miles south of its usual route? Another point not questioned: Qui bono? 176.63.161.109 (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've disabled your edit request. Please provide a specific sourced edit. If you can't this should be a discussion and not an edit request until there is such a proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In any case this has been discussed to death, you can find it somewhere in the archives. In short - It the northern route was not the only usual route but one among several usual routes. It was indeed used for the few flights in the weeks before but was now avoided due to bad weather. Arnoutf (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Both what 176.63.161.109 and Arnoutf write is wrong, see the preliminary DSB report. MH17 flew the normal route on July 17 up to Dnipropetrovsk. See MH17#Crash for the rest of the flight. --PM3 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep the only deviation was 20 NM to the north which was requested by the flight crew "due to weather". Stickee (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Investigation - Two Small Proposals

I've got 2 proposals about the Investigation section:

Delete the (duplicate) paragraph starting with "A team of investigators at the Dutch Safety Board released a preliminary report...". That paragraph was actually written by me after the report was released, but since then someone has written an actual subsection on it, so this paragraph is effectively a duplicate.
Also, add the image seen to the right in the "Initial attempts" section. It's the only one on Commons which shows some sort of investigation.

Just wanted to see what you thought before I did this. Stickee (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds OK Stickee, it lessens the bloat a little. Picture? What about the bigger one, Pilots Cabin remains, with lots of holes? SaintAviator lets talk 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. As for the image, they have to be from Commons as a free image. Stickee (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

version November 14

Unlike versions of Ukraine or the United States, what is in the link has tangible evidence, not the words but the photo and podtverzhdleno findings of Commission investigating the disaster (attack from the air, and not from the ground). and yes .. rocket beech really leaves a mark in the shot, ever, but no one saw this track, you fakin lol if not thought about it before.

many video launches on YouTube, just like any other non-vanishing has a huge footprint, but no one has seen a trace.

https://www.1tv.ru/news/leontiev/271824

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6-QjpC3m5U many video launches on YouTube, just like any other non-vanishing has a huge footprint, but no one has seen a trace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsvVXDKGnMQ in Russian and English, the official said and shown (not photoshop Psak) data objective control TECHNICAL TOOLS of registration as a combat aircraft Ukraine chased Boeing. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You DO realize that the only relevant investigating commission is the Dutch investigation; and I don not see any reference to conclusions of that commission in any of your links. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Somebody was asking where the SPA with conspiracy stories and sources where. Question answered I guess. Volunteer Marek 19:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a particularly unhelpful post. Please take up your SPA allegations formally in the correct place. Arnoutf, I fully agree "that the only relevant investigating commission is the Dutch investigation". So why does the article include the opinions of so many others? HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Volunteer Marek 22:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the post of the OP is the unhelpful one. Does this obvious POV-push which has clearly been created with google-translate even merit anything other than a delete? (I see that another editor already deleted another unhelpful posting here from the same IP). Lklundin (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A little too much speculation and POV in your post too Lklundin, but I agree that no speculation should be in the article. Deleting it wouldn't be very friendly though. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As discussed before, your definition of "speculation" appears to mean "remove reliable sources". Volunteer Marek 22:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I could equally say that your definition of a reliable source is anything that supports your POV, with the obvious corollary that if it doesn't support your POV, it's not reliable. My view is that all sources are good for some things and not so good for others. British tabloids, for example, are excellent sources for soccer scores. American newspapers are not so good if one is seeking a global perspective on something. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you could not equally say that, since my definition of a reliable source is straight out of WP:RS. A source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Volunteer Marek 05:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No one appears to have noticed the most noteworthy aspect of that Russian Channel 1 news report: it shows a photograph which the report says was taken by a low-flying spy satellite, possibly a US or British one. The photo clearly shows a jet fighter shooting a missile at an airliner. (There is an inset of a magnified image of the fighter shooting the missile.) The photo is available at this link (7406x5000 pixels; 1.6MB)
It will be interesting to see how the US and Ukraine respond to this. This story is breaking:
TASS: Russia’s Channel One show satellite photo evidencing MH17 was downed by fighter jet
@PM3: Any thoughts? Do you think this is another Russian fake? – Herzen (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I would rather see Wikipedia not conducting its own investigation. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

[10] - this story is breaking - or broken Sayerslle (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The Australian and UK press have picked this up:

Russian media releases satellite image claiming to show MH17 shot down by Ukrainian fighter jet

Is this the moment MH17 was shot down over Ukraine? Shock new images released

To quote from the former:

In what only could be described as an extraordinary coincidence after Mr Putin was confronted by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Beijing this week, Russia’s state broadcaster aired the images supplied by unnamed sources.

Maybe it is time for the Dutch criminal investigation to eliminate another theory. – Herzen (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

the express says 'The Kremlin-owned channel's presenter said: "Today we have all grounds to suppose that a State crime was committed by those who deliberately destroyed the plane.' - it could be more disinformation herzen - ! Sayerslle (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it could very well be disinformation. The same with the Buk theory. The question here is, is it being reported in reliable sources? (I'm sure everyone here is thrilled to see me. Thank you, thank you very much!) USchick (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at that Twitter link: thanks for that. Someone there noted that there is a discrepancy in the time stamp. Last contact of ATC with MH17 was at 13:19 UTC, whereas the time stamp on the photo is 1:19:47. If this is disinformation, then it is very crude disinformation, if it can be shown to be fake so easily. – Herzen (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comically poor fake: [11] That being said, WP:RS reporting on Russian propaganda is notable, so those reports should be included in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is very embarrassing. It also raises my opinion of Bellingcat. Russian Channel One should not have run this story. This is going to be hard to live down. – Herzen (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acting in good faith. Now, can we not hear anything more about the "Russian Union of Engineers" for at least a few months? Volunteer Marek 22:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I never tried in a big way to push the Russian Engineers' report. In any case, this fake doesn't necessarily discredit that report. And I wonder where the fake came from: it could be black propaganda, i.e. created by someone hostile to the rebels and Russia in order to discredit them. This kind of thing has happened before: LIFENEWS, I think ran an interview with a woman who said she saw an infant being killed by Ukrainian soldiers or militia in a square in Slavyansk in front of its mother. That story I was immediately skeptical of. It seems that Russian TV news learned nothing from that fiasco. One thing that should have tipped me off in this satellite photo case is that it was based on a letter from some American. How do you run a story this sensational without interviewing the person who sent you the photo? – Herzen (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"I never tried in a big way to push the Russian Engineers' report." - mmm... maybe not in a "big" way, but: [12]. Quote: "This (Russian Union of Engineers) report must be mentioned" and "The theory of the Russian Engineer Union report is the prevailing theory in Russia. That the West prefers a rival theory should not influence WP in the least. That just leads to clear systemic bias.". So when some of us said, this report is not a reliable source, you claimed this was example of this "systemic bias". And now it turns out that this "Union of Russian Engineers" isn't quite what it's cracked up to be either. According to that source [13] the "expert" from the Union doesn't even have an engineering education. Volunteer Marek 20:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you not notice my qualification in a big way? I quickly gave up on using anything from the Russian Engineers' report, as opposed to the Time article about the DSB preliminary report or the Spigel interview with the Dutch chief prosecutor. – Herzen (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you not notice my qualification in a big way? - yes, I did, that's why I said "maybe not in a "big" way." Volunteer Marek 04:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"some American" is to blame, eh? Perhaps this Yankee villain was not interviewed because interviewing the "enemy" can get you fired. Just ask Galina Timchenko what happened after Lenta.ru interviewed Dmytro Yarosh.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate to get all forum-y, but I'll do it anyway. Considering how obviously fake it was (eg [14]), and that the RUE said "We have thoroughly analyzed this photo to find no signs of fake", it leaves three options regarding RUE: (1) they're not very competent (2) they lied about actually analyzing it (2b) they knew it was a fake. Stickee (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: (2b) makes no sense, because since the fake was crude, they would have known it would be exposed as a fake; (2) makes little sense, because that would be unprofessional. That leaves (1). – Herzen (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is an obvious fake. Livery does not match, engines are by far too small for a Triple-7. This confirms my impression that "Russian Engineers Union" is nothing but a dubious government-controlled propaganda organization. --PM3 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

the menace of unreality - Russian regime is 'getting beyond it all' - they don't give a stuff any more really . (not forum, I know, I know)Sayerslle (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that that hysterical piece you linked to is relevant here. A news organization that gets duped by a fake this crude is hardly a "menace". Heads at Russia's Channel One should roll for this. – Herzen (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Heads didn't roll after Channel One aired the "crucifixion" allegation. Neither did they roll for recycling a 1995 Chechyna photo.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph claims that this is a crude fake. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11232683/Russia-says-MH17-was-shot-down-by-plane-missiles.html) --64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hehe. [15] [16]. I am now gonna go through all of Wikipedia and remove anything sourced to TASS and the dailymail. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to start with Dailymail, which is garbage compared to TASS. --PM3 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Scary thing is, you might be right. Volunteer Marek 22:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is also a report from Bellingcat debunking the photo here: https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2014/11/14/russian-state-television-shares-fake-images-of-mh17-being-attacked/ --64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Channel One said the "sensational photograph" came from a certain George Bilt, who claimed to be a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate with more than two decades of experience in the aviation industry. He emailed it to Ivan Andriyevsky, the first vice-president of the Russian Union of Engineers, the report went on. "We can assume that the photograph was taken by an American or British satellite," Andriyevskiy told Channel One'. Taken in hook line and sinker. Lol. SaintAviator lets talk 04:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Whereas in reality it came from a conspiracy theorists webforum: [17] (look at the message from 15 October).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What is your point? Nobody here believes that the photo came from a certain George Bilt. So why are you telling us about what is true "in reality"? What part of "Taken in hook line and sinker" don't you understand? And your ritualstic screaming of "conspiracy theorists!" is getting really tiresome. How many times do I have to say that if Time magazine and the relevant criminal investigative team take a theory seriously, it is not a conspiracy theory? – Herzen (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"Nobody here believes that the photo came from a certain George Bilt"? Yet you said, above, that 'this satellite photo case is... based on a letter from some American," did you not? Which "American" were you referring to? You see what you are invited to do here, Herzen? Withdraw your contention that Channel One was somehow victimized by forces "hostile to the rebels and Russia" seeking "to discredit them." Channel One discredited themselves (again) without Western help. By the way, there's no indication that the Dutch take the shoot-down theory at all "seriously", they simply aren't yet saying that it has been deemed impossible. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that remain on the fringe of remote possibility such that not every reliable authority has specifically addressed them and said that they have been ruled out as impossible. Of course the Kremlin disagrees, but then the Kremlin has now made it official that Wikipedia is beyond hope with respect to coverage of Russia and "[t]he creation of an alternative Wikipedia has begun."--Brian Dell (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

from brown moses twitter: 'Expert" Vladimir Saluyanovu on the fake MH17 sat image, and why they got caught out with a fake [18] - said they couldn't check because it came from the internet or something - its all to create miasma anyhow - Dezinformatsiya - 'the swine' as Russell Brand would say -Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about adding a sentence about Saluyanovu's explanation of why he was duped to the article? I think that something should be said about that, because this was such a major fail, so it is noteworthy in itself. – Herzen (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. That whole self-justification is just too ridiculous. If whatever created that photo used the 12 hour convention, the time stamp would have AM/PM in it. Furthermore, I don't see what else any earth orbiting satellite could use for what the time is but UTC. – Herzen (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Both your contention that Russian organizations faked the photo as opposed to were duped by it and that "the Dutch [do not] take the shoot-down theory at all 'seriously', they simply aren't yet saying that it has been deemed impossible" are OR. I have not seen any secondary source make either of those points. Furthermore, I do not expect the Dutch investigators ever to conclude that "the shoot-down theory" has been deemed impossible. (1) There are two shoot-down theories: one is that the rebels did it with a Buk missile, the other is that Kiev did it with a fighter jet. Those are the only two theories being considered. (2) The criminal justice system deals with what most likely happened (or what happened, beyond a reasonable doubt), not with what is possible and impossible. So the Dutch investigators are never going to conclude what you apparently believe, that it is impossible that Kiev shot down MH17 with a fighter jet. – Herzen (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know the investigators look at the theories that it was downed by a Buk or A fighter and do not even consider whether it was a Ukrainian, rebel or even Russian fighter at this moment in time, let alone whether it was on orders from Kiev. But perhaps you can provide a source where it is stated explicitly. Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be pedantic. (1) The rebels don't have any planes. (2) If a Russian plane had invaded Ukrainian airspace, Ukraine and NATO would have detected that and immediately protested. So if a fighter plane was involved, it was Ukrainian, or was operating with Ukraine's approval. Editors aren't expected to be as precise in their wording in Talk pages as they are in their edits of articles. The passage the suppression of which is being debated in this section above merely mentions "an attack from another airplane", without saying whose airplane that might have been. – Herzen (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You are suggesting that the Ukraine government shot down a civilian plane over its own territory as, what? Come sort of propaganda thing? You cannot be serious. Every news report--outside of Russia, anyway--indicates that the plane was shot down by the Russian-backed rebels. The notion that Ukraine shot it down is simply not credible. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself. See the discussion in Dutch prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down MH17, No watertight evidence so far. Dutch investigator, and Edit war. – Herzen (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

bilt sys not looking for cheap fame - if you want to add more detail herzen about the lying Russian propaganda there's this too. - and, from a tweet, 'Leontyev backs down from absurd satellite fake from @channelone_rus with backpedaling statement: [19]Sayerslle (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is such a good example of two people with very bad judgment acting in good faith. An MIT graduate (not an idiot presumably) thinking he's going to send something to a reporter in confidence. NOTHING you ever send to a reports is EVER in confidence. Then the reporter thinking that an MIT guy surely knows what he's talking about, because a) he's American, b) his access to information is not censored, because his media is not state owned, c) any number of other reasons. No one stopped to think about how would a regular guy get access to classified satellite imagery. lol USchick (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I think a sentence explaining where the photo came from based on that source should be added. (Somehow I don't think there is ever going to be a news report about who created the fake photo.) – Herzen (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Done with this edit. Since you mention "Russian propaganda", I might as well note that the BuzzFeed piece is propaganda (which obviously does not mean that I have anything against treating it as a reliable source). To quote the article:

Mockery soon ensued. Several users posted photos of a Ukrainian Nazi flying saucer shooting down the plane. …

Putin’s public comments have been unrepentant. But he’ll have to do more to convince the rest of the world that he didn’t shoot down MH17.

