Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 103

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Antonioptg on 22:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Antonioptg (talk · contribs) USchick (talk · contribs) Herzen (talk · contribs) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) Arnoutf (talk · contribs) Dispute overview As you can see on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=636513426&oldid=636512265, the dispute consist in: 1) Deletion of the words "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" in the sentence "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." 2) Addition of the following text: "On October 28 the Dutch government, in a letter to parliament, stated that only two options are examined by the Public Prosecutor: "An attack from the ground or an attack from the air". The letter also stated that evidence seem to support the conclusion that the plane was shot down with a rocket, but that can not yet be said with certainty". 3) Addition of the following text: "According to a press release on behalf of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Ukraine and Eurojust on August 7 the four countries signed a secret treaty that includes a non-disclosure agreement under which the signatories remain in control of the information that they themselves contribute, so they can veto the disclosure of their own data, and retain the right to keep secret the results of investigations. The press release came just before the Dutch government had to answer parliamentary questions on the issue. Malaysia did not sign the treaty and was the last to join the JIT, being accepted as a full member in late November". With respect to the first point, giving the Russian version of the facts inserting it in the negative definition given by a American newspaper is highly POV. With respect to the second and the third point, the content is based on reliable sources, is relevant and gave rise to parliamentary questions in the Dutch Parliament and official statements by Dutch government. It has been rejected as "conspiracy mongering" or "not relevant" Have you tried to resolve this previously? talk page How do you think we can help? I hope you can give an authoritative opinion so as to induce User Volunteer Marek to review his position allowing users who see the matter from a different perspective to edit the article, considering that, as indicated on "Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus", an Anglo-American point of view of the facts, or a Western one, is contrary to NPOV "especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective". Summary of dispute by USchick Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. International sources report more broadly about the crash that Western sources. Western sources are considered reliable. Russian sources have been discounted as state owned and therefore, unreliable. There are several discussions in the archived talk pages about Asian and German sources. It's not clear to me why those sources have been discounted as unreliable. The Western version of events is presented in the article, and any other version, even when presented in reliable sources is dismissed as Undue. USchick (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Herzen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The downing of MH17 is a developing news story which to date has had four phases: (1) initial reports of the downing; (2) reports by news media before any actual official investigations were done, based on unsubstantiated claims made by various governments and international agencies, what had appeared on social media, and on witness accounts, often not backed up by any photographic or video evidence; (3) release of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) preliminary report; (4) the focus of news coverage switching to the criminal investigation led by the Netherlands, with the participation of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The article as it currently stands has two main problems. (I) The bulk of the article consists of material concerning (2). The material from (2) consists essentially of nothing more than hearsay and speculation. It was fine for the article to have covered such material before the results of any investigations were released, but since the DSB report was released, most of the material relating to (2) became undue. Yet this material remains the bulk of the article. (II) There are two official investigations into the MH17 crash: the DSB (technical) investigation, and the JIT criminal investigation. Many reliable sources have reported how the DSB investigation has influenced the criminal investigation. The DSB investigation has led the criminal investigation to narrow the possible scenarios of how MH17 crashed from four to two. (This is point 2 from the Dispute Overview.) Since the downing of MH17 was a criminal act, the focus of this article, when it comes to narratives about what happened, should concern the criminal investigation. Yet getting into and keeping in the article the fact that the criminal investigation has two working theories, not just one, for more than a few days has proven impossible, because some editors brazenly violate Wikipedia's Second Pillar: even though the criminal investigation is considering two theories, some editors believe that they already know the truth, so they feel that any mention of the fact that investigators are considering a second theory must be suppressed. – Herzen (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. Guy Macon brought up the "do not talk about other editors" rule. Above, I noted that "some editors" act as if they know the truth. I believe that that comment does not break this rule, since the claim that "some editors" act as if they know the truth is not a comment about particular editors, but rather a reference to the systemic bias that is at the root of this content dispute. If my talk of "some editors" is unacceptable, I will try to rephrase. – Herzen (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Specifics: 1. I'm still considering whether the words "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" should be included in the article or not. But that's about whether this particle source should be used as an example of how a certain view is described or should we rather say something like "Various sources have described the Russian government version as a "Conspiracy Theory"". There's plenty of reliable sources for that: [1], [2], [3], [4] (could throw the word 'bizarre' in there too) 2. The text starting with "Addition of the following text:...". The problem here is that this is cherry-picking from the source in order to push a POV. The source basically says that while two possibilities were examined they are NOT considered equally likely. The "shot down by a rocket" is the one that the report considers the most probable. 3. The secret agreement stuff. Conspiracy mongering nonsense, which originally appeared on the conspiracy website globalresearch, which some of the users here have tried to insist is a reliable source. It's not, it's complete and utter junk. The reliable sources mention it in passing and don't make a conspiracy out of it. WP:UNDUE with a side of WP:POV. Generals: Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 1. It is not true as USchick asserts that "International sources report more broadly about the crash that Western sources." This argument is basically a cover for trying to include non-reliable sources in the article. Case in point is the "Asian source" USchick mentions. Consensus was to exclude it, not because it was "Asian" - as USchick tried to pretend and even falsely accused another editor of racism, which almost got them indeffed - but simply because this source was based on the above mentioned globalresearch conspiracy site (seeing a pattern here yet?). Etc. 2. The current article is pretty NPOV and by Wikipedia's standards of current event articles is actually pretty good. It is NPOV and pretty good exactly because unreliable conspiracy sources and junk info have been kept out of the article. This DRN request, the latest in something like two dozen instances of WP:FORUMSHOPPING across multiple boards (AN/I, RSN, AN, 3RR etc. etc.) is exactly a bad-faithed attempt at POVing the article, not vice versa. We don't use junk conspiracy sources, consensus is and has been against including this stuff. Russian government/media view *is* in fact noted in the article, maybe even with too much WP:WEIGHT already. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Arnoutf Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. MH17 page has been plagued by bickering from day 1. The summary of the conflict in my view is that criticism on the Russian position is construed as unrealistic hatred of Russia by those defending Russia, while criticism on Western sources is perceived as vindication of the Russian position by those same editors. In addition several editors demand that the point of view of all Western countries are counted together as a single opinion and contrasted against the Russian opinion. The downing of MH17 resulted in casualties of seven different "western" countries and no Russian casualty; so I really cannot see why the Russian point of view would be more important than even a single of these 7 stricken countries. That is not a pro-Western bias, that is relevance. This is the more interesting as there is no single Russian position (only a broad range of accusations and possible alternatives). This whole thing is further complicated since the powers that may know more have not given full insight into their information - although this would probably involve public disclosure of top secret intelligence information about military and satellite deployment. These kind of sentiments unsurprisingly underlies the current discussion and in fact most on that talk page; and unless a number of editors start accepting the idea that Russia may have been involved; or other editors accept that Russian sources are worth as much as the combined Western sources this is not going to change. Interestingly the editor posting this thread here has been blocked earlier this week for edit warring on the MH17 article. That makes the current thread highly suspicious in my view; as it appears the editor wants to get his way through this forum. Arnoutf (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Saint Aviator HI. Macon thank you for your time in this dispute resolution. I have been involved and tried to focus on what makes WP an encyclopedia. MH17 is not a good example of an encyclopaedic article. There is a tug of war which has more numbers on the Pro West version side, which seems to be able to attract at key moments, another voice or two. However I believe the so called Pro Russian side is not Pro Russian but instead wants a more neutral, wider view. This stance is more encyclopaedic. I have trouble understanding why a more encyclopaedic NPOV article is being resisted by deleting content that gives the reader a bigger picture. This article is not the MH17 crash investigation and it should not be written in a way that insinuates Russia was involved in shooting down MH17. Thank you. SaintAviator lets talk 23:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Stickee All the editors who participated in the discussion have not been notified. I have done so now. Stickee (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC) I'll likely have my summary up tomorrow. Stickee (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 64.253.142.26 I have monitored this article's talk page regularly and occasionally commented on topics such as is arising in this dispute. I have had the privilege of reviewing the Summaries prepared Volunteer Marek and Arnoutf. I adopt their summaries. Best Regards --64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 01 Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC) A quick procedural note (I am not opening this up for discussion yet -- still waiting on a few editors to weigh in); Some of you may have noticed that I collapsed part of your comment like this: Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Collapsed text As you can see, I am serious about our "do not talk about other editors" rule. DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. I am allowing more general comments that only touch on user behavior without naming anyone, but I will shut those down as well if they become a problem. You are free to remove the collapsed material and replace it with something that discusses article content, as you are free to edit your initial comment in any other way. I am working on reading all the talk page archives and as much of all your user talk page histories as possible, but it is a lot of material, so please give me some time. I had no idea that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 existed until I took this DRN case. If there are any relevant discussions elsewhere (other pages, arbcom, ANI, etc) that I should read, please drop me a note on my talk page. That would also be an appropriate place to discuss procedural questions. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC) This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Comment from uninvolved editor; @Guy Macon; There appears to be an open RfC on this here [5] on the article's Talk page. The RfC still has a week to go before ending (filed by @USchick). Participants should be informed that normal policy in dispute resolution is that other forums be posted as taking place or otherwise dealt with in order for dispute resolution to continue. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC) User:FelixRosch is correct. Opening for discussion on hold until the RfC closes. I could use the time; I have been reading through the talk page archives and it's a bit of a slog. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Good point Felix and Guy. Hey Guy I've marked this case as 'open' since there is a volunteer here and discussion has begun. We don't have a "on hold" status. If you don't like the open status you can revert me. Also Felix andGuy, keep in mind that the RfC has not been active for 16 days and in a few days it will qualify for a 30 days closing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Update Comment from uninvolved editor; The backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is currently at 57 requests and it looks like no-one has listed this RfC for a closure request there. Comment to @TransporterMan or @Keithbob; Since the RfC is now due for closure, then either of you might consider closing it out since @Guy Macon is the moderator here, and the mediation can restart promptly. Otherwise, backlog at the Administrator's closeout request board may be backlogged for quite a long time. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Good suggestions but I'll leave that matter for User: Guy Macon to deal with as he sees fit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC) I am going to pretend that the RfC has been officially closed and open up the discussion here. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 02 I am now opening this up for discussion. I assume that everyone is on board with our "Please discuss article content, never user conduct and do not talk about other editors" policy. I am going to ask that you all try something else that gets us away from the problems with the talk page discussions that resulted in no agreement: try to keep it short, keep it simple, and avoid either walls of text or long rapid back-and-forth discussions. Consider this a polite request, not a hard and fast rule. Let me throw out an idea as a starting point, keeping in mind that I know less about this topic than anyone else here; how about a series of sections with names like "claims by Russian sources", "claims by Ukrainian sources", "claims by US sources", etc.? (it doesn't have to be spit up that way - maybe "claims by official sources" and "claims by journalistic sources" would be better, or some other way of splitting things up that I haven't though of.) We could just report what they claim without any editorializing or commentary, and if there are sources for it, add a "reaction by X" section where we can put any rebuttals. I am not pushing this as being "the answer" but it might be worth discussing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved user; @Guy Macon; It may help for someone to ping all of the involved editors after the unscheduled interim break of several days. Note to @USchick, in answer to your off page question on this dispute, yes, as the originator of the rfc you may self-close using the standard template and indicate that you are deferring to the Dispute resolution noticeboard currently underway here. It is normally up to the editors involved to ping the other participants that this dispute has been restarted. Note to Antonioptg (talk · contribs), USchick (talk · contribs), Herzen (talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), Arnoutf (talk · contribs). Users should reply if they are planning to participate here following the new opening by @Guy Macon as of yesterday. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Comment Re Guy Macon. We have considered something like this. The problem is that creating a "claims by X sources" creates another POV fork altogether. If you look at the different countries - The US is not directly involved; and Russia (officially) claims not to be directly involved either. So one neutral point of view would be to list in order of involvement Ukrainian sources (their country), Malaysian sources (their plane), Dutch sources (most casualties and starting place of flight), Australian sources (next in line for casualties), Indonesian sources, UK sources, German, Belgium Philippine New Zealand Canadian sources (all suffered casualties, all are therefore directly involved). And only then Russian and US sources (not directly involved). However that would blow up such sections out of all proportion. Also you second suggestion, to separately list official responses and journalistic responses is not very easy. There are in fact very few official responses. For journalistic responses we should only allow reliable outlets. For example Mad (magazine) should not be used as a reliable source. In addition, a reliable media outlet should be free to gather and report news. This opens up another can of worms as there are serious doubts about the current freedom of the press in Russia. For that reason many editors are very hesitant to accept any major Russian source as reliable. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC) I would support listing opinions in order of involvement, and uninvolved countries wouldn't necessarily have an opinion. USchick (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This dwelling on "serious doubts about the current freedom of the press in Russia" is extremely counterproductive. There are no serious doubts about that, and the reason that "many editors" are "very hesitant to accept any major Russian source as reliable" is not that there are "serious doubts", but that many editors are victims of Western anti-Russian propaganda (as the Ukraine-related article make all too clear), the ultimate origin of which is the US State Department. That "many editors" think that there is no free press in Russia is an indication that the Anglophone press is less pluralistic than the Russian press, with the Western press following an obsessive anti-Russian line from which it never deviates. The Washington Post put out a hit piece on the Russian press last September: In prosecuting his widening war in Ukraine, [Putin] has also resurrected the tyranny of the Big Lie, using state-controlled media to twist the truth so grotesquely that most Russians are in the dark — or profoundly misinformed — about events in their neighbor to the west. The day after this rant was published, a Russian Web site which publishes translations of articles from the Western press posted this WaPo editorial in Russian. So it would seem that it is Westerners who are in the dark, not Russians. This piece by a Finnish financial consultant explains how members of the Russian opposition press like to claim that they are oppressed by the government, without any basis for those claims. And you just have to look through Novaya Gazeta to see that anti-Kremlin points of view can be freely published. There is a story insinuating that rebels shelled OSCE observers, another one about how a Russian mercenary was killed in Ukraine, a story about how separatists are "provoking" Ukraine, which is "looking for new reasons not to wage war", and a story about a "Russian march of nationalists". I consider all these stories to be crude anti-Russian propaganda, and yet they get published in the Russian press. It is Ukraine that doesn't have a free press anymore. Kiev recently created a ministry of information, newspeak for ministry of propaganda. Until this move by Kiev, I was not aware of any European country having a ministry of propaganda since Nazi Germany fell. – Herzen (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Quote: "This dwelling on "serious doubts about the current freedom of the press in Russia" is extremely counterproductive. There are no serious doubts about that, and the reason that "many editors" are "very hesitant to accept any major Russian source as reliable" is not that there are "serious doubts", but that many editors are victims of Western anti-Russian propaganda (as the Ukraine-related article make all too clear), the ultimate origin of which is the US State Department. " - there is basically no sensible way that one can respond to claims like these. Everyone who thinks that freedom of press in Russia is restricted is brainwashed by the US State Department (never mind all the journalist who've been harassed or murdered, never mind all the independent outlets that have been shut down or taken over, never mind that multiple reliable sources regard state run media outlets as disinformation platforms, never mind that no serious scholar or academic in the area takes these outlets seriously). Everyone who evaluates sources according to the criteria enumarated out in WP:RS is a "victim of Western anti-Russian propaganda". Etc. It is simply impossible to engage in productive discussion - or "dispute resolution" - with someone who sincerely believes that anyone who disagrees with them is a victim/part of some big nefarious conspiracy, facts be damned. I am sorry. I am NOT wasting my time on this circus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC) This piece by a Finnish financial consultant... - Finnish financial consultant my butt. I mean, yes, he may be that, among other things (likes to self publish books) but he's basically an individual involved in extremist fringe politics (he even got kicked out of one of the fringe parties!) with very close ties to the Kremlin (he runs a Russian firm). I mean, you can just *read* that piece and see that it's idiotic crap. Quote: "We read that Leonid Bershidsky — the Russian founding editor of Vedomosti – laments that the proposed law "kills off my life's work." He sounds like an arrested serial killer wailing about all those victims he will never have the chance to kill." So somebody who complains about lack of press freedom in Russia is a "serial killer". Nice. Why are we being asked to take this seriously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Would anyone here care to self-edit their comments above before I step in and start collapsing material that talks about other editors? Regarding whether Russian sources are considered reliable, I already raised that question in anticipation of this discussion. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#Russian Media. Here is a quote from that discussion that explains how we are going to handle this: "It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories, and a final decision has not been reached. The thing we normally do in such a case is to write the most representative and prominent versions of each story, and who supports each. If, for example, all the major sources supporting story A are from one country, we should make that clear." --Guy Macon (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Using major sources per country might solve part of the problem (if we can decide what the major sources are). But still it would place Russian responses only at place 12 as there are eleven countries more directly involved. We would need some effort to reduce that; without losing relevant points of view. Suggestions to lump all non Russian reponses together as Western is problematic as a suggestion as that would remove the differences in the cautious approach of the Dutch, the even more cautious French reponse versus the fairly aggressive Australian and US responses. The only nuetral argument to lump these together in my view would be the old cold war iron curtain line. However, from this it would automatcially follow we should also lump Polish, Baltic, Ukrainian and Russian responses together. I think you all agree that would be weird in this case. Arnoutf (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC) As I pointed out in the reliable sources discussion of Russian sources, Russian sources and hence Russian responses have nothing to do with this dispute. There are two main points of contention in this dispute, as indicated by the person who started this issue in DRN. (1) The criminal investigation headed by the Dutch has two working theories: either MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile, or it was shot down by a fighter jet. The dispute here is that some editors do not want the article to note that the criminal investigation is considering the second theory. (2) The initial members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) signed a secret agreement which gave each member the power to veto what the report they produce discloses. There is a serious conflict of interest issue here, since Ukraine is a member of the JIT, and yet Ukraine is one of the two suspects for who downed MH17 (the other one being the rebels). Some editors want Wikipedia to suppress mention of this clear conflict of interest and potential compromise and politicization of the investigation, because mention of the secret agreement is allegedly undue. – Herzen (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC) As the original post also states - The "seem to support the conclusion that the plane was shot down with a rocket, but that can not yet be said with certainty" means that while the Dutch investigation does not rule out the alternative, it also does not consider it equally likely. This difference is important to the debate; we should not claim that both theories are considered equally likely (as above post implies). Also in that secret agreement they agreed to share intelligence information. There is nothing special about governments wanting to ensure their intelligence information will not be made public. It is indeed somewhat awkward that Ukraine is one of those as they may have something to hide. On the other hand without the Ukrainian agreement access to most relevant information would be impossible. All in all this whole agreement is a minor footnote in the investigation and the reporting on it so far and should not receive undue attention. Arnoutf (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC) without the Ukrainian agreement access to most relevant information would be impossible. Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. That is a ridiculous statement. The Ukrainian government doesn't even bother to pretend now that it is anything other than a puppet of the US. The US flag now flies over the SBU building. Ukraine has no information that the US does not also have. And as for "relevant information", the most relevant information when it comes to a plane crash is the plane wreckage, and the Dutch government is on the record that the reason they let weeks pass by without inspecting the plane wreckage was that because Holland is a NATO country, it cannot have any contact with the rebels. (Sorry I am not giving a link for this. This is another aspect of the story that I tried to get into the article, but was thrown down the memory hole.) – Herzen (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Herzen, this is suppose to be a dispute resolution process, not a FORUM (and yes, give link or it didn't happen).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Access to Ukrainian air traffic control data, and access to the area to recover parts of the wreck seem fairly relevant to me. Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC) What is your point? Has Ukraine released its air traffic control data to the public? Not that I know of. Why not? What has Ukraine got to hide? As for getting to the crash site, Malaysians had no difficulty with that. That is because they are not a NATO country, so they were willing to talk to the rebels. – Herzen (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Has Ukraine released its air traffic control data to the public? Not that I know of. Why not? What has Ukraine got to hide? - this is just more conspiracy crap. This is a nonsense claim that appears on all sort of wacky, fringe, troll-ish website. But in fact this data has been released - which is how we are able to cover it in the article already, see? For example [6] Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC) "It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories". No, this is not the case. Aside of numerous details, a vast majority of reliable sources claim that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists from their territory using a Buk surface-to-air missile. That is what article currently tells. The ungoing and currently incomplete investigation is just a minor detail. We simply go with sources. So, this page is actually in a satisfactory shape (unlike many other WP pages). The only reason for having this discussion are personal beliefs by some participants [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Whether or not Russian sources are reliable is a distraction in my opinion. Whenever Russian sources report something about this crash, other reliable sources pick up the story. I suggest we start with the facts and see what kind of article we come up with. There was a plane and it crashed. There's an investigation. These are facts. Then after the facts are in place, we can discuss opinions. USchick (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC) We cover what reliable sources say. "Opinions" of the non-fringe, non-conspiracy, kind are covered in reliable sources. If you try had enough you can reduce anything to "an opinion". This is just a bs rhetorical trick aimed at excluding "facts", which some users JUSTDONTLIKE by re-labeling them as "opinions".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Can we try it? Does anyone else have an objection to starting with facts? USchick (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC) This is a loaded question. All basic facts are already described in the page. In addition, I believe the minority views are already described in this section with appropriate attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC) This is really not a loaded question. In the article, the facts are buried in all kinds of opinions. I propose we look at facts only, and then decide if anything is missing. USchick (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC) If you are talking about removing or downplaying majority views on the grounds "they are not facts", then no, that would go against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC) No. I suggest we start with the facts to serve as an outline. Then decide if anything is missing. If at that point, we determine that majority views are missing, let's include them. USchick (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC) This is the heart of the problem we are discussing. Some editors, myself included, share concerns about the Russian media in general, and the Russian reporting on MH17 in particular. Other editors would like to see equal weight be given to "Russian" and "Western" sources. We can not do both. Either we give what some would view as "undue weight" to unreliable Russian sources, or, as others would view it we engage in "Western" POV. There are legitimate reasons to be critical of Russian sources concerning MH17. Most notably the issue of the "satellite photo" which alleged to show a Ukrainian fighter shooting down MH17 was almost instantly debunked. The engineer used as a source gave an interview to Buzzfeed denying what had been reported and criticizing Russian reporters. This is just one example, but it is certainly illustrative of the larger credibility problem facing Russian reporting on this issue. I think the article provides a pretty good balance as is. Perhaps it would be most helpful if we turned the discussion towards the specific disputes (1-3) that have been raised by Antonioptg.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC) The dispute is: some people want to change the article and some people don't. USchick (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC) The dispute overview prepared by Antonioptg outlines three specific issues. Is there any interest in working one by one through these topics?--64.253.142.26 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Drop-in Comment from Interwiki Projects; The linked interwiki pages seem to be aware of this issue and have simply listed them a separate versions of the events (up to five or six different versions and enumerated them). For example, the Russian version of wikipedia lists the following versions and leaves it for readers to decide which one they are most comfortable with (in the case of the Russian page, it is listed as section five): 5 Versions 5.1 Version of the involvement of the rebels 5.2 Version of the involvement of Russian military 5.3 Version of the involvement of Ukrainian military 5.4 Information in the media about the insurgents downed AN-26 5.5 Data released by the Russian security agencies 5.6 Data released by the US secret services This is one variation on an alternate approach to coverage from Interwiki Wikiprojects. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I would support this approach (as an alternate approach to my suggestion above for looking at facts.). USchick (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I am to some extent ok with 5.1 -- 5.3 but that is implicitly already there. Problematic is however that this suggests that there are three more or less equally likely theories. However section 5.4 the AN-26 issue is somewhat problematic. Sections 5.5 and 5.6 are even more problematic as these services release whatever they want. Also this structure excludes reports from e.g. the German secret service (who actually released a report in contrast to US and Russian services). I am not sure Russian Wikipedia is a very good example, as there is evidence that Russian governmental agencies have actively involved themselves in editing that page. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC) No, this version from ruwiki goes against WP:NPOV because it provides equal weight to majority view and conspiracy theories. And, yes, although ruwiki is a great source on cultural issues, articles on hot political subjects (such as that one) are frequently created there by people with a "conflict of interest". My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC) The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:WEIGHT, which is, of course points to a particular section of WP:NPOV. I encourage everyone involved to re-read it even if you think you know it backwards and forwards. Those are the basic rules that we as Wikipedia editors are required to follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I think more relevant policy is WP:Consensus. Antonioptg insists to include three pieces of text (his diff in question) without having WP:Consensus. The lack of consensus is obvious from discussions on article talk page and above on this page. Let's simply not include any disputable text without having consensus, because that is what our official guidelines require. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I am afraid that is not going to help. There has been considerable debate on the article talk page, whether the Russian position is a minority view compared to the overwhelming number of views of other countries, or whether the Russian position should be considered at comparable footing with some kind of unitary "Western block"; in which case the Russian position obviously would present much heavier weight. We have not even come close to solving that, and much of the WP:WEIGHT discussion have been bogged down by differences in that position. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I am going to ask you to stop discussing why you think DRN will not work. While the comments are in good faith and genuinely helpful, they are straying too close to talking about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 03 Folks, you are doing the exact same things that completely failed to resolve these issues when you did them on the article talk page. I asked you all to not talk about other editors. Some payed attention, but others ignored me. I asked that if someone else started talking about other editors that you not respond and leave it to me to handle. Again, some were fine with that but others decided that the rules don't apply to them. I politely requested that we keep it short and keep it short, keep it simple, and avoid either walls of text or long rapid back-and-forth discussions. Guess what happened? I want each of you to ask yourself, Do I want to resolve this content dispute or do I want to keep doing what didn't work before and sabotage the DRN process? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I'm not a party to this dispute, but you shan't solve it through discussion. The only way to solve it is through administrative action, which is why I suggested ArbCom a while ago. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Arbcom does not rule on article content disputes. DRN does not discuss user conduct issues. There may very well be a two-stage solution, where DRN resolves or fails to resolve the content dispute and then ANI or Abcom addresses any user conduct issues, but in the meantime I am going to do my best to resolve the content dispute. I am not convinced that it is unsolvable. nobody has ever tried resolving the content dispute in an environment where discussing user conduct is strictly prohibited, so we have no idea whether doing that will work. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This article has been to AN/I numerous times, with no result. This is not really a content dispute, which is why you won't be able to solve the problem. This is a matter of people on both sides of this "dispute" being WP:POINTy. RGloucester — ☎ 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC) May I humbly suggest that we work item by item through the list (1-3) that has been outlined in the dispute overview? The larger discussion of sources does not appear to be helping resolve these issues. Perhaps if we discuss the specific changes that were objected to, we may be able to make progress.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, indeed. This can be easily resolved per policies. Antonioptg insists to include three pieces of text (his diff in question) without having WP:Consensus. The lack of consensus is obvious from discussions on article talk page and above on this page. Let's not include any disputable text without having consensus, because that is what our official guidelines require. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) That may actually be useful to keep on topic. Although I have little hope this will solve future issues on the article. I hope I capture the 3 points fairly below 1) The prhase "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" in the sentence "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." 2) Addition of the following phrase: "On October 28 the Dutch government, in a letter to parliament, stated that only two options are examined by the Public Prosecutor: "An attack from the ground or an attack from the air". While the statement from the same source is omitted: "evidence seems to support the conclusion that the plane was shot down with a rocket, but that can not yet be said with certainty". 3) Addition of the following text: "According to a press release on behalf of the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Ukraine and Eurojust on August 7 the four countries signed a secret treaty that includes a non-disclosure agreement under which the signatories remain in control of the information that they themselves contribute, so they can veto the disclosure of their own data, and retain the right to keep secret the results of investigations. The press release came just before the Dutch government had to answer parliamentary questions on the issue. Malaysia did not sign the treaty and was the last to join the JIT, being accepted as a full member in late November". I would be happy to discuss these in separate subsections. Arnoutf (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC) This would be a start, and I would be willing to participate. But unless we resolve the core issues, we'll be doing this for every phrase in the article. USchick (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Maybe, and maybe not. I have seen that happen in DRN cases, but I have also seen one or maybe two specific phrases be resolved and everybody applied that same criteria throughout the article. I have also seen attempts to deal with core issues devolve into a catfight. In my opinion, we should try resolving one or two specific phrases and see where it goes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The core issue is that the US has started a fourth-generation war against Russia, but some editors are in denial about that. It is well known that Britain and France produced absurd anti-German propaganda during the lead-up to World War I: We are witnesses today to the same kind of propagandistic lies with regard to Russia that caused World War 1. In The Genesis Of The World War, Harry Elmer Barnes quotes the French chief editor of a French account of the organization of propaganda in France during World War 1. The French built a massive building called La Maison de la Presse. In this building images of people were created with hands cut off, tongues torn out, eyes gouged out, and skulls crushed with brains laid bare. These images were then photographed and “sent as unassailable evidence of German atrocities to all parts of the globe, where they did not fail to produce the desired effect.” … This vicious propaganda against Germany meant that Germany could be blamed for the war … Germany being deliriously accused of savage atrocities in the lead-up to WW I is exactly equivalent to Russia being accused of the downing of MH17. Yet some editors are too trapped in their POV to see that they are prevented from grasping reality by their cultural bias. I really don't see how a DRN discussion can solve this problem. Thus I think we should content ourselves with achieving a resolution on the three points. Arnoutf mentioned. – Herzen (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC) And yet another comment which perfectly exemplifies the reason why discussion has been completely fruitless. "US has started a war against Russia". "Some editors are in denial about that". An equivalent of Goodwin's Law violation. Irrelevant crap about some French building from WWI ?!?!! Emotional rhetoric about hands being cut off and tongues torn out. And then a completely nonsensical analogy. Either you want to discuss this seriously or you don't. Comments like these pretty much establish that you don't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC) @Arnoutf: Thank you for helping to bring the discussion back on track. Do you have any objections to the inclusion of (2) and (3)? And are you willing to deny that (1) is POV-pushing, unencylopedic and SYNTH? – Herzen (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC) So let's look at "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." WP:WEIGHT says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added). do we need the added "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" language in the middle of that? Should it not be in a statement about what NYM says instead? It looks a lot like editorializing to me, but of course my opinion doesn't matter -- only the consensus of the editors working on the page matters. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Can we focus on the crash? There are other articles about the warfare between Russia and Ukraine. If the US started a war with Russia, that's a separate article. USchick (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I agree that adding the NY Magazine remark is editorializing. Now let's see if we can an agreement on Arnoutf's points (2) and (3). – Herzen (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Perhaps it would give proper weight to have the article read "According to the Russian military, MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane." -- and then follow with a sentence saying something like "[NYM and/or name other sources] have questioned the evidence supporting these assertions OR criticized the statements of the military because...". I welcome suggestions to fine tune the second sentence.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC) [8], [9], [10], [11] -- These sources (or one of them) could potentially be used to illustrate that there has been criticism of the version provided by the Russian military, and may allow us to give proper weight.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Still too much weight through juxtaposition, in my opinion. I think anything from NYM should be in a section that neutrally reports claims that it was a Buk missile fired by Donbass separatists, and we should have a section that neutrally reports claims that it was a Ukrainian SAM or fighter plane. I don't see any need to mix the two or insert any refutation into either. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC) The question of undue weight does come into play, as there is overwhelming majority opinion that the first claim (BUK) is vastly more likely. A whole section on each theory would therefore in my view be problematic. If we can manage to condense these sections into a one or a few sentences it may work though. A line could be "The Russian military suggest MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane." (NB Russia makes no claims in formal statements that this is the case, so we should probable not use "according to Russia this is the case"). Arnoutf (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, it would be problematic; I don't think it should happen at all. Separate sections are quite similar to pro and con lists, and almost always lead to undue weight appearing. Stickee (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC) I am also concerned this would lead to False balance between Russian views and those held by media organizations outside of Russia. Time, CNN, The New Republic, NYM and others have looked at the evidence provided in Russian media and reported the Russian claims as Propaganda or Conspiracy theories. In these circumstances, I believe it would be undue to give equal prominence to the Ukrainian SAM/ fighter plane theories.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Also see these international sources of criticism: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation[12], the South China Morning Post[13], The Sydney Morning Herald[14], the Guardian[15], the Toronto Star[16], and the National Post[17]. --64.253.142.26 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, indeed. According to moderator, "It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories". No. Vast majority of reliable sources claim that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists from their territory using a Buk surface-to-air missile. That is what article currently tells. We simply go with majority view. On on the other hand, version of ruwiki (see comment above) gives equal weight to the majority view and conspiracy theories. Actually, this is a "moderate version" of the events propagated on Russian TV: everything is possible and everyone is lying. This is not the case according to RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC) That wasn't the "moderator" (DRN volunteer, actually) saying that. I quoted the discussion at the neutral sources noticeboard. And the view that the Ukrainians shot down the plane really is prominent. You are confusing whether something is prominent with whether there is evidence for it being true. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, sure. The view that the Ukrainians shot down the plane should be mentioned in the article, and it has been mentioned several times - in introduction and in this section. I simply do not see any serious problems with article content, which would warrant this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC) You are ignoring that there is now a criminal investigation underway. What the "vast majority of reliabxle sources claim" is based on nothing more than what amounts to gossip, with nothing that can be called evidence involved at all. Thus it does not matter how many "reliable sources" propound the theory which you consider to be the one and only truth: all of that material is junk and has no place in an encyclopedia. Here is what the Dutch chief prosecutor has to say about this: If you read the newspapers, though, they suggest it has always been obvious what happened to the airplane and who is responsible. But if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site. That's why we are considering several scenarios and not just one. Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I put that quotation into the article, but unsurprisingly, it was taken out, because it makes clear that the MH17 article as it currently stands is a travesty. This is because the editors who act as if they own the article are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to smear the rebels and Russia as being guilty of downing MH17, so that they in effect act as judge and jury – instead of waiting for the criminal investigation to take its course – gaming the system with the specious claim that all they are doing is following reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM again. Also discussing editors again. Also making serious discussion impossible. Again. Outright explicit rejection of Wikipedia's policy on reliable source, unintentionally and ironically, combined with unfounded bad faithed accusations that it's "the others" who are not adhering to policy. Again. Admission that reliable sources say one thing, then dismissal of reliable sources as "gossip", then a turn around and a claim that others are not following reliable sources. This is simply incoherent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC) The interview with Fred Westerbeke, chief investigator with the Dutch National Prosecutors' Office, further illustrates the risk of False balance. He also states: Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have happened differently. Obviously, a criminal investigation must consider all possibilities, but that does not mean they are treated with equal weight.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Exactly. "shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario" + "a criminal investigation must consider all possibilities" is being turned into "my favorite conspiracy deserves same weight as the most likely/reliable sources scenario or we have to remove everything but the most basic facts (a plane went down)". You want to talk WP:GAME, WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:BADFAITH? That's the essence of it right there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Did the two of you even bother to look at the diff that is linked to at the top of this DSN case? It contains the following sentcence: The letter also stated that evidence seem to support the conclusion that the plane was shot down with a rocket, but that can not yet be said with certainty. ("Rocket" here clearly means "surface to air missile", since air to air missiles are never called rockets.) Nobody has ever proposed that the fact that prosecutors are looking at two theories should be mentioned without also mentioning that prosecutors think that one theory is more likely to to be true than the other. So you are just wasting people's time with a straw man. – Herzen (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Understood, thank you. I believe we are still discussing the first issue: whether it is necessary to qualify the sentence "According to the Russian military, MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane." I will reserve my comments about the second and third issues for later.