The article implies that all of the world outside of Russia believes that Putin (himself, personally) shot down MH17. That is very crude propaganda. – Herzen (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet you're the editor who has introduced this Buzzfeed article to Wikipedia. If you do not have an objection to using the source, I remind you that this is not a forum. By the way, I never claimed who faked this, I rather indicated that I doubted your certainty that Channel One had been "duped", to use your term, as if they are trying so hard at Channel One to not spread false stories but they just can't help themselves, etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You are probably confusing me with someone else, otherwise I can not really rationally explain some of your points (for xample how can I be tiresome if this was my first post at this talk page may be in a month), but since I am sure you are going to be topic-banned pretty soon, it does not really matter.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to close this thread. It seems we all agree that a central piece of the suggested information - that is the satellite photo - is not a reliable piece of information. So it seems that we have consensus not to add any of this. Arnoutf (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: Note that it has already been added: [20]. Stickee (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

May be there is merit to mention this, but I'm unconvinced of the need to mention any dumb claim which briefly spread. That said, I think this case is a good example of why we need to great care with certain Russian sources (and this isn't the first example, e.g. the time stamping issue mentioned below). Clearly anyone who mentioned this claim as true, would seem to lack the standards we require. Of course we should distinguish between sources which only mentioned that this was getting a lot of attention. This is not to suggest that all Russian sources are the same, although there do seem to be a lot that fall in to that category. And in particular, for all the criticism of "Western" sources, while there are sources like the Daily Mail, who we should always use with great caution if at all, there are also sources like NYT and BBC who despite their controversies and occasional screwups (e.g. Jayson Blair) which sadly seem to be lacking in Russian sources which is IMO unfortunate. (One of the closest that seems to have come is Al Jazeera at least in their English variant, but perhaps they're helped by the fact that their government is small enough that they can't really limit coverage to only their POV and so some of their stuff is more silly than significant, e.g. covering the a speech.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is so funny, but sadly true. beyond hope Good link thanks, hadn't seen it. I recently did some Uni study and saw students get burned trying to ref Wikipedia. Lecturers wont take it. And the fight here to even talk about NPOV shows why. SaintAviator lets talk 22:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I made the following edit (added text shown in bold): "Many other Russian media and Western media reprinted the photo." Sayerslle undid that edit, giving the following edit summary: "but that was when it was being dissected as farce rather, no? thers a dufference". But two days ago, when he made a comment at 21:52, Sayerslle must have known that that some Western media reprinted the photo before it was dissected as farce, because the Express story from which Sayeslle quotes does not consider any reasons why the photo may be a fake. And the same is the case with the story that news.com.au published. What appears to have happened here is that Sayeslle is so keen to smear Russia (he has repeatedly uses Talk pages as a forum to attack Russia. as opposed to collaborating with other editors to build an encyclopedia) that his memory is playing tricks on him.
I hope that there will be no objections to my putting the phrase in question back in. Also, I think "Many" in "Many other Russian media" should go. Most Russian media ignored this story, so adding "many" is misleading and not neutral. – Herzen (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, which "many Western media" reprinted the photo, outside the context of it being a fake? DailyMail? That's about it I think. Volunteer Marek 23:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your reading that "many" applied to "Western" as well as "Russian" is tendentious. The following reports from Western media all reproduce the photo without saying anything about it being debunked:

And how do we know that many Russian media reproduced the photo? Nobody has given the links. Some Anglophone media did the same thing some Russian media did. NPOV requires that this be mentioned. – Herzen (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Ymblanter:, since he added the sentence here. Stickee (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This article (note this is not a RS) says that Moskovsky Komsomolets (whil later retracted), Dni.ru., Vesti.ru, NTV, LifeNews, ITAR-TASS, Lenta.ru, Zvezda TV, and Komsomolskaya Pravda, among others, reprinted the photo. I checked some of them: Lifenews, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Lenta.ru. Here Grani.ru, which is a RS, says that some Russian media reposted the news from 1TV, and that Moskovsky Komsomolets later removed the news from the website. I hope this is sufficient. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. The "Many" can stay in as far as I am concerned. Thank you very much for confirming that. I've learned that the way Wikipedia works is that if you make a claim that is not supported, people will not do the work of supporting it for you. One of the worst cases of that is when people remove a claim because they don't like the source cited in support of it, instead of trying to find a better source. Also, we agree that stopfake (the very name sounds demented) is not a RS.

So, can I make the sentence in question "Many other Russian media and several Western news outlets reprinted the photo"? I think four qualifies as several. – Herzen (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds OK imo. SaintAviator lets talk 08:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That whole sentence as it stands seems like OR though. Stickee (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any problems with saying "some Russian and Western media", I think this describes the situation in the most accurate way.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

But do we have any sources which state that? Stickee (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For this formulation we can use sources in this thread ("some" is an obviuos generalization and is therefore not OR). For "many" we would need indeed to have sources saying "many", and Herzen's formulation (some Western and many Russian) sounds awkward to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Heres one MSM Oz that ran with it [21] SaintAviator lets talk 09:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Just checked more than five MSM here in Au reprinted the picture, including the SMH, The Australian, SBS, ABC, Courier Mail SaintAviator lets talk 09:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

But once again that's OR. Unless we have a source that says "it was published in X media" we can't include it without performing OR. Stickee (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that it shouldn't be included, although I am more lax about OR than you are, so my reason is different. As I explained below, that the photo got published by other news outlets is not noteworthy. – Herzen (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: I guess technically speaking, it is OR, but then the kind of "research" it is based on is exactly the same as what is involved in editors writing articles based on secondary sources. I personally feel the sentence sounds gossipy and unencyclopedic, but I am not inclined to suggest that it should be removed. Are you? I personally don't feel that it conveys any useful information, since it is utterly routine for news outlets to report what other news outlets have reported, if that is noteworthy. Thus, we had many news outlets report on the Spiegel interview with the Dutch chief prosecutor. Since other news outlets picking up on the Channel One story is what one would expect, mentioning that they did so is UNDUE. – Herzen (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"I am not inclined to suggest that it should be removed" and "mentioning that they did so is undue". I'm confused, don't these sentences contradict? Stickee (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed my mind while writing that, but didn't find it necessary to erase the expression of earlier stages of reasoning. Also, one can think that policy dictates one thing, but that the rules can be bent in a particular case, so there is not a direct contradiction. Human judgement is applied in observing policy; we are not automatons. – Herzen (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

new video of aftermath

from brown moses twitter - new footage 'New footage of the downing of #MH17. 40s in someone says it was hit by a rocket and broke up ' Sayerslle (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Still hearsay, lets wait for the report. Arnoutf (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You must be under a great deal of anguish resulting from there being no eyewitness testimony about a SAM being fired. So then a video appears, in which someone yells off-camera from a crowd in the middle of a burning crash site that the plane was hit by a rocket, and Brown Moses gets all excited and tweets about that, and you decide to start a new Talk section.

The BBC Russian Service has on its Web site a news report in which three eyewitnesses tell the reporter that they saw a fighter jet or jets near MH17, but for some reason, that does not interest Brown Moses, who, like some editors here, already knows the one truth, and is only interested in such snippets of information which confirm what he already knows. – Herzen (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A note for those here who are not aware of: "Brown Moses" is Eliot Higgins, the founder of Bellingcat and co-author of #Updated Bellingcat report on the origin of a Buk launcher. And I agree that he is somewhat biased, but though an outstanding citizen journalist. --PM3 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless a secondary reliable source comments on this, it's of no use to us. Volunteer Marek 21:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the video, pretty unequivocal. But as a source it is PRIMARY...--Galassi (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

yes , not sure why I made that edit really - maybe as an external link the video is intersting as footage of immediate aftermath.( I don't think its right herzen to say he is only interested in certain 'snippets' -or PM3 that he is biased really - if 3 people say something to a reporter that's not what he looks at I don't think , he and his website looks at open source evidence - buk convoy in russia - his bias is toward evidence and reality thereby revealed kind of thing) Sayerslle (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please no more Brown Moses. Take it to a user talk page. Eliot Higgins is a YouTube blogger, and self-proclaimed weapons expert. He is NOT an expert in anything afaik. In 2013 he was offered for sponsorship and/or a job with weapons a manufacturing company whilst consulting for @HRW. Bloggers like him are part of the problem here. Please also discuss this elsewhere, as it will be another epic waste of time. This is Not a Forum. SaintAviator lets talk 23:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RS dictate - if RS reportage mentions bellingcat that's all that matters. spas don't dictate content, - pov spas are an epic waste of time on wp, not RS Sayerslle (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Now some secondary sources have appeared:

New video of MH17 downing in Ukraine surfaces - Associated Press

New footage claims to show MH17 crash aftermath - BBC

Stickee (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. The BBC story is about the AP story. And the AP story mentions several remarks that people can be heard making in the video, but none of them involve someone saying that a missile hit the plane. – Herzen (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Falsely accusing someone of being a SPA, as you did here, is a personal attack.

This video was uploaded to YouTube by Komsomolskaya Pravda. Its page links to two other interesting videos (apparently without English subs):

Ever more facts indicating that MH17 was downed by a fighter
Dutch experts have begun the collection of fragments at the crash site in eastern Ukraine

These reports are noteworthy because they indicate that the investigators intend to collect all the wreckage and take it off site. The videos, especially the first one, are worth watching even if you don't know Russian, because the reporter examines several pieces of the plane, and because you get different views of the crash site. I have no idea of why Komsomolskaya Pravda is there, but not other news crews. – Herzen (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"the investigators intend to collect all the wreckage and take it off site": They already have taken wreckage off-site, starting today: MH17 flight investigators remove crucial debris. Stickee (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that after you posted the link. But the Komsomolskaya Pravda videos are still interesting. The first one, from Wednesday, shows investigators collecting wreckage with a crane. So investigators have been collecting wreckage (as opposed to taking it off site) at least since Wednesday. – Herzen (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the old personal attack trick. Its hilariously amateurish. Heres how it works. A dubious blogger who takes fees finds something saying very little, its Original. Awww. Wait someone else says maybe a sec source will come up. Wait for it, it of course gets picked up by a UK approved RS as more evidence supporting that papers 'position'. Oh wow now it can go in here on WP as more 'bloatquote'. BM reminds me of “The Gay Girl in Damascus”. Its all so silly. You know I was totally neutral but all this desperate pushing of POV has me wondering whats going on here. SaintAviator lets talk 00:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Back on topic, others do: ‘A rocket was fired’: New video reportedly shows flaming MH17 wreckage moments after crash as well as "In the video, one resident can be heard in the background saying “a rocket was fired.”". Stickee (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A guy blurts out a few words in a cacophony of voices from a crowd that is in a frenzy because it is trying to put out a fire that was caused by the wreckage of a plane that has just crashed, and this is supposed to be some kind of eyewitness testimony and, who knows, perhaps even evidence? If that guy thinks he saw a rocket, why is there no trace of anyone talking about this rocket after the fire was put out? Grasping at this video as if it were some kind of evidence is the behavior of conspiracy theorists.

And I hope you don't actually want to add this to the article when the BBC Russian News Service video with three witnesses telling the reporter on camera that they saw a fighter plane flying next to MH17 has been suppressed from the article. The aim should be to make the article more balanced, not more crazy. – Herzen (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said it should or shouldn't be added. I was simply countering your claim that "none of them involve someone saying that a missile hit the plane", when in fact some do. Stickee (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This should be closed down. No Blogs, no twitter, No You tuber wanna be experts. No time wasting speculative meanderings. We have bloat people. Less is often more SaintAviator lets talk 02:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No blogs, "You tuber" or twitter have been used. Only sources such as the Associated Press or the BBC. Stickee (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. SaintAviator lets talk 04:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the lede there's information from a source VKontakte that was picked up by media. Other unreliable sources were also picked up by the media, but they're not allowed in this article for some reason. I'd like to point out, again, that cherry picking is against policy. USchick (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question are the Guardian and the Christian Science Monitor. We've been over this literally a dozen times. Stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, and stop beating the dead horse. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

About BND report and Ukrainian Military agency feedback

Please, add a note to section about 'Cause of a crash' to paragraph about BND report, that Ukrainian Military agency has denied that rebels captured Buk from Ukrainian army: http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2014/10/20/informacziya-pro-zahoplennya-teroristami-zenitnogo-raketnogo-kompleksu-buk-m1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a03:b0c0:2:d0::91:7001 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)

This is a primary source from the Ukrainian government that mentions the Spiegel article by name. They deny the allegation that Russian separatists captured a Buk from a Ukrainian military base. It's dated Oct 20, 2014. USchick (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, USchick. We should consider this addition. Where can we find the Spiegel article?--64.253.142.26 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Any Spiegel article that claims the Buk was captured from the Ukrainian military, like this one [22]. This article also mentions that they're investigating it as a possible war crime. USchick (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: they mention Spiegel magazine by name. It says "information published in the German magazine Spiegel..." USchick (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Investigation

Several editors have said that the investigation section is too long, since this article is about the crash. Considering that the investigation is ongoing, and more information will make this section even longer, are there any objections to moving the Investigation section to its own article where the investigation can be expired in depth? USchick (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough. All comment on the possible cause that is not from the official enquiry should be removed. This includes (highly predictable) political reactions and Russian media coverage. It's all too political and unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree about removing all unofficial content. Now, how you you suggest we do that? :) USchick (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

'where the investigation can be expired in depth' - freudian slip there Sayerslle (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

lol USchick (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

We are neither removing content (cited to reliable sources) nor are we splitting it off to form some kind of WP:POVFORK. "Some editors have said" all kinds of nonsense things. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

When you announce what "We" are going to, who are you speaking for? USchick (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The editors of this article. Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure they can speak for themselves. USchick (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is pointless. And tiresome. "We", as editors of this article, right here, are not, going to remove, reliably sourced text, because, that would be, in violation of, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, WP:NPOV. As you and HiLo have been repeatedly told. You got it now? Volunteer Marek 21:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Many editors have repeatedly said that this article has all kinds of speculation that is not encyclopedic and hence has no place in this article. Yet you say that "'We', as editors of this article … are not … going to remove … text". I have not seen a clearer example of OWN than this "we" of yours where you claim to speak for all editors. You don't even try to hide that you see this article as a battleground, between editors who believe that in the case of MH17, Wikipedia should act not as an encyclopedia, but as judge, jury, and executioner of the rebels, and those editors who believe that Wikipedia should perform an encyclopedic function, which makes them not even be editors, in your view. – Herzen (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Many editors" is you three, plus some throw away SPA accounts, most likely sock puppets of banned users. "Many editors" have pointed out that what you are calling "speculation" is text sourced to reliable sources which you just happen to dislike. Many many many many editors (as in, more than 3) have said this many many many many many times. But you have a problem with listening. And it actually doesn't matter how many throw away SPA accounts show up here and complain. We have a policy. It's called WP:NPOV. It's one of the pillars. It means you can't label any reliably sourced text you don't like as "speculation" and remove it just because you feel like it. For the third time (and that's the third time in the past hour), following Wikipedia policies is NOT "ownership" of an article. It is following Wikipedia policies. Try it sometime. Volunteer Marek 22:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see a link to a policy where one editor is authorized to speak as "We" on behalf of Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am unaware of any SPAs involved in this article other than Tlsandy. If you make accusations, you should back them up. Who are the "many throw away SPA accounts [who] show up here and complain" about this article being not something that belongs in an encyclopedia but rather a primitive hit piece on Russia and the rebels? – Herzen (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased Phrasing

"The Russian Ministry of Defense has maintained that American claims of separatist responsibility were "unfounded", and said that the American intelligence agencies have not released any of the data on which they based their conclusions.[164] According to the Russian military, in what the New York Magazine called "Russia's Conspiracy Theory", MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane.[165][166]"

The author needs not underline his position on Russia's point of view being a "Conspiracy Theory" by quoting The New York Magazine. Instead she could quote correctly the Russian point of view in RT or Tass or elsewhere. Why filtering the Russian perspective by NYT or WSJ?

Pebble Beach (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian "Point of view" ? I guess you refer to the Federation and its official statements. The few statements which exist were never really explicit, they only pointed in certain directions - or were not official. So we need another source to tell the reader what the Federation wants the world, or its own public, to think. Alexpl (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

NYRB article

Useful: [23]. Volunteer Marek 14:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"...arguably the most egregious act of aggression in the entire Ukrainian conflict thus far." But I think most people believe it was actually a mistake, the result of incompetance on the part of those operating the BUK launcher. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It can be both an act of aggression and a mistake. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But a deliberate act of aggression is very different to a mistaken act of aggression. There have been have quite a few examples of airliners shot down in circumstances far less volatile than this. I'm not sure what extra that NYRB article can provide in terms of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That article is a russophobic rant. This passage stands out in its absurdity:

The BUK (Russian for beech) is a complicated anti-aircraft missile system devised by the Soviets in the seventies and modernized by the Russians.

This is the first time I have seen Russians distinguished from Soviets. By almost everyone, Russians and Soviets are treated as the same people. During the Cold War, in the US, the opponent was usually referred to as Russians (or "Russkies"), not Soviets. Just have a look at the Dr Strangelove script. "Russian" is used interchangeably with "Soviet", and the word "Russian" is used more often. – Herzen (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, I would expect that the distinction between Soviets and Russians is being made there to denote the change in regimes from the USSR when the Buk was developed, to its modern form, which has obviously be modified by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. I don't think that distinction makes the article absurd or a "rant".--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is clearly a russophobic rant. Just consider the title: "Flight MH17: Will Russia Get Away With It?" Our MH17 article notes that the Bundesnachrichtendienst has explained that Russia had nothing to do with the downing of MH17, but the author of this piece continues to circulate that claim anyway. The change in "regimes" was inconsequential as far as military technology is concerned. (And you call the Russian government a "regime", a word that is reserved for governments that the US intends to topple, as it has done with Iraq and Libya.) The distinction between Russians and Soviets was made to reinforce the meme that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia stopped being a superpower. The USG position is that Russia lost the Cold War, so it should submit, like Germany and Japan did. This NY Review piece is just more propaganda pushing that line. – Herzen (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I've met (both in rl and here on Wikipedia) quite a number of Russians who *insist* on the distinction between "Russian" and "Soviet", mostly because they don't feel like they should be blamed for what the commies did. And rightly so. So the article has it right. No, the distinction was not "invented" to "reinforce a meme" (wtf?) that Russia stopped being a superpower (that's a... "meme"? Really?). The distinction was made simply because Russia ain't the Soviet Union. Remember that part? And no, there's nothing "Russophobic" about it, and neither is it a rant. You do realize that it's written by one of the top experts on the history of Russia and the Soviet Union? Perhaps you should reconsider what you believe to be "Russophobic". Criticism of Russian government actions DOES NOT make one "Russophobic" anymore than criticism of American government actions makes one "Anti-American". I'll incorporate some info from the source into the article shortly. Volunteer Marek 05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And oh yeah, the Bundesnachrichtendienst isn't the omniscient final authority on the question, especially when you consider that that report was severely toned down for political reasons. The Bellingcat analysis, and common sense, suggest that Russian government had plenty to do with it. Volunteer Marek 05:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in your conspiracy theory Web sites. And "common sense" indicates that Kiev did it. The Ukrainian government is officially Nazi now. Shooting down airliners is standard Nazi behavior. – Herzen (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You are getting progressively more ridiculous and extreme, Herzen. Canada is "officially Nazi" as well if that's your evidence that Ukraine is Nazi since the two countries voted the same way against that Russian-sponsored UN resolution. With respect to what German and Russian sources are saying, you cannot have it both ways. RT reports that the German foreign ministry more or less disowned the Spiegel's reporting on BND report, calling it "incomplete and arbitrarily taken out of context." If you are going to accept RT's reliability here, then you should be dialling down everything in that Spiegel report as dubious. But because there's one thing in it you like, you demand that that Spiegel report be assigned maximum credibility. Which do you want to us to believe, Herzen, RT or Der Spiegel? Because RT is telling us the German govt, who knows what it's own position is on MH17, considers Der Spiegel a poor source on this particular report.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Are you saying the New York Review of Books is a conspiracy website? Or Bellingcat is a conspiracy website? Which is cited by authoritative sources. And please, spare us the links to idiots' blogs. Volunteer Marek 19:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe when you were referring to "conspiracy theory Web sites" you were ... foreshadowing the link you were about to provide? I don't get it. "Shooting down airliners is standard Nazi behavior" - honestly, Herzen, I'm almost concerned that your account has been compromised. Volunteer Marek 19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that was Russia Today? It tells this plane was shoot down by NATO and a lot more about Polish aggression against Russia [24], [25]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Re NY Book review. Sums up one POV nicely. Nothing new. Tempted to Soap/Forum this thread. SaintAviator lets talk 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit war, again

I would like to remind everyone this article is still under sanctions. There was a BRD process interrupted by this edit [26] from User:Volunteer Marek who is obviously edit warring. Would you like to discuss now? And self revert? USchick (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "interrupt" any BRD process. I didn't see you discussing anything either. You reverted someone else. You are the one who made a simple revert into an edit war. You are the one who is "obviously edit warring". You are the one who should've followed BRD. You didn't, then you come here and post a typically false summary of the situation. As you have on many previous occasions.

As to the merits, it's simple and already discussed. The main conclusion of the German report is that the flight was shot down by the separatists. The details about how the US justice system are WP:UNDUE and unneeded. What are these supposed to add to the article anyway? Volunteer Marek 16:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This was a bold edit [27] by User:Stickee. I reverted it. According to WP:BRD the next step is to discuss, not to gang up and revert again. Please self revert and allow for a discussion to happen. USchick (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On topic, what does a sentence about US legal systems have to do with the core of this article? There are many other, much more serious problems with gathering evidence (for example the ongoing war) and this seems to be much less relevant. So I agree this problem seems somewhat undue to me. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If there was any evidence against Russia, it would have already been presented, since everyone is pointing fingers at Russia for being responsible. The US is in a great position to present actual evidence from satellite data. If this information is classified, it will be almost impossible to show what happened, especially if the evidence is not pointing at Russia, since the US is blaming Russia. This is why the US legal system is so important in this case. It's much easier to launch a propaganda campaign than to present actual satellite evidence, apparently. USchick (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Various evidence has been presented. Anyway, your original research is irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Spiegel article outlines the evidence presented. It has been in the article ever since Der Spiegel came out. Volunteer Marek can not unilaterally determine that "Stickee is right" and delete sourced information. Please put it back. USchick (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Stickee made the edit makes it not unilateral (by definition). Also, responsible is not the same as guilty of pulling the trigger. The Russian destabilizing politics in former Soviet Republics makes them at least to some extent responsible for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine, without which the plane would never have been shot down. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That is one of the most non-NPOV, bad faith edits I have seen here for some time. Feel free to hate Russia and Stickee privately, but you have no right to shove that opinion in front of everyone here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Were you addressing me HiLo48? In fact I agree with Stickee's removal of this text; so why would you think I hate them? And I do not hate Russia but you cannot deny they have annexed the Crimea, or fought a minor war with Georgia a few years ago which is hardly a sign of a stable relationship with your neigbbours (or is it in your view? - in which please explain). Arnoutf (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing about the edit that is non-NPOV nor bad faith. Stop scare mongering. And STOP. ACCUSING. EDITORS. OF "Hating Russia". One more outburst like that and off to WP:AE we go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that, even without the capitals, whenever you post anything here, I get the impression you're shouting at us? HiLo48 (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason why you think that anyone here "hates Russia". I.e. the problem is with *you* and your perception of reality, not the reality itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps because throwing insulting abbreviations in all caps at people makes people somewhat unhappy with you? Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok do we want to discuss the inclusion of the line? In my view it is undue, as it is only part of the evidence, and minor part at that. So I am not sure we need to add this Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the results of investigations must be added, however, text in question [28] only tells that investigators do not have results (yet). Hence this text does not add anything important and can be omitted. However, I believe this discussion (see above) is highly problematic, because the initial statement by Uschick accuses a contributor, instead of discussing improvement of the article. HiLo48 does the same [29]. Remember, this page is only for debating improvement of content. If you have complaints about users, this should be debated on WP:AE or WP:ANI, not here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that an investigation going from considering four scenarios to considering only two "does not add anything important" is preposterous. It does not matter how many times you make that claim: it will always be preposterous. Repeating a preposterous game ad infinitum is a case of gaming the system. If this development were not important, the Dutch chief prosecutor would not have mentioned it and Spiegel would not have published it. So your claim that this development is "not important" is nothing but original research. Also, your Talk page says that you are "taking a WikiBreak for his academic commitments." So why do you not keep your word, instead of engaging in unrestrained battleground behavior and personal attacks? – Herzen (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing one editor of breaking BRD and edit warring instead. Just like the title if this thread states. I have taken the same editor to ANI previously for disruptive editing. So here we are witnessing the same disruptive behavior. Again. USchick (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The disruptive behavior is debating other people instead of content on article talk pages, even after your complaint on ANI was not supported by any admins. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I'm pointing out to the edit warrior that they are engaged in an edit war (which they deny). I'm doing it out of courtesy, to give the edit warrior an opportunity to revert. I believe this is the courteous thing to do. USchick (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Drop the name calling, especially since you're the one who initiated the edit warring. Or should I start writing things like "I'm just pointing out to the troll that they are engaged in trolling (which they deny). I'm doing it out of courtesy (hahahahaha!) to give the troll an opportunity to stop. I believe this is the courteous thing to do"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Where would you prefer to continue this discussion? The sanctions noticeboard or the edit war noticeboard? USchick (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at past history, perhaps the "giant waste of time and 13000 words noticeboard"? Stickee (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Spinoff discussion about definition of "who's responsible"

"responsible is not the same as guilty of pulling the trigger" This is an interesting concept. It may be the reason for all this arguing, since we all have different ideas what "responsible" means. Would anyone like to elaborate? When it comes to "destabilizing force in the region" it's not clear to me that Russia is responsible for that. Everything has been stable for 20 years, and the only new event is the government change in Ukraine. So it appears to me (as an outsider) that the destabilizing force is the new government in Ukraine. Russia is just as stable as it ever was for the past 20 years. This is why I'm asking people to elaborate, because obviously, we all have very divergent opinions, and simply quoting sources hasn't gotten us anywhere. USchick (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, people waiting for the results of this investigation, will be extremely disappointed, because the investigation was set up from the beginning to come up "inconclusive" at the end. People who understand the US legal system, understand that no other conclusion is possible in this particular case. This is why the investigation is a lot more important than the result. The US is holding evidence that will never come to light due to the US legal system, which is set up to produce a certain outcome. USchick (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but WP:NOTAFORUM and most of us here are not particularly interested in your speculations/theorizing/original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Several people brought up these issues, (see above) so "most of us" are in fact interested. USchick (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@USchick: I changed the title to something slightly more specific. Is this okay? Stickee (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. :) USchick (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@USchick. The banner above tells: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.", but this is not even something about the subject of this article, just as your accusations with respect to other contributors. Is'not it clear? My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

New edit war

[30] Another attempt to gang up and interrupt a BRD process. I'm just documenting it, so it's easy to find during a sanctions request. Keep going, this is great! USchick (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"a BRD process": actually it's a B R R R D R R D process. Also, how does this section you've created help at all? If it's just for "documenting it, so it's easy to find", perhaps saving on your computer or in your own userspace would be better. Stickee (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not documenting for my own benefit, this is for anyone who wishes to file at any time. I'm simply providing a community service. USchick (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you guys insist on reverting each other then talking about it? "BRD" is not Wikipedia policy. How about when someone takes the time to add information to the article, if you object, discuss it first before removing it? Wouldn't that be a little nicer way of treating each other? Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Just kiss already, you two. Seriously, this has gone so far past the point of needing mediation and/or arbitration that it's just wasting everyone's time at this point. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