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Qualify the sentence how? Dutch prosecutors speak in terms of whether the plane was shot down by a surface to air missile or by a fighter jet, not in terms of whether it was shot down by pro-Russian rebels or the Ukrainian military. Framing the matter in the latter terms amounts to OR, as far as I can tell. – Herzen (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. What is your reply to Westerbeke's point that what is said in social media does not constitute evidence? If it's not evidence, why should Wikipedia care about such gossip? And note that removing all the gossip is not the subject of this content dispute. The main subject of this content dispute is mentioning that prosecutors are considering a second theory. Nobody has proposed giving the second theory equal weight in the article. You just accuse me of proposing that because you don't appear to have a leg to stand on anymore, when it comes to suppressing any mention of the second theory as something that is taken seriously by Dutch prosecutors, as opposed to being just a crazy Russian conspiracy theory. – Herzen (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I have been very careful here not to accuse you of anything. My concerns regarding the proper weight to place on that sentence and others arises from the reporting in Time, CNN, New Republic, NYM, CBC, South China Morning Post, Sydney Morning Herald, Guardian, Toronto Star, and National Post (as noted above). I don't think these articles can be ignored. I think Westerbeke's opinion further supports a qualification. That he says internet reports and newspaper articles are not evidence in a criminal trial, does not mean that we do not rely on them here when they amount to reliable sources. In terms of the exact words required to qualify the sentence, as noted above, I am open to suggestions.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I wouldn't mind a qualification like "Dutch investigators are also looking at the theory that has been put forward by the Russian government, that MH17 was downed by a fighter jet using a canon and/or an air to air missile." (That sentence is not meant to be a concrete proposal.) My main concern here is that the article not dismiss this second posibility as a crazy Russian conspiracy theory. That's what this dispute has basically been about since the Dutch Safety Board preliminary report came out. Some editors want the article to treat this second theory as crazy, a "conspiracy theory", and something that no one but Russians takes seriously, whereas neither of the two ongoing investigations support such a marginalization of the second theory. – Herzen (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I think we are back to the heart of the issue. I agree that there should be mention of the fighter jet theory. It is notable. At the same time, the theory does appear to warrant marginalization. At the end of the day, the information we have now suggests that MH17 was shot down by rebels equipped with a Russian Buk missile launcher. The vast majority of reliable sources support this version of events (based on official statements, witnesses at the site of the crash, admissions/inconsistencies in the events told by rebel leaders, and witnesses, photographs and video of the alleged launcher being moved back into Russia, etc). The fact that the investigations are ongoing does not negate the conclusions reached by the reliable sources. Numerous reliable sources have reported critically on the "Russian" versions or suggestions that it was a Ukrainian fighter jet. Westerbeke's own statement casts doubt on the fighter jet theory. If the Dutch investigations (or either of them) determine that the Ukrainian fighter jet theory is a real likelihood, we will certainly have to change the article. But based on the information (as expressed in reliable sources) MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile launcher from territory held by the rebels. Any suggestion to the contrary needs to be qualified with criticism of that position as expressed in the articles noted above, and in particular [18] and [19].--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 04 WARNING: ANYONE WHO CONTINUES TO TALK ABOUT OTHER EDITORS WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE THIS DRN DISCUSSION SO THAT THOSE OF US WHO CHOOSE TO OBEY THE RULES CAN TRY TO RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE WITHOUT YOUR INTERFERENCE. THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER WARNINGS. Those who reply to comments about other editors will be warned, and if the behavior persists, will be asked to leave as well. A reminder; participation in DRN is strictly voluntary, and there will be no bad consequences from either deciding to leave because you don't like our rules or being asked to leave. Furthermore, DRN has zero authority, and nothing decided here is binding. Our goal is to get all of you to come to an agreement that everyone can live with. We do, however, have rules for participating that we have found to be effective, and anyone who chooses to participate must follow those rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I think it is pretty bad when the "mediator" is writing in all caps. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC) DRN Volunteer. Not "mediator". I don't want to step on the toes of the fine folks of the Wikipedia Mediation Committee. As for the all caps, certain editors are not listening, and the Wikimedia Foundation no longer lets me travel to where they live and wake them up with a bullhorn at three in the morning. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I proposed that we move all claims of responsibility into sections using this basic structure: Section with claims that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a Buk surface-to-air missile. Subsection with criticism of the above claims. Section with claims that say the plane was shot down by Ukraine using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane. Subsection with criticism of the above claims. I think each section should neutrally report what the sources say with no inserted editorializing. I don't think we have to editorialize or do anything special to "marginalize" either POV. I think that the quality of the sources in each section will speak for themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I find that to be a reasonable solution. Other Wikipedias, the German one for example, do something similar. Finding sources for the two criticism sections may take a bit of work, but it would be worth it, since having criticism sections is a standard way of bringing about NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately, such organization of page would put on equal footing claims that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists and claims that the plane was shot down by Ukraine. However, the latter is either a conspiracy theory or a small minority view - per vast majority of RS. This proposal goes against WP:NPOV which is not negotiable per policy. (I comment here as someone who did not edit this page a lot and only occasionally took part in discussions, but familiar with the subject) My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I have to agree with My very best wishes here. Almost all of the theories about Ukraine shooting down the plane are presented as speculation ("is it a coincedence some people reported a fighter plane close to MH17") rather than an outright claim. So if we keep it to claims of people with at least some relevant authority the section is probably ending up as good as empty. Arnoutf (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Theories about the rebels shooting down the plane with Russia's help are no less speculative and conspiracy theories than the theory that Kiev shot the plane down. And more evidence has actually been made public for the case that Kiev shot the plane down, since the Russian military made public some aerial photographs showing Buk systems deployed on Kiev-controlled territory and snapshots of civilian radar, and a more detailed image from Russian civilian radar was subsequently released. The US/NATO in contrast has made absolutely no hard evidence public. You are also studiously ignoring a point I have made before: that the US is currently involved in an intense information war with Russia. Just because English Wikipedia uses the predominant language of the United States does not mean that English Wikipedia should take sides in this information war, and not following Guy Macon's proposal for how this article can attain a semblance of NPOV would involve Wikipedia's taking sides, something an encyclopedia should not do. Today, some editors are saying that "everybody knows" that the rebels shot down MH17; in 1914, similar editors would have claimed that everybody knows that German soldiers cut the hands off babies and the breasts off nuns. Why is it so hard for some Wikipedia editors to see that the West is now being subjected to anti-Russian propaganda in exactly the same