[31] Edit warring by User:Tlsandy Ganging up with no discussion. USchick (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop this. It's outright harassment at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You stop your edit warring, tag teaming, continual misrepresentation, lawyering, civil POV-pushing, BATTTLEGRUND, and OWN. You don't actually people to put up with all that, do you? Your editing is extremely disruptive. – Herzen (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with my editing. Stop casting baseless aspersions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am always hugely amused when editors call upon WP:lawyering, as that call in itself is a clear case of WP:lawyering. But to be honest, there seems no purpose in this post other than accuse editors of improper behavior which is not going to improve the article. Can we close this? Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be closed. The purpose of this Talk section is indeed to improve the article, by trying to get some editors to stop their disruptive behavior. Volunteer Marek has been asked to stop his disruptive editing, but he never shows any inclination to restrain himself even a little. "There's nothing wrong with" VM's editing? Then why has he been blocked six times, for edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment? VM's behavior does not seem to have improved at all; his civil POV-pushing has just gotten more refined, and he now uses tag-teaming to avoid being sanctioned for edit warring. – Herzen (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Will you please stop trying to blacken me? "Has been asked to stop his disruptive editing" - by whom? By the editor that goes around falsely accusing others of racism, or who insinuates that I've threatened someone's children? Or the editor who ascribes any disagreement as "Russophobia" and accuses anyone who's critical of Russian government of "hating Russia"? My editing is just fine, thank you very much. I got one block for edit warring way back when I was unclear on the rules (six freakin' years ago). The other block from 2012, the one supposedly for "incivility and harassment" was done by an admin who's either been or is about to be desysopped by the ArbCom for making bullshit blocks (I objected to *him* harassing another user and he blocked me in response. Probably could've gotten him desyssopped back then but I decided it wasn't worth the trouble. To me. Obviously it was worth a lot of trouble to Wikipedia in general, as now we've got a huge ArbCom case about their behavior). Rest is nonsense blocks over an unclear IBan. Given that I've been here almost ten years, I've got my block log is "just right" (as someone once said, "never trust anyone with a clean block log"). I have not been engaged in "Civil POV-pushing" (in the same comment you accuse me of making personal attacks, so which is it, civil or uncivil?), or any kind of POV-pushing. I've merely objected to you, and some of your buddies, slanting this article to push a particular POV. Nor do I engage in any tag-teaming. Quite simply, most editors disagree with you, and the few others that are working hard to turn this article into a piece of POV conspiracy theory crap.

I'm trying really hard to have some respect for you as an editor. You're making that effort hard. How about you tone it down a little? Or next time you get reported for edit warring or making false accusations and casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I'm not gonna defend you anymore.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article Volunteer Marek. I agree Kudzu1, this long standing dispute needs to be resolved and we need to tone down the rhetoric here. There has been a distinct lack of constructive dialogue for sometime. Some editors are clearly more responsible for this decline than others. Unfounded accusations against editors, and admins need to stop now. Those who have made them need to take a step back and apologize.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my earlier comment. Talk pages are only for suggesting concrete and actionable changes to the article. Discussing editor behavior can never result directly in a concrete change to the article. Hence this thread is not relevant for this talk page and should be closed. (PS @ Volunteer Marek yes I am one of these Russia haters as I do not thank Putin on my bare knees every knight for the umbrella of peace, freedom of speech and general well being that Russia is spreading in the region. But I have given up on trying to argue with Russia lovers, because anything else than blind worship of the Russian leadership is an obvious sign of hatred - (how must I hate my own government.....)).Arnoutf (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The concrete and actionable change requested is for people to stop edit warring and discuss changes. Since people refuse to do that, this is a place to document edit warring diffs. Any other arguments belong in a separate thread. USchick (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No threads on editor behavior should be on an article talk page. We have a range of other fora to discuss editor behavior. Article talk is just not one of them. Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a policy to support that statement? This is a sanctioned article, where disruptive behavior is not tolerated supposedly. USchick (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPYES.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please point to something specific? I don't see where logging disruptive edits is against policy. USchick (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You are not "logging disruptive edits". You're being an obnoxious jerk, creating a battleground atmosphere on the talk page and acting disruptively yourself. The guideline is pretty clear, I can't read it for you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I did see a policy against personal attacks. You seem to be in violation, so you may want to consider striking through your statement. USchick (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick: I think Volunteer Marek's guideline was fairly specific as the second line states (in bold) Comment on content, not on the contributor. How much more specific do you want it? And if you do not understand something as straightforward as that it might be time to seriously read WP:COMPETENCE Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) There's also WP:SPADE. After a certain point, when courteous discourse has not worked, after the user continuous to indulge in behavior that looks provocative and inflammatory, after the user has wasted tons and tons and tons of other people's time with nonsense, after the user has repeatedly made false allegations against other users in failed attempts at getting them sanctioned, after the user has shown themselves incapable of understanding prior warnings, it's time to call it what it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My intention is to create a section for logging diffs. This can be done without any commentary. Everything else can be collapsed as far as I'm concerned. USchick (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to keep some kind of a "blacklist", do it on your hard-drive. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This section is for everyone to document disruptive edits. You can even document your own. USchick (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

USchickYour intention is in direct violation of the guideline cited by Volunteer Marek. So DON'T. Also your remarks towards Volunteer Marek are clearly uncivil (at least fitting criteria 1 c,d and 2a). So STOP IT. (Yes I am shouting as you do not seem to be listening. Arnoutf (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see a policy against documenting diffs on a talk page. USchick (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to document diffs if they help you discuss content. But DO NOT accuse other editors of anything (per WP:TPYES). Phrases like "ganging up" do nothing to improve content, but do discuss other editors in violation of WP:TPYES. Arnoutf (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious edit

Here. Looking at English language sources, I only found this, a suspicious source. It refers to this, but info is not there. I think this should be reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and most of those are 2 or 3 months old (press release is from July). Now that Malaysia has joined the JIT, most of that is irrelevant now. Stickee (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition, this is a common practice not to disclose results of ungoing criminal investigations. Let's not present this as a conspiracy. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Watch out. There are other similar accounts. My very best wishes (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Before we start removing sourced content, would anyone like to discredit the sources first? Nederlandse Omroep Stichting NOS is one of those sources. What makes it unreliable? USchick (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Second question: the agreement is not simply to not disclose information during an ongoing investigation, it's to "veto the publication of results of the investigation." For someone to say this is common practice, let's have a source please. Otherwise, it's OR. USchick (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. To "veto the publication of results of the investigation" implies international conspiracy by several countries, an extraordinary claim that must be sourced better.My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The third and most important question is the Dutch government's refusal (on 19 November) to disclose the documents which constitute the agreement.--Antonioptg (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, what makes it unreliable? USchick (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And De Telegraaf "is the largest Dutch daily morning newspaper"--Antonioptg (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole edit involves trying to suggest some conspiracy to hide info wheras in fact what's happening is standard procedure in international investigations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a standard procedure the right of veto to the publication of results of the investigation and the secrecy about the terms of the agreement.--Antonioptg (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

From the source "Dergelijke afspraken worden vaker gemaakt in internationale onderzoeken waarin gevoelige informatie van bijvoorbeeld inlichtingendiensten wordt gedeeld.". You've basically tried to cram into the articles two whole paragraph on what is essentially a conspiracy theory. No.Volunteer Marek (talk)

That such agreements are common practice (and I'm not sure whether that's true) does not mean that members of the Dutch parliament have a right to see the agreement. Also, for all we know, some provisions of the agreement may not be common practice. – Herzen (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You and My very best wishes continue to engage in deception and making stuff up. At 01:39, Mvbw wrote "this is a common practice not to disclose results of ungoing criminal investigation." Mvbw is also an expert at insulting other editors' intelligence. What members of the Dutch parliament were asking was not the "disclos[ure of] results of [an] ungoing criminal investigation, but "to make public all the documents of the secret treaty." When some editors do virtually nothing but engage in distortion and misrepresentation to game the system, it is very difficult for editors who want to introduce some semblance of NPOV into the article to make any progress. And you repeat the distortion made by your tag-teaming buddy. Finally the title of this Talk section is a personal attack. – Herzen (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Source says it's common practice. Stop making personal attacks. The article is mostly NPOV now, it's SPA's such as the newest one, Antonioptg who continuously make bad faithed efforts to try and slant this article in a POV direction. And you've been trying to enable them throughout.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's common practice has nothing to do with the fact that you and Mvbw misrepresented what the parliamentarians asked for, so I did not engage in any personal attacks, but accurately described what you and Mvbw did. You continue to engage in obfuscation, bringing up the "common practice" point here. – Herzen (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop making personal attacks accusing me of bad faith! "deelnemende landen het recht houden om onderzoeksresultaten geheim te houden" = "paertecipaten country retain the right to keep secret research results (onderzoeksresultaten)" De Telegraaf De Telegraaf--Antonioptg (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and "Dergelijke afspraken worden vaker gemaakt in internationale onderzoeken waarin gevoelige informatie van bijvoorbeeld inlichtingendiensten wordt gedeeld.". Herzen, nobody misrepresented anything, except possibly Antonioptg who's cherry picked info from a source (in another edit).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's common practice to have secret agreements during an investigation, just like it's common practice to withhold evidence, like the US is doing. It's very common to manipulate an investigation when you want a certain outcome at the end. Reliable sources are reporting that this is happening in this investigation. What's the problem with saying it in the article? This is not a theory, it's happening. USchick (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, stop soapboxing, the source says it's common practice. Your comments make it very very clear that you are here to pursue a personal POV agenda rather than contribute constructively to improving the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem with including it and saying that it's common practice? USchick (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is conspiracy mongering. Tlsandy (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a personal opinion not at all supported by sources. USchick (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's conspiracy mongering and WP:UNDUE. We're already tolerating your, and some others, soapboxing on the talk page of the article, no way the article gets to turn into that kind of mess too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's take a vote about who is being tolerated here. USchick (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably the person who makes odious and false accusations of racism against other users when they disagree with them. Or the person who lies about another user supposedly threatening an admin's children. Or... you get the idea. I have no idea why you are still allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, much less this contentious area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be willing to take a vote to find out for sure. Would you? USchick (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing stupid, immature, games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This "news" appeared on the conspiracy website globalresearch then soon after it popped up right here. It's pushing a conspiracy POV, plain and simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources have been named and not refuted yet. A lot of personal attacks are flying around, but no one is bothering to discredit the two sources. USchick (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources are being misrepresented and it's WP:UNDUE. It's folks from a conspiracy website coming over here to turn Wikipedia into the same piece of junk that their website is, and you and Herzen enabling them. Herzen for POV reasons, you probably just for lulz.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you claim the sources are being misrepresented, please explain how. What exactly is being misrepresented? USchick (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In my view it is undue; not necessarily misrepresented. It is clear that countries only want to hand over military secrets if they are promised it will be kept secret. Hardly surprising; suggesting that has something to do with deliberate intention to direct the investigation in a specific direction is speculation at best. For the report, it was a fairly minor and short note in a newspaper. It received no notable follow up, so I would think it is undue to put it in. Arnoutf (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

According to policy, the neutral thing to do, is to present minor and major opinions with corresponding weight. It's not happening right now. The person who claims that sources are being misrepresented should explain what they mean, especially if the rest of us are expected to listen to them. USchick (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"According to policy, the neutral thing to do, is to present minor and major opinions with corresponding weight. It's not happening right now. " - nope, that's exactly what we have right now. The conspiracy crap gets the weight it deserves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with point of view. The source does not state any point of view, although Uschick's personal (unsourced) statements above interpret it as such. The source factually reports on the agreement that the countries involved in the investigation agree to share intelligence information under the condition it will not be made public without their explicit agreement. That is fairly trivial and hence mentioning it would be undue considering the many reports on this disaster out there. Arnoutf (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems like the fair of the misinterpretation. There are three sources, not one, and two of them (De Telegraaf and Elsevier) states not only about the right of veto to the publication of the data provided by each country, but also to the publication of results of the investigation and the secrecy of the terms of the whole agreement.--Antonioptg (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, intelligence services are somewhat paranoia - so they do not only want that the information is not shared, but also they do not want the fact that they agreed to share information; or any report/investigation that may suggest they shared information to be public. Still nothing out of the ordinary for intelligence services (or as they used to be called secret services). Not particularly relevant nor notable in the larger context, and hardly an indication of potential foul play. Arnoutf (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing out of the ordinary? And what will happen if the results of the investigations will focus on one of the countries involved in the secret deal? In Italy we are still waiting to know the truth about Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870!--Antonioptg (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What does 870 have to do with this? And thank you for confirming with that comment that your interest here is to spread conspiracy theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What intelligence is being shared and why is it a secret? Russian forces that aren't present in Ukraine? There are certainly no US forces in Ukraine, so what's left? Ukrainian forces? USchick (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of satellite images, phone taps. And how do you know there are no Russian forces on Ukraine and how comes some were arrested inside the Ukraine earlier this year? But perhaps you have access to the full deployment records and inventory of the Russian army? Arnoutf (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Putin is the one asking for this information to go public and the rest of the world is hiding it. [32] Why is that? USchick (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Russia is definitely not making the information public how Russian soldiers with heavy weapons could be arrested inside Ukraine earlier this year, and neither does it give full insight into its troop deployment and weapons inventory. Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so if all sides are throwing the investigators off balance in their own propaganda war, shouldn't that be reflected in the article? USchick (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, also WP:NOTAFORUM and oh yeah, WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have trouble understanding that, there's also WP:NOT#FORUM. Consider also consulting WP:NOTESSAY or reading WP:NOT#ESSAY. WP:NOT#CHAT is also relevant. If all that fails to get through you might also want to look at WP:FORUM. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And thanks Volunteer Marek to confirm in any comments that you are not interested in writing an article NPOV but only to prevent anyone from adding information which could call into question the preconceived thesis underpinning this article. So no one can mention the existence of a secret agreement on the disclosure of the result of the investigation, nor that the Dutch Government also considers the option of "an attack from the air" and, if there is the official Russian version of the facts, that must be presented as "Russia's Conspiracy Theory". Congratulations! Good job!--Antonioptg (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the facts. The Dutch government has ruled out mechanical failure and human error. That leaves alternatives of foreign objects entering the plane. The images are consistent with many small high speed foreign objects, that are either cannon fire or missile shrapnel. The Dutch government investigation is now trying to rule out one of those and will conclude the other must have happened. That does not mean they consider the attack from the sky idea as equally likely as the SAM theory, only that they have not sufficient evidence to rule that out at the moment. Also there is no official Russian version, only a lot of rumormongering and speculation oh yeah and some faked images. Arnoutf (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So I'm misrepresenting this: "Nu een ongeluk en een terroristische aanslag vanuit het vliegtuig onwaarschijnlijk worden geacht, blijven er twee mogelijke oorzaken over: "een aanslag vanaf de grond dan wel een aanslag vanuit de lucht", schrijven de ministers Opstelten, Koenders en Hennis."; and I must have dreamed this: Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014.--Antonioptg (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually Yes - and your own sources confirm that. The quote above fits my post exactly, but does not claim that the attack from the air is considered even closely similarly likely. The Russian statement (from 3 days after the disaster and since not substantiated by Russian officials) does not explicitly claim that it was a fighter. In fact their last para opens with the very speculative " Is it coincidence or not?". So again, it fits my post, but not yours. They never present their theory only speculate on possible alternatives. Arnoutf (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a few issues

First of all I'm sorry if I bring up points already made, I can't bother to read several pages of archived content...

I think the section about the remains have contradictory claims and it doesn't even give an account for all the bodies supposedly transported to the Dutch authorities. (If I'm correct, the section suggests that 8 bodies are unaccounted for, but it later gives that all bodies are identified except 6.)

The other issue is that I think the links to sources should be archived before they die. Link rot is a serious problem for far less important topics. Some claims here are sourced by only one online source, and some of they look like they are prone to link rot. An archival bot for links would be very helpful.

Thank you for the attention, keep up the valuable work! --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dutch authorities only announced in the last few days there are now 292 out 298 casualties identified. The mention of 8 unidentified is probably left from an earlier tally. Arnoutf (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, while the authorities have been releasing how many bodies have been identified, they haven't given any updates on how many bodies have been collected. Stickee (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

copyvio edit

Whatever the other merits or demerits, this edit is a copyvio which violates WP:PARAPHRASE. Honestly, I should remove it right away (since I don't see any value added in this info, another WP:UNDUE violation I wouldn't reword it myself).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. See what you think. USchick (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No longer a copyvio, but still undue for much the same reasons as outlined by MVBW a few sections up. Stickee (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian, German and Asian sources report that people from all over the world are asking questions. Several lawsuits have already been filed, and now more family members are joining the list of people asking questions. I'm not making this up, it's all reported by RS. What will it take for Wikipedia editors to take them seriously? USchick (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, stop with the soapboxing. It's beyond tiresome. You're abusing Wikipedia article talk pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it's UNDUE because at this point it's just a letter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And one more time, the "nationality" of the source is not the issue here, so stop pretending that it is. This has been explained to you a dozen times, you keep on pretending otherwise, that's also disruptive. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will have to be rewritten especially because of you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a letter, it's an article in a newspaper. How does Wikipedia policy compare a letter to a social media post VKontakte when both are reported in a news article? USchick (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears you haven't bothered to actually read the article you yourself added as a source, just copy-pasted some sentences from it. It's a letter.

And I see, this is about the VKontakte stuff again. Please drop it. We've been through it a million of times. The obvious difference to anyone who's not just trying to waste people's time is the extent of coverage and the significance of the phenomenon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So an actual letter written by an attorney is less significant than a deleted social media post? Here's the extent of news coverage [33] [34] [35] [36] USchick (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the nature of the deleted social media post, obviously. So in this case, yes, very much so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And those are all obviously the same source - Reuters - you're just posting different links to the same story. So the extent of news coverage still looks thin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Who makes the decision about what's "obviously" more important? Is this a good question to ask at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? USchick (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be, if it hadn't already been discussed to death and if you hadn't WP:FORUMSHOPPED fruitlessly all over the place. You're basically threatening to waste more of our time. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This news story is dated Dec 5. Today is Dec 8. This is the first discussion. USchick (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not about VKontakte, which you are the one who brought it up, and you are well aware of all the previous discussions (since you've initiated them over and over and over and over again) Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

reward

The issue of the reward, which USchick has tried to re-insert into the article again [37], has been discussed numerous times. Here, here and here and there was no consensus for including it. Yes, that was a different (?) reward, but the issue is the same. To try and sneak in this text after discussion concluded otherwise, *that* is an example of a disruptive edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, an unknown person or organization promsing 38M Euro. At least my Nigerian benefactors have a name. People, let's be serious. A private detective claiming without any evidence, that some guy offers 38 Million. Extraordinary claim, hardly extraordinary evidence of its truth. (and that does not even starts about the whole thing being undue). Arnoutf (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we playing detective now? I wish people would question the investigation with the same amount of scrutiny as the reward. So we're cherry picking sources again to fit the idea already in some editor's heads about a predetermined outcome of what "the truth" is. Again. Sorry, I forgot. You don't need "evidence" of a reward when the sources are reporting about it. Can someone please link to a policy on "evidence" or at least discredit the source? Or present a reasonable argument for excluding it, other than "I don't like it?" USchick (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick, we should not question the investigations with the same amount of scrutiny. The Dutch Safety Board and Dutch Public Prosecution Service both are strong accountable public bodies in a democratic society. They both start with a degree of credibility that the unnamed person(s) offering a reward does not. Furthermore, as you have been told there is a problem with placing undue weight on the issues you have raised, relying on unreliable sources to present them, and doing original research to suss them out. As was recommended by Arnoutf in the conversation above, you may wish to read WP:COMPETENCE carefully.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my competence. The reward is the largest in history and it's reported by reliable sources like USA Today [38]. I'm asking for competent editors to link to a policy about presenting "evidence" before this information can be included in the article. I would also like to see a policy where a series of gatekeepers need to approve a sourced edit before it can be added to the article. Because removing sourced content is against policy. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles where it clearly states: "you should not undo their edits without good reason." My edits have been reverted and I'm still waiting for a good reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. USchick (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks USchick. The USA Today article seems to offer a lot more information, perhaps a short mention of the reward is appropriate. We should discuss. At the same time it seems that the only information we have about this "reward" is what this investigator Josef Resch (of Wifka) can tell us. Based only on the articles, it seems he 'believes' the reward is real, and 'says' that the reward money is in a Swiss bank account, 'but' I think it is fair for us to question the weight to place on the article given that it appears to be reliant on only one source (Resch). I don't know much about his or Wifka's credibility in Germany (perhaps another editor does, or there is mention in a reliable source somewhere). We don't know who is offering this reward, and Resch admits that even he has no idea who his client is. I hate these sort of new stories that just report what one guy says without doing any follow-up. Whatever happened to investigative reporting? Is the money in the bank or not? Is this real or just some publicity stunt? I think the numerous questions and mystery surrounding the reward might make its mention undue, but what do others think?--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the source is not Josef Resch, but USA Today, The Telegraph, [39] and NBC [40]. And according to those sources, "The reward for "information and evidence" was being held in Switzerland." USchick (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The articles use Josef Resch and his firm as the sole source of the information:

"The reward is advertised on Wifka’s website, and the agency says the money is already on deposit in a Swiss bank in Zurich."

"The reward for "information and evidence" was being held in Switzerland, according to the firm's statement."

This is what lawyers call hearsay. The reward may or may not be important enough to keep in this article, but do not pretend that the news sources cited say that the money is there. All they have said is that Wifka/Josef Resch says it is.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's compare that to what Igor Girkin said VKontakte about claiming responsibility for shooting down a different plane. That information is in the lede. Is it more reliable than this reward? USchick (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That is what lawyers call an admission or Declaration against interest. And yes, usually it is considered more reliable than a simple hearsay statement.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally, a reasonable explanation! Thank you for that. Thank you very much! :-) USchick (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just simply undue. Feel free to start an RfC on the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The reward is "undue" only because it poses a threat to the "accepted" version of events as it points out that: 1. There is no evidence. 2. No one knows what happened. 3. The investigation is not likely to produce a result. (Yes, there was a crash, no one knows what happened, but Russia is blamed for it. The end.) USchick (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How many times now have you been told to cut it out with the WP:SOAPBOXing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what makes it undue? USchick (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@64.253.142.26 who claims that the investigators are competent. Victims’ families disagree. [41] USchick (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

USchick, grieving families rarely have good things to say about investigators until the perpetrators of a crime are brought to justice. Their opinion of the investigation tells us nothing about whether the investigators are competent or not. If you have any specific evidence from reliable sources which shows that there are flaws in the investigation, I invite you to raise them here. Until such evidence is provided, allegations that the Dutch investigations are incompetent or corrupt have no place in the article: WP:NPOV. Best Regards--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

[42] [43] [44] USchick (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links USchick but all these articles seem to say is that some of the families (and their lawyer) say that the investigation is taking too long and that not all of the materials from the crash site have been recovered. The fact that the investigations are still ongoing after about half a year does not mean anything. The troubles recovering materials has already been well documented in the article. These articles do not establish that the Dutch investigations are corrupt or incompetent as you have suggested. Using them to build such an argument is WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and not WP:NPOV.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply pointing out that reliable sources report the investigators are under scrutiny even though they are strong accountable public bodies in a democratic society. USchick (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That is usually what happens in democratic societies. Well if you are not recommending any changes to the article, we do not need to continue discussing those sources. Cheers--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm recommending a mention about the reward. There is no policy to provide "evidence" of a reward. There is no "evidence" of investigators being more credible than the person offering the reward, which is the largest in history, which makes it notable. USchick (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is only the largest ever reward, if there actually is a reward. As we have noted above, the statement of one private investigator (one that doesn't know who his client is) is not sufficient to conclude that there is indeed a reward, never mind the amount. All the sources prove is that some guy says there is a huge reward available. As Volunteer Marek noted its inclusion in the article without any solid reporting that there actually is a reward would certainly be WP:UNDUE.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed it should not be there. Tlsandy (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on what policy related reason? USchick (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, unsubstantiated claims of one person (and his firm) do not warrant inclusion. If an article is published that actually verifies the reward (instead of just taking Josef Resch's word for it) then we can reconsider.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please link to a policy with that requirement. USchick (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been told by several editors that this is WP:UNDUE. I invite you to read the policy and reconsider your position. I am not going to continue beating this dead horse.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuits Again

One of the lawsuits previously discussed here has progressed one more stage to the filing (read more). Notable? I think not: same thing as last time. Also read about the other lawsuits here, here, here, here. Stickee (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

They look like dragging on. SaintAviator lets talk 07:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "same thing as last time". Last time, there was only talk of filing a lawsuit; this time, a lawsuit has been filed. I don't see how you can claim that that is not notable. Before, I said that this was not notable, because I did not think it would go anywhere, but now we see that is going somewhere. It is impossible to avoid the impression that some editors of Ukraine related articles are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to avoid any mention in articles of anything that puts Ukraine in a bad light, and to insert anything into them that puts the rebels or Russia in a bad light. Editors are not even trying to maintain any appearance of being interested in trying to maintain NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Herzen. -- Tobby72 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Herzen WP is like that. Most of us know it right? WP is not some sacrosanct place where its all explained. Of course that case is relevant. But getting relevant material 'in' is a war by numbers with some occasional reviews and decisions by other outside editors. SaintAviator lets talk 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I expect this issue will come up again, so I will restate some of my comments about lawsuits here in the hope that they may be somewhat helpful to the continued discussion:

As some of you are aware, I am concerned that mentioning lawsuits in articles creates a risk of WP:UNDUE because the claims in the lawsuits have not yet been tested in Court.
The fact that a lawsuit is filed means very little. Anyone can file a lawsuit, and until a Court makes a ruling, a lawsuit is nothing but allegations.
Unfortunately, there have been recent examples of people filing lawsuits without any legal merit, sometimes in an attempt to sway public opinion (ie. Jian Ghomeshi wrongful dismissal lawsuit).
My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that, concerning MH17, lawsuits have either been proposed of filed against the Ukraine government agencies, Russia/Putin?, and Malaysia Airlines (and perhaps others?). A basic mention of these lawsuits (simply that the crash has lead to various civil lawsuits, and perhaps who against) is likely appropriate, but detailing all of the allegations (in each of the lawsuits) is likely undue (at least until judges determine whether any of these allegations have any merit).
Using the existence of lawsuits to prove allegations is never a wise endeavor. If we are going to include mention of the lawsuits, we need to make sure we are not deviating from NPOV.