way as the British and French were subjected to anti-German propaganda in the lead up to World War I? Are the educational systems in Western countries so broken down that their graduates lack any sense of historical perspective? – Herzen (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Please note that your use of "some Wikipedia editors" combined with "are the educational systems in Western countries so broken down that their graduates lack any sense of historical perspective" is coming dangerously close to talking about other editors. I strongly suggest that you and everyone else stick to content, sources, and policies, and avoid anything that could be interpreted as implying that other editors are poorly educated. And no, I do not need any comments from other editors at this point. If you think someone is talking about other editors, either ignore it or drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC) "Theories about the rebels shooting down the plane with Russia's help are no less speculative and conspiracy theories" - No, not according to reliable sources they aren't. " more evidence has actually been made public for the case that Kiev shot the plane down" - No, not according to reliable sources it hasn't. " the Russian military made public some aerial photographs showing Buk systems deployed on Kiev-controlled territory" - No, what they "made public" is some blurry satellite photos with some little tiny indiscernible black dots, which they then claimed were Ukrainian BUKs. While at the same time pushing the completely contradictory theory that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian jet. Hence, reliable sources reported this as something the Russian government claimed. Why not go ahead and claim that "the Russian media made public some aerial photographs showing a Ukrainian jet shooting down the airliner"? Oh yeah... that's right. And I strongly object to my comments being hatter or removed when Herzen is using hyperbolic and emotional language about cutting hands of babies and breasts of nuns and insulting other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Drop-in Comment from Interwiki Projects (Dutch version); In addition to the Russian wikipage posted from yesterday above, I translated the Dutch page section which deals with the Reactions material in much more detail than the English page. It appears that off-setting the material to the Reactions section simplifies the presentation of material which needs to appear in the Different Versions section covering for the incident: 5 Background 6 Blame 6.1 Theories 7 Reactions to human losses 7.1 Netherlands 7.1.1 Government 7.1.2 Custom events 7.1.3 Day of national mourning 7.1.4 National Memorial 7.2 Australia 7.3 Malaysia 7.4 Ukraine 7.5 Malaysia Airlines 7.6 International For the Dutch page who suffered the most casualties, the reaction section is covered in four sections by comparison to the others. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Does the Dutch page really not cover the reaction by Russia, or is that in another section? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC) @Guy Macon; The Dutch page does have a shorter section on various Opinions regarding the reconstruction of the incident including Russia's view (which it seems to consider as still in process), though its most developed section is on the Reactions to human loss (which it seems to consider as having historically taken place). FelixRosch (TALK) 18:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I challenge the assertion that one side is a (significant) minority view. The article says "According to the poll conducted by the Levada Center between 18 and 24 July 80% of Russians surveyed believed that the crash of MH17 was caused by the Ukrainian military. Only 3% of respondents to the poll blamed the disaster on pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine" and the Washington Post says "Almost no one in Russia is buying the story that the rest of the world accepts". Read WP:WEIGHT again. The standard for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is not evidence. it is prominence. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Totally agree. Thank you. And without any evidence, it's all speculation anyway. USchick (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC) No, according to WP:NPOV, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. The majority and minority views are defined exclusively by the sources, not by public opinion polls. One could just as easily appeal to public opinion in the Soviet Union. In addition, the Levada Center has been frequently accused of producing fake results. Now, according to WP:NPOV, the claims that the plane was shot down by Ukraine should be also represented. And they are indeed represented in a separate section. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC) The key here is understanding the different standards we use here on Wikipedia for different types of information. If someone wanted to, say, put information into an article saying that Wikipedia user USchick is the current king of France, that would require evidence that you actually are the current king of France. If, however, they tried to put information into an article saying that Wikipedia user USchick claims to be the current king of France, you saying that you are the current king of France is all the evidence we need. That alone is not enough to justify inclusion, though; one would also have to show that the claim is notable. If, for example, multiple reliable sources reported your claim -- even if every one refuted it -- that would be enough for us to include it in a Wikipedia article, along with reactions to the claim. If the only source is me using it here as a silly example, then it would not be allowed in an article. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC) The problem here is that nobody contests that the majority of the Russians believes in the Russian view. The article is not about views on MH17 within the Russian population. For the article it is the official view of a country that matters in my opinion. That view remains the view of a single country. So the question is whether a single country's opinion is a significant minority opinion in the light of the vast majority of other countries reporting on this. Arnoutf (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia policy is clear. The government of Russia making a claim is more than enough to establish that the claim is notable and prominent. Every reliable source that discusses the Russian claim -- even if only to refute it -- adds to the claim's notability and prominence, just as any reliable source that discusses the claim that USchick is the current king of France (even sources that point out that France no longer has a monarchy) would add to the claim's notability and prominence. That's how Wikipedia works. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Fair enough. The problem remains however that the government of Russia has not made a claim. Several Russian officials have speculated about possible alternative explanations and raised doubts but none of these seem to have been backed by governmental support.Arnoutf (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC) From the article: "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.[20] According to the Russian military [...] MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainians, using either a surface to air missile or a fighter plane.[21][22]". Please note that that last WSJ ref is titled "Russia Presents Its Account of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Crash", not "Several Russian officials have speculated about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Crash". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC) So, this is already said in the article. Fine. What else do you possibly want? Give it the same weight as the opposite theory supported by nearly all other sources? My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC) In any case, the WSJ article is from 21 July, 3 days after the crash when much less was known. That specific claim has to my knowledge not been officially supported after that time. These are all arguments we have had over and over again on the talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I strongly disagree with Mr Macon's proposed approach. Providing separate sections for separate theories is a recipe for WP:GEVAL and WP:BALASPS. One needs to give adequate weight to each theory, in line with what reliable sources say on the subject. One cannot create multiple concurrent narratives, but maintain the weight that reliable sources give to each of them. However, it must be acknowledged that all of these are theories, and not necessarily reality. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Agree with RGloucester. Providing seperate sections for separate theories