Regards--64.253.142.26 (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Flight path update

The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution". This warning did not include the MH17 crash region. This information is outdated according to this [45] [46] USchick (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, actually it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Because? USchick (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the articles you link. I'm starting to think that you're not actually, you know, reading the articles, before you link them here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read your mind. USchick (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with reading the article. The words "American", "Federal", "Aviation", and "Administration" do not appear in the article you link.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. So for a Malaysian flight, the American Federal Aviation Administration is completely irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article at all. So we can remove it, right? Is there any objection to the sources linked? USchick (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't access the Australian paper, but the first article does not mention the American Federal Aviation Administration even once. So I can't see where this is outdated. The other article is about an advice of the European air traffic control to Kiev, not to airlines. So again, the line you quote is not related to the phrase from the article you are referring to. That makes it unclear where you want to go with this, and hence I cannot comment on possible merits of whatever you propose. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how the AFAA is mentioned by reliable sources, it apparently is not "completely irrelevant" and does belong in the article. But feel free to write a letter to Reuters and the Telegraph informing them of the fact that they are writing stories about irrelevancies, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. The FAA has no authority over a Malaysian airline in Ukrainian air space. Clearly, this is undue and does not belong in the article. The second part of my question is about the two sources I linked. "European air traffic control regulator urged Kiev to close the south-east of the country for civilian aircraft days before the MH17 flight was downed near Donetsk, but the plea was ignored by the Ukrainian authorities." Is there any objection to this information being in the article? USchick (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not FAA has authority over a Malaysian airline in Ukrainian air space is not something that determines whether the info is undue or not. What determines whether the info is undue or not is determined by how and to what extent it's covered in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think both are more or less equally relevant. FAA warning airlines about flying over parts of Ukraine, Eurocontrol warning Kiev aircontrol to close its airspace -- Both are examples or foreign air traffic controls with no formal authority that warn about the region. So in my view if we remove FAA we should not add Eurocontrol. In my view I think it is best that both go. But if we decide to keep FAA we could rephrase it as something like:

Foreign air traffic control adviced to avoid the air space before the incident. The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution. This warning did not include the MH17 crash region. Eurocontrol adviced Kiev to close its airspace over Eastern Ukraine Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The other very relevant fact is that "Ukrainian authorities ignored the warning." This explains why Ukraine is being blamed for the crash since they are ultimately responsible for providing security over their air space. Russia is not the only country saying this. There is a lawsuit about this exact issue from the mother of one of the victims. Is there any objection to saying this in the article? USchick (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We've been over the lawsuit issue and you know damn well that there are objections, so stop trying to bring up previously discussed issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... again. (Same goes for the Vkontakte stuff).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to the story Eurocontrol has denied giving advice or warnings or recommendations. https://www.eurocontrol.int/press-releases/response-sunday-times-article-7-december-2014 Tlsandy (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a primary source. Are we willing to accept other primary sources? That would be great! USchick (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you at least try and keep up the appearance that you're acting in good faith?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That Eurocontrol press statement sheds serious doubts on the quality of these specific reports; so we need a secondary source rejecting that statement before we can keep the original sources. Probably better to remove FAA and not add Eurocontrol all together. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How about we just wait a little.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: responsibility that is another topic altogether, which we should discuss in a different thread not to confuse things. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem considering primary sources, and policy allows it. I urge editors to come to an agreement about whether or not primary sources should be considered or not in this article, all the time, and not only when it supports a predetermined viewpoint. USchick (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to use this as an opportunity for gaming the system and WP:WIKILAWYERING. Under some circumstances it's okay to use some primary sources in some way. Under different circumstances it's not. This has nothing to do with any "predetermined viewpoint". There's no blanket "either we use all primary sources or no primary sources whatsoever" in Wikipedia policy or guidelines because... well, because that'd be a pretty stupid policy for an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just like cherry picking sources only when it's convenient is clearly against policy. USchick (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the news story "Eurocontrol experts spoke privately to their Ukrainian colleagues" and according to the press release they have no authority to make an official recommendation. So both are correct. USchick (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Eurocontrol felt strongly enough about this to issue an official statement suggests otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the "report" contradicts this earlier statement from Eurocontrol, from a secondary source (thought not sure about reliability) [47].Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. They talked about it, considered the danger, and decided to raise the minimum height. Just like some airlines decided to reroute their planes, but not Malaysia. And according to chief executive of the International Air Transport Association, Tony Tyler, “It is very similar to driving a car. If the road is open, you assume that it is safe. If it’s closed you find an alternate route.” [48] and that's why there's a lawsuit now. Is there a reason why we can't talk about it in the article? USchick (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We've been over the lawsuit issue and you know damn well that there are objections, so stop trying to bring up previously discussed issues over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Are there any policy based objections? USchick (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't hear a policy based reason, that's why I'm asking. USchick (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you have. Perhaps you should have a look through the archive. The issues that you continue raising have been discussed many times. I have no interest in reading though the archive to rehash this issue again, but I invite you to do so.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

On this whole 'we discussed it previously, so dont discuss it again' argument. This isn't always a correct argument. In fact its false lots of times. Editors change, links change, mistakes are corrected, new things come up, articles evolve. WP is not static. Im tired of this false logic being presented over and over and ... again to block NPOV. SaintAviator lets talk 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Flight path discussions, no discussion about lawsuit. Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 22#Flight path of MH17 Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 19#No ICAO standards to determine whether a flight path is safe Lawsuit discussion, no discussion, mostly ignored, nothing about flight path Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Lawsuits Again. Lots of stonewalling. USchick (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

no discussion about lawsuit - Dude. There's a section entitled "Lawsuit again" right above. If you're gonna tell non-truths, at least make sure that it's not ridiculously easy to show that you're telling non-truths.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a lawsuit is filed means very little. Lawsuits are allegations until a court rules on them. People file lawsuits without any legal merit all the time, sometimes to forward their own version of events, in an attempt to sway public opinion -- a recent example of this would be the Jian Ghomeshi wrongful dismissal lawsuit, which was shown to be without legal merit. Mentioning lawsuits in articles creates a significant risk of WP:UNDUE because the claims in the lawsuits have not yet been tested in Court. Once the trial is over, the decision will be relevant, but before going into detail of allegations amounts to a lot of speculation.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the speculation that's already in the article? Why not just delete the article and wait for the investigators to complete the report? USchick (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. The article contains references to evidence. Incomplete evidence, but evidence. Allegations in lawsuits are just that allegations (usually being made by people who have no more, often less, information than you or me).--64.253.142.26 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The topic of this thread is flight path update; so I will not even consider topics that are not about that (like lawsuits). From the Eurocontrol press statement it becomes clear that the institution Eurocontrol did not issue a warning. What some private persons (employed with Eurocontrol) may have told people in their private networks is another issue as they have even less authority to suggest anything than Eurocontrol. That the newspapers mention the institution makes these specific articles flawed and therefore unusable. Based on this I think this update report is turning into a dead end. I suggest we let it go and wait until something substantial comes to the table. Arnoutf (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion has come to a dead end. I would like to point out, however, that the argument being used is flawed and not consistent with policy. Since we can't discredit the source, now we're going to discredit the reporting? But only in this article, and not in other articles that some editors like better. Some articles require "evidence" and "proof" and some articles of the same caliber are perfectly fine and end up in the lede as RS. Who gets to be on the cherry picking committee? Does anyone see a problem with this? USchick (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, and it's not clear what you are talking on about anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

When the owners of this article can't come up with a policy based reason to remove sourced content they don't like, they complain about the reporter and "flawed articles." This is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. USchick (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no "owners" of this article. You, like anyone else, are welcome to make constructive edits and improvements to the article based on Wikipedia's policies on reliable source, NPOV, and WEIGHT. The fact that you choose not to, and instead choose to continuously disrupt the talk page with your soapboxing instead, is your own fault. Not anyone else's, yours. Not some imaginary "owners", but yours. Not Wikipedia's, yours. Not mine, yours. Not Santa Claus' or Uncle Putin's or The Great American Conspiracy Against Russia's. Yours.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't seem to be talking about the flight path anymore, but instead about the long standing dispute about what constitutes a reliable source for the purposes of this article and how articles should be used (and how not). The proper forum for latter set of issues might now be the DR/N which was started by Antonioptg. If we want to get back to discussing the flight path, so be it, but if people just want to throw WP:POV allegations back and forth this might not be the right place to do it.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes 64.253.142.26 you are correct, the long standing dispute here colors everything. We need some agreed things like this, base lines to move forward from. Things we cant argue about. 'The “sole objective” of the Dutch Safety Board investigation “is the prevention of similar accidents and incidents” not “to apportion blame or liability in respect of any party.” In other words, this is not a criminal investigation. (Preliminary report, Dutch Safety Board, September 2014)'. I could be wrong, but I think Im not, for some editors, not me, its personal now. SaintAviator lets talk 00:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that to move forward, it's necessary to have meaningful discussion. It's not helpful when people refuse to talk because similar things have already been discussed in the past and people close their ears and go, "lalalalala" and then claim others are also not allowed to talk. That's ownership. It's also against policy. If the purpose of the investigation is only to "prevent similar accidents" they may as well go home. No civilian plane is designed to withstand a military shooting. Obviously people have a different expectation, that's why there's a neutral party in charge of the investigation. USchick (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should see the full phrase which is on the first text page where the mandate of the commission is described and states "In accordance with paragraph 3.1 of ICAO Annex 13, the sole objective of this investigation is the prevention of similar accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability in respect of any party." (prelim report p4)

It seems that it explicitly underwrites authority granted by a specific ICAO rule and likely used the phrasing to emphasise that. Obviously the prevention of similar accidents would not entail bolting heavy armour and flares to civil airplanes. However it may be concluded that air spaces should be closed more readily, that SAM should have better recognition of non military aircraft or something else (nb these are my own speculations so only take them as examples not as a serious suggestion for the mainspace article). PS USchick I hope you realize you have just been uncivil / rude by placing a belittling comment (lalalala) in the post above. Arnoutf (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

When the final report of the Dutch Safety Board is released, whatever its findings are, its report findings will require significant mention. The goal or purpose of its investigation may not be to attribute blame or liability, but in order to fulfill its purpose of preventing similar accidents the Board will likely need to determine the cause of this crash. How do you prevent something from happening again without determining how it happened in the first place? Obviously, any findings of the Board do not give rise to criminal responsibility, nor civil liability, but this article will need to give the findings of the Board significant weight (whatever they are).--64.253.142.26 (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, there are two main investigations. The one above and the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The JIT will focus first on the technical and forensic investigation in Ukraine, the location of the criminal offence. A joint investigation team (JIT) is a team consisting of judges, prosecutors and law enforcement authorities, established for a fixed period and a specific purpose by way of a written agreement between the States involved, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the involved States. However, information on the progress and results of the investigation of the disaster can remain classified.

This may well turn out to be what happens as any one of the signatories (Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Ukraine, Malaysia and Eurojust) has the right to veto the publication of the results of the investigation without explanation. Ukraine is also a suspect in the investigation, which complicates things should liability point to them. Lets wait and see but the wording of the JIT investigations especially may well turn out to be vague or have damning parts withheld to be released years in the future. SaintAviator lets talk 00:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC Should political commentary be limited?

This RfC was closed because the opening editor withdrew the request and deferred to the Dispute Resolution process USchick (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article? USchick (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Support It adds nothing. But I'd go further and remove ALL political commentary. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't seen your aggressive, politically motivated reply here. My vote is motivated by the aim of making a better encyclopaedia. Political comment on any topic rarely helps on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. – Herzen (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment. First, folks, you really could work on being a little bit less obvious here. Second, didn't we just discuss this several times? Do I need to start an RfC on limiting the number of times that stubborn users can keep bringing the same issue up for discussion over and over and over and over again? Third, the RfC is badly phrased. It's too vague. Who are "parties not directly involved in the crash"? What specific commentary are we referring to? This seems like some attempt to ask for a carte blanche to remove whatever one wants from the article. In other words, once again, just like the twelve, fifteen or whatever it is, times before, it's a demand that you get to edit the article according to your WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Support . The article has become ridiculously biased. This comment may change, so please don't directly reply to it.SaintAviator lets talk 23:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please motivate your !vote by actual Wikipedia policies rather than your own personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please assume good faith and not harass people as they vote? USchick (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please actually ACT in good faith rather than haranguing others about ASSUMING good faith towards you, even when it's clear you're engaging in WP:POINTy behavior? Volunteer Marek 01:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just change your comment to add a "don't reply" message after someone's already replied? Stickee (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Inclusion of material is decided by content guidelines, not whether the party is "directly involved". This comment may change, so please don't directly reply to it. Stickee (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Above I have a comment, here is my Procedural Oppose. The RfC proposal is so vague that it could be used to justify removing anything whatsoever from the article. File a better RfC if you must, specifics, details and all. This is just "let me removez some stuffs plz lol" kinda request. Volunteer Marek 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In the 21+ archives, this has already been discussed. No one else seems to have any questions about what it means. USchick (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me what it means. The only thing I can tell it means is "let me remove anything I want". Volunteer Marek 02:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural Oppose reply. Disagree Marek. Its clear whats political. You yourself need to reconsider WP:IDONTLIKEIT SaintAviator lets talk 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have questions as well, quite a vague RfC. Stickee (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be helpful if USchick gave some examples or definitions yes. In General the thrust of the RFC is clear but could be refined. In this way it may attract more support. SaintAviator lets talk 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

" the thrust of the RFC is clear" - well, we agree on that part. The thrust of the RfC is "let me remove anything I don't like so I can push my POV". And I thought you were done editing with this article. And now you pop up... right along the three other folks. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The thrust is to remove POV political comments. Yes I had no time. Now I have some time. Whats your point relevant to this RFC? In fact stay on topic and open a thread on my talk page thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 01:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. "Should political commentary from parties not directly involved in the crash be removed from the article?" Should commentary from parties not directly involved in event X be removed from the article about event X? Of course, not. All secondary sources about event X are normally written by people who are nor directly involved in event X. This so called RfC goes against core policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
WARNING to User:Volunteer Marek. Please stop harassing people as they comment here. This is an RfC. If you have a question about content, please start a new discussion. I have repeatedly started discussions, which are now archived, with questions such as: Who are the involved parties? Who should comment? There was no interest in discussing it. It's all archived, please go there to discuss further if you're ready now. USchick (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Who are the involved parties? There was no interest in discussing it." Yes there was. 20 comments even. See Archive 19. Stickee (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, that's where that discussion should continue. USchick (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

So we can close this nonsense here and continue the discussion over there, yes? Volunteer Marek 02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a separate discussion over there not related to this one. USchick (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Either that's a "separate discussion over there not related to this one", in which case the relevant question is "why the hell did you bring it up in your comment at 1:29 and endorse it as being on topic at 1:46", or it is NOT a "separate discussion over there not related to this one" in which case we close this nonsense because it's already been done to death. Volunteer Marek 02:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You already voted here, you harassed people who didn't vote the way you wanted them to, is there any further disruption that you would like to do here? Or would you prefer to revive old discussions for your next disruption? I'm not answering, because I don't care. USchick (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I "voted", and now I'm asking a question. It's called "discussion". And I didn't "harass" anybody, stop using inflammatory language and making baseless and false accusations. I asked editors to actually substantiate their !votes with reference to article Wikipedia policies rather than just personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's also "discussion", and that's how these RfC things are supposed to work. It's not actually a vote. Now, can you answer my question? Volunteer Marek 02:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is "nonsense" please feel free to go do something else, no you can't close it. USchick (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose if political commentary pertaining to this is in RS reportage why not in the article. Sayerslle (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a question that you would like answered? If you're new to this talk page, that's a reasonable question. USchick (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. We keep notable reactions, not just reactions directly involved. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Conditionally support However we do require consensus what directly involved means. I would opt that every country that has a victim on board, the country under which flag the plane was flying and the country over which it was shot down can be considered directly involved and none other. For example: Canada and New Zealand (one casualty each): Involved. United States (one dual Dutch-US citizen): Involved, Russia - not fulfilling any of the involvement criteria - Not involved. If and only if we can avoid a POV debate about this and adopt this idea I would support - otherwise I would strongly oppose as the use of involvement would become another POV pushing thing. Arnoutf (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia got involved when Kiev and Washington accused it of supplying the Buk launcher that allegedly shot down MH17. Also, this article belongs to seven Russian categories. Your claim that Russia is not involved is disingenuous. – Herzen (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And there we go with the debate what involvement entails. (1) Accusation by others is not involvement (unless these accusations are of course true) (2) Wikipedia is not a reliable source; and addition to categories would not even be a usuable argument if it were. Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am open for other criteria for what country is involved, but these should be fair and not include the foregone conclusion that one named country is involved. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Russia is very much involved. Under a number of criteria that one may come up with for "involved". Volunteer Marek 17:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Following what criterion would Russia be involved? By being a neighbor of Ukrain? That would make Romania involved. By being a bully state? That would make the US (among others) involved. By supporting the rebels? Russia denies that. By self-involving them in the debate? That would include every country that made a statement. So please propose a clear list of criteria for involvement; that does not claim any named country to be involved. Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

following the criterion that RS have discussed Russia being very much involved - it keeps pushing its theories too, odd if it has no direct interest really - seems interested - its latest half-arsed disinformation didn't take long to look feeble either - [49] - and do they deny supporting the rebels? they deny supporting them in certain ways, but do they deny supporting them at all? Sayerslle (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I think the correct approach is to discuss whether a specific comment or statement of a specific person or organization should be removed. We should not write a blank cheque for USchick or others to vastly change the content of the article. Specific changes should be proposed and discussed (hopefully not debated) here. We need to start having civil discussions that reference Wiki policy. If editors are unable to discuss issues and seek consensus then they should consider whether they need to take a break from editing this article.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - this crash has created political tension around the globe, with leaders of nations not directly involved engaging in commentary. Of course there is a political dimension extending well beyond the usual factors of aircraft, pilot etc. A similar example is the shooting down of an Iranian A300 airliner by the USN, which had political repercussions. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this proposal could be interpreted any number of ways, and I doubt that is accidental. Should cited opinions be attributed? Yes. Should opinion commentary or sources with a clear and present bias be cited to present claims of fact? No. Should the political positions of factions, i.e. the Australian government, Dutch government, Novorossiya separatists, etc., be presented with due weight? Yes. Should they be presented with undue weight? No. There is clearly a lot of nuance that this proposal seems to ignore, for whatever purpose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If opinions are citable and reach WP:N, they should be included. The event, tragic as it was, invited a lot of notable commentary in world media, and it seems a bit strange to ignore that. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment in my view being citable and notable is a lower threshold for inclusion. For this article there are literally thousands of citable and notable opinions. It would be impossible to include all those and end up with anything readable. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but notability is a relative thing. Notability means something pokes up above the base level of background noise that is the world; the more notable a subject, the higher a bar thoughts about it must clear. So what the governments of (say) the USA and China have to say about this would be rather more notable than what the government of Angola has to say. Ipsissima Verba (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally would be very interested to find out why the government of China or the US is "rather more notable" than the government of Angola. Because the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias. To claim this outrageous claim, one would need a reliable source, otherwise, it's Original Research. If all three governments are equally uninvolved in the crash, the only reason for any of them to get involved after the crash would be political. USchick (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you just accuse a user of racism? Again? After you were almost banned for making false accusations of racism previously? Volunteer Marek 23:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you harassing me again? After we just came back from ANI? Would you be interested in going back? USchick (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not harassing you, not now, not ever, so quit trying to play the victim. You just accused another user of racism, yes? Quote: "the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias", directed at User:Ipsissima Verba's comment. Can you answer the question? If you blurted out something you didn't mean to blurt out, then at least strike the false accusation. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you're stalking my edits, maybe you could leave me a "to do list" of things you want me to strike out, on my talk page. USchick (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What?!?? Stalking your edits??? Are you just making random nonsense accusations? Please explain how in hell I'm "stalking your edits". Please explain why you just accused another editor of "racism", after almost being banned for making such odious false accusations. Or strike your comments. Volunteer Marek 02:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My question is specifically for Ipsissima Verba. When they come back, I would be interested to find out how those three countries were chosen as examples of notability and what makes two of them more notable than the other one. USchick (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And my question is specifically for you. Did you just - AGAIN - falsely accuse another editor of racism? Volunteer Marek 02:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No I did not. If you have any other personal questions please make them in a personal space. USchick (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then can you clarify by what you meant by this comment: "the only reasons that make sense to me would be racism and systemic bias.", directed at User:Ipsissima Verba. It very much looks like you're saying their comment was "racist". If I'm missing something, please enlighten. If not, then strike it. Serious accusations like these directed at other users need to be substantiated or else they are personal attacks. Quite nasty ones at that. The fact that you have a history of making such attacks is also relevant. Volunteer Marek 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking a question. What's relevant, is the reason for choosing three completely unrelated countries of three different races, with two races being claimed as more notable than the African country. I would like to hear an explanation of how this decision was made and a source to support it. I would like to point out that this is an RfC, and not a place for unrelated commentary and I will not answer anything else in this location. USchick (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You are asking a question and then providing your own answer, which involves a baseless and vile accusation against another user. The obvious reason why China and US's reaction might be more notable than Angola's is that China and US are super powers and Angola isn't. Nothing to do with racism. Yes, this is an RfC and hence certainly not a place for making disgusting personal attacks like you did. Don't pull any more stunt like this. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Support The focus of the article should be about Flight 17 and the parties involved, we have a separate article International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown for outside parties. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have trouble keeping track of spinoff articles. Maybe we should try to agree on a list of the "parties involved"? (This discussion can be split into a new section if others want to pursue it.) It is not as if we need to debate on an abstract level what involvement entails. We can just try to agree on a list. My proposal: Malaysia, Netherlands, Australia, Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. I did not include in the list countries that had fewer than thirteen of its citizens among the victims. Doing that allowed me to cut down the number of countries involved for that reason from 10 to 3. If someone objects to the inclusion of the US, that can be discussed. – Herzen (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What other countries are mentioned in the article? Germany. Because of their intelligence report. That certainly belongs here, not in the spin-off. Volunteer Marek 23:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well some countries are a given these include Russia, Ukraine and the Netherlands. Malaysia should also be included as it is their plane. Can you think of any others and why they should be included? The USA in my opinion was not directly involved in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course US should be included. The point is, that other than the countries mentioned in the US, the only other country mentioned is Germany, because of the intelligence report that was released by their services. So this supposed "excellent point" is "beside the point". Volunteer Marek 00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. No other countries than these seven are mentioned by the article. So my list is useless. (Sorry, but the article is so long-winded I just have trouble following what's in it.) Anyway, Knowledgekid87's idea is still excellent, because some material that is more "human interest-related" than technical or factual can be moved to the international responses article. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally believe that the US is involved, but I don't want to get into an argument about that, because it would get into political issues. If it appears that a majority of editors do not believe that the US should be considered an involved country, I would go along with that. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well from the standpoint of coverage you can say that seeing this is the English Wikipedia it would include English speaking countries but I feel it should be for things like presentation. This is hard though how many sources do we need for a country to be more involved versus less? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that this isn't going to go anywhere. But you gave me an idea when you brought up the international reactions article. I am inclined to boldly move some less significant material from this article to that article and see what the response is. That would at least reduce the bloat a little. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to wait for the RfC to close first. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, thank you for the suggestion. I was actually thinking of doing that tomorrow. Anyway, I think we've accomplished some productive brainstorming here. – Herzen (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, good point. There was also that reply given by the German Ministry of Interior to questions submitted to it by die Linke (which I believe is not mentioned in the article). So that makes seven involved countries. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I support Knowledgekid87 idea. Its too long winded. SaintAviator lets talk 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it not time to close this RfC? My take is that no consensus was reached. However, Knowledgekid87 made the useful implicit suggestion that some material in this article should be moved to the International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown article. So I suggest that we should close this discussion and proceed with that plan. – Herzen (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Which material should be moved? As pointed out above, and my understanding is that you agreed with this, there really isn't that much about "international reactions" in the article currently. Volunteer Marek 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the "Reactions" section, I think that some material can be moved to the spin-off article. This article should only mention reactions that have some practical consequences, as opposed to being little more than the expression of a sentiment. Things like flags being flown at half mast and musical events being canceled should be moved. So should the whole paragraph on the Australian response. What the Americans and British are quoted as saying is also of little consequence, especially since they are not members of the Joint Investigation Team, so I think that material should be moved as well. That the mention of a poem being written about MH17 should be moved is a no-brainer.

So, I'd say that about half of the material can be moved. There being an article about "International reactions" gives us an easy way of making this article a little more concise. – Herzen (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The stuff about flags being flown at half-mast refers to Netherlands and Malaysia. I think it's fine and relevant. It's not like it takes up a lot of space. It's just a mention and it's perfectly fine in this article. I'm not sure what you mean by "expression of a sentiment" - you'd have to be specific with this. The Australian response is also relevant although it does rely too much on direct quotes rather than an encyclopedic paraphrasing of such. There is actually very little from the US and Britain so I'm not exactly clear on what you think it should be moved. The Russian poem is noteworthy for obvious reasons, so it stays. Volunteer Marek 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your dictatorial manner is not appreciated. And please don't place your comments in the middle of my comments. You freak out when other editors do things like that, so you should take care that you don't. – Herzen (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If I somehow put my comment into the middle of your comment then I apologize, but I don't think that's the case. I might have put it in between two different comments by you but that's to make it clear what I was replying to, and it's how discussions work. Anyway. Can you be clear on what parts about US and Britain and what "expressions of sentiment" are you referring to? Volunteer Marek 06:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: Some would want to use this as an invitation to delete or move content they want out of here but we keep notable reactions not just reactions directly involved. Tlsandy (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: this RfC will close soon. Stickee (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: As User:FelixRosch has mentioned, it may be appropriate to close this RfC so that the DRN:MH17 can begin.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I am going to pretend that this has been officially closed and open the discussion at WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 13 December 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.

Russian State TV and radio company caught editing Russian Wikipedia entry about MH17

The Russian government has edited the Russian Wikipedia of this page. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/18/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article Tlsandy (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of improving this article, wikipedians have to be on the look-out for suspicious editing - also after the Russian government learns to spread its propaganda via VPN or named accounts. Lklundin (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the account of Tlsandy, most of whose edits are of this article, was created after MH17 crashed, on 10 September. Also, Tlsandy is one of the most aggressive editors making sure that this article states as little as possible but "the truth" about who downed MH17. Just yesterday, he reverted my edit eliminating cherry picking of a news report that was being extensively discussed in Talk without making a single comment on Talk himself. In short, what we appear to have here is a single purpose account. And it is interesting that nobody has posted a welcome note on Tisandy's Talk page, which suggests that he does not produce the impression of being a new editor. Also, the creation of this new Talk section is Tisandy's first contribution to an article Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

LoL. You are a premium member of Crimea/Novorossiya/KickUkraine-Club, having paused WP for 4 month, before coming back in April to help out Mother Russia whereever necessary. So I guess you have great expertise on SPA´s. Alexpl (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had an account for many years, gone through phases in which I edited articles on different subjects, and I only started editing Russia-related articles after the February coup. So your accusation is nothing but an utterly unfounded, malicious personal attack. Your battleground attitude is of no help at all in building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Alexpl (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen is right, Alexpl, you are being unnecessarily aggressive and you are not showing good faith. You are not being compliant with Wikipedia, Alexpl. --Mondschein English (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I'm not taking any action here because the next headline will read "US Government blah blah blah" but can you please take a look at the conduct in this thread?--v/r - T P 17:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The policies must the adhered to. With that said, I will add that showing good faith is only possible for so long. Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to see though that Herzen first accuses Tlsandy of being a single purpose account; and when accused in a similar way by Alexpl refers to wikipolicies. In my view a clear case of WP:POT. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you subjecting me to more scrutiny than this new user? In the summary of this edit, Tlsandy accused me of editing his comment. But I didn't touch his comment: what I did was edit the section title so it does not make a false claim. (As I said in my edit summary, in English Wikipedia "Wikipedia" refers to "English Wikipedia". The article Tlsandy linked to says "Russia" edited Russian Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia.) To quote from the Talk page guidelines: "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed". In his edit, Tlsandy deleted my comment. That is a clear violation of the guidelines. How have I violated the guidelines? So how am I exhibiting WP:POT? – Herzen (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic, this news has been around for a long time. We decided not to mention it in this article for several reasons (not this Wikipedia, not central to the accident itself). So can we please let this rest. Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the records, an example of Russian government edits in the German MH17 article: [50]. The IP belongs to the Federal Protective Service (Russia). There were Ukrainian propaganda counter-edits around the same time, but they were more clever in hiding their identitiy, e.g. [51][52]. Both stopped soon, we have not seen such edits for months. --PM3 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. If you look up that IP with IPlocation, you get

95.173.130.218 Russian Federation Moscow City Moscow The Federal Guard Service Of The Russian Federation

I had never heard of the Federal Protective Service. I guess it is not one of the more elite Russian intelligence agencies. Actually, after reading that article, it sounds more like the Russian equivalent of the American Secret Service than an intelligence agency (разведка). In any case, this is certainly more notable than the subject of the thread, since a Russian government IP was used, whereas the IP mentioned by the Wired UK article belongs to a Russian TV network, and that network is no more the Russian government ("Russia") than the BBC is the UK. – Herzen (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm the edits seem fairly minor, and this is very obvious. I would not be surprised if this were an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break or so. In any case, we need a reliable secondary source to report on this to even consider it for the article. And even then, it is still another Wikipedia, and not about the crash itself, so I doubt it should be in this article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that this is notable or should be included in the article. What I said was that it is more notable than what Tlsandy saw fit to create a thread about, a case, it seems to me, of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Tlsandy said nothing about the merits of including this boring story in the article. All he said was that "Russia got caught".

I agree that this was probably a case of something like "an individual employee doing these edits during lunch break". Hopefully Russian officialdom has briefed its bureaucrats by now that using government IPs for editing sensitive subjects reflects badly on Russia. As PM3 noted, that has apparently stopped. – Herzen (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as no analysis of all Ip adresses of all contributors in this article is conducted, there is no way to tell. Alexpl (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why did you change my title when it is the title used by Wired. Tlsandy (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the Wired title is highly misleading? Do you honestly think that there is a rule that if there is a Talk section about a specific news article, the Talk section's heading must duplicate that of the news article? – Herzen (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph says 'Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17' and 'Russia caught editing Wikipedia entry about MH17'? Tlsandy (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a much easier solution: [53]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

the online info war is being done everywhere

Soap/Forum

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

i've been a follower of many sites whose articles also have comments / discussion available. i am pointing out that every single one of them now seems to be full of russian MH17 defenders, whether it is twitter or yahoo news or bloomberg or any other site, denying their responsibility. i present this fact as a significant collateral aspect of the shoot down, since i have never seen such massive foreign presence on other topics.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/mh17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎76.176.108.8 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Foreign presence"? I guess you don't understand that the Internet spans the globe, so that the word "foreign" is meaningless when it comes to the Web. – Herzen (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum for wacky observations and soap. SaintAviator lets talk 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Next Steps

I have not been involved in editing this article, but have a few comments now that moderated dispute resolution has failed. As User:Guy Macon has noted, he failed the dispute resolution because some editors would not focus solely on content, and kept complaining about other editors. That is a conduct issue, either by the editors being complained about (if they were in fact guilty of tendentious editing) or by the editors doing the complaining. Dispute resolution does not deal with conduct issues, nor with content issues when conduct makes content resolution impossible. As Guy Macon notes, the next step would appear to be ArbCom. More precisely, there are two arbitration venues available for this case. The first would be the filing of a new case request, requesting a full evidentiary hearing. The second would be the use of arbitration enforcement under Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, since the plane was shot down over Ukraine, which is in Eastern Europe as usually defined. It is possible that the ArbCom might decline a new case and request that enforcement be used. If any editor wants to request a new case, I would advise that they specify why a new case is desired, such as a request for the ArbCom itself to review conduct. It is likely that any filing with the ArbCom or with Arbitration Enforcement will result in multiple editors being topic-banned. I haven't reviewed the details and have no comment on who is at risk. Read the boomerang essay before requesting any arbitration remedy.

Any editor at this point has probably five options. First, recognize that the community is tired of the WP:ANI and dispute resolution threads about this case, and leave it alone. Walk away from the article if you can't edit it collaboratively. That would probably be prudent. Second, recognize that the community is tired of the threads about this case, and so edit-war the article instead. That would be imprudent, because it WILL result in blocks or topic-bans at some point. Third, file new WP:ANI threads. That would be imprudent. Since the community is now aware that this case is headed for arbitration, those threads will probably also be closed, but their filing will be considered further evidence of battleground editing when the case goes to arbitration. Fourth, file a request for arbitration enforcement. Bear in mind that an editor who requests arbitration enforcement who has been battleground editing is likely to be topic-banned, blocked, or both. Fifth, file a request for arbitration for a full hearing. Bear in mind that an editor who requests arbitration who has been battleground editing is likely to be topic-banned, blocked, or even banned if they have a previous history. Those are the options at this point. Leave this article alone, or try the same approaches that haven't worked yet, or try arbitration, knowing that your own conduct as well that of other editors will be reviewed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wise words from Robert McClenon. I hope that they are taken to heart. I am unwatching this page now. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is my view about this. There were several recent ANI threads. They were left without action, and rightly so, because the complaints were without merit. This DRN case failed because it was also without merit: the article is actually in a great shape, and whatever needs to be improved, such as telling more about human losses, can be easily done without any drama. An arbitration request is also without merit for two reasons: (a) this subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions (so the complaints should go first to WP:AE), and (b) there are no real grounds for the case. Now, thinking about possible WP:AE requests, I can see a possibility for only one. However, this has nothing to do with this article, but only with behavior of a user on multiple pages. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

AE is not a viable venue, because every editor that has heavily participated in this article's absurd storm needs to evaluated by ArbCom. ARBEE has simply not worked to resolve this conflict, as is apparent. A new case is required. I can see many of the participants, such as MVBW above, rejecting that notion. That doesn't mean it should not happen. I'd request that some uninvolved party, such as either the illustrious Mr Macon, or Mr McClenon, file such a case. It is the only solution to this dispute, which has been ongoing for months. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you feel very strongly about this, nothing prevents you from filing a new request (and probably have it rejected), however, asking others to submit your request in the subject area they know very little about, would be unfair, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not "unfair". An uninvolved party is most suited to requesting such a case, as they have no stakes in the dispute. It is unfair for an involved party to request such a case. I understand that you are trying to evade review by ArbCom, but that simply isn't possible. We must all get what's coming to us. If you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear. That applies to us all, here. I don't know who has done what, as I have not followed this article's development. I've only seen the spillover. This has been to numerous forums over the course of the past months, and it is about time that it was finished. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If admins want to file a case, they can certainly do it. The only question is: why? This subject area is already under discretionary sanctions, and there are no grounds for the case. My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Many uninvolved parties are telling you that there are grounds for a case, so I don't know how you can say that. ArbCom is the venue of last resort for dispute resolution. No other venue has solved the problem, therefore it goes to ArbCom, where the Arbitrators can review the behaviour of the involved parties and act accordingly. RGloucester — ☎ 04:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No man, you did not try the only venue that must be used here: WP:AE. If you have a case for WP:AE, then file it. But you do not have even an WP:AE case. It means there are no grounds for Arbcom to be involved here, exactly as I said. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, what should've been done previously, is to have filed relevant AE reports when the disruptive behavior occurred. Unfortunately that wasn't done and this wasn't nipped in the butt early on. There is a possibility that this behavior will cease however, just due to time issues, users finally getting the point, etc. If not, the AE reports can still be filed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, a lot of problematic behavior on this article - not all - has been by fly-by-night, disposable accounts, which appear, cause trouble for a week or so, then either get banned or disappear. Then a week or two passes, or a new conspiracy theory appears out there on the internets, and another shows up. Again and again. Arbcom isn't gonna help with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The number of short-living through-away accounts in this subject area is staggering, and it were they who created most of the trouble (and not only in this article). However, this is a question for checkusers, not for Arbcom. As about others, I think they must stop arguing on various talk pages (ANI, DRN, etc.) and start making non-controversial improvements of content that do not cause anyone's objections. This should be easy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had nothing else to do, I would file it. I suggest people read the closing comments one more time. Just for fun. USchick (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

if some editors want to say 'we cant have what RS are reporting around this event , we can only have the official investigation ..' that seems arbitrarily seeking to narrow down the article. of course I can understand why open source reportage is frowned upon - like this buk m2- but if all wider RS reportage is to be squished just because some editors don't like what it reports that can't be let dictate material in articles imo. Sayerslle (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

new dutch study - field south of snizhne - twitter latest-

'Thorough investigation from @rtlnieuwsnl - MH17 Buk launch site was a field south of Snizhne' [54]Sayerslle (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What does the conclusion say? What is striking about the harvest? USchick (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw the item on Dutch RTL news. Anonymous eye witness stating it was a SAM missile from rebel controlled territory. Some video of vertical vapour trails. Without further reporting and endorsement by governmental sources, I would classify this report at about the same quality as some of fighter jet eye witness reports. For much the same reasons that I object the fighter jet "evidence" from such sources I would also argue against inclusion of this report. (The quoted report was made for the news item by a commercial service that helps interpreting imagery of this type. It's conclusions are very cautious -- Based on the evidence we conclude it is possible that.... ) Arnoutf (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

fair enough - tonight ' @onlinekpru interviews 3rd Ukr. pilot who has "confessed" to MH17 guilt' - and lifenews [55] - as Aric Toler‏@AricToler says on twitter - 'like clockwork, here is the Russian counter-narrative to today's @RTLNieuwsnl report' - Sayerslle (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

A request for arbitration pertaining to this article and the dispute surrounding it has been filed. See here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent SU-25 developments

Just in case: yesterday ITAR TASS disseminated the info about new alleged witness. Interestingly, the Investigative Committee of Russia allegedly tested him on polygraph and allegedly found he's reliable. The whole version has been rebutted by two Russian test pilots, Ruben Yesayan and Magomed Tolboyev. Brandmeister^talk 12:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

'coincidentally' one day after Dutch media presented eye witness reports of a missile launch (including photos of a vertical vapour trail) - see above. I advised against taking that into the article, and I would do the same for this. (PS the outcomes of classical polygraph tests are infamously unreliable in themselves) Arnoutf (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that all these recent eye witness reports are just so much noise. But your "coincidentally" remark is just one more example of the anti-Russian innuendo that pro-Kiev editors feel compelled to make at every opportunity. Such remarks, which do not help build an encyclopedia in any way, are uncalled for and have no other effect than intensifying the battleground atmosphere that is pervasive in the Ukraine-related articles.

There has been a development concerning the subject of fighter jets that might have been flying near MH17 as it was shot down that is more notable. the Head of the Central Investigation Department of the Security Service of Ukraine Vasily Vovk recently said in a press conference that one of these "conspiracy theories" might be true, namely that MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile. (Link to Russian language story on this by a Ukrainian news outlet) Thus, both the Dutch chief prosecutor and a senior Ukrainian intelligence official now say that there are two working theories for how MH17 was downed. Despite this, some editors are preventing the article from making this clear, only willing to allow mention of the second theory as a crazy Russian conspiracy theory. As you know, there has been a DRN case about this which failed. – Herzen (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

AFP article in Telegraph [56] - and rferl.org new competing claims - (I think the consensus amongst experts is tht the fighter jet theory is the more unlikely because of the altitude etc - it is the 'crazier' theory - that is what the RS imply, not battleground editors imo -) Sayerslle (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If the Dutch chief prosecutor and a senior Ukrainian intelligence official are both taking this theory seriously, it is not crazy (or "crazier"). That is just blatant POV-pushing and OR by editors who want to continue owning this article. No one has ever made an edit which mentioned this second theory without carefully including the qualification that investigators prefer the first theory. So editors blocking inclusion of this theory as serious, as opposed to crazy, are unwilling to collaborate with other editors to reach a compromise. That is why there is currently an ARB case about this. – Herzen (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

you used the word 'crazy' I was just echoing your choice of words - I don't see why you don't just edit the article with RS in the way you want - westerbecke is open to both theories - I've read that, - I've also read that experts consider it less likely that a fighter jet was involved - 'David Gleave, an aviation and safety researcher at Loughborough University, told RFE/RL that when loaded with missiles the SU-25 could not reach an altitude much higher than 5 kilometers -- MH17 was flying at around 10 kilometers when it was hit. According to the Russian-backed witness, the plane was able to overcome this hindrance by turning its nose up and firing into the air. Pavel Felgenhauer, a journalist and military analyst, told the independent Snob.ru that the new Russian claims are "complete garbage." Felgenhauer said the SU-25 would not have had the capacity to catch up to a Boeing 777 at cruising speed. And because the R-60 is a heat-seeking missile, he said it does not make sense that the nose of MH17 appears to have been hit rather than the engine. ' -

( is there an ARB case - I thought it was a request for an arbcase ), Sayerslle (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I was deploring the use of the word "crazy" in this context – it is used by editors who aggressively edit this article to make it take an anti-rebel line – so I really don't see why anyone would "echo" my use of that word unless he wanted to take that line. As for the Su-25, that is all speculation and a red herring. We have no reason to believe that the military plane was not a Mig-29. Where the obsession with the Su-25 in the blogosphere seems to come from is that at the one press briefing it gave on MH17, the Russian military suggested the military plane that was detected on civilian radar might have been an Su-25. It would have made more sense for the Ukrainians to use a Mig-29 to shoot MH17 down, since that is a fighter, whereas the Su-25 is an attack aircraft, not a fighter aircraft. As for the nose of MH17 being hit: are you not aware that the preferred theory of those who do not fall for the official USG conspiracy theory is that MH17 was shot with cannon fire?

As for why I "don't just edit the article with RS in the way you want": I have tried that countless times, but virtually every time I did, my efforts to attain a vestigial semblance of NPOV were undone by aggressive editors using various techniques for preserving ownership such as tag teaming, so my "edit[ing] the article with RS in the way [I] want" is futile. – Herzen (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

oh, - well what are the RS for a Mig-29 being thought responsible? Sayerslle (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we get back to the topic of this thread which on SU25 not MIG29. If you read the article provided by Brandmeister it all comes down to an eye witness reporting a SU25 take off and later on land on an airport around the time of MH17 downing. This is hardly a smoking gun as airport are intended for planes to take off from and land on.

Whether the reporting was truly coincidentally immediately after another eye witness produced photos of vertical vapour trails, whether the report was already made and its broadcast was triggered by the RTLnews report, whether it was made in response to the RTLnews item does not really matter. It all comes down to the point that we should be extremely careful with self declared eye witnesses (whatever position they represent) and go with formal statements by investigators. (PS Westerbeke stated last week in an interview that they are now almost certain it was a surface to air missile, but that until they are completely certain they will not exclude other options). (Herzen is there any reason for your unreasonably polemic tone in the above as it is rather rude (at least of types 1.c, 2.a.& e.). Whatever your reason for such behaviour may be, it is not helping this article.) Arnoutf (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Now there's a Ukrainian response, which even RT cites (albeit briefly, here's more detailed report). As I suspected, the Su-25 stuff is another crap in the information war. I was just browsing for recent sober approaches to it. Brandmeister^talk 17:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's notable that ITAR TASS is recycling discredited Komsomolskaya Pravda stories.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

New Claim

Duplicate story. See above section.

daily mail

Ukrainian military base employee claims MH17 was shot down by air force
Russian state investigators say his sensational claims are 'truthful' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.212.66.140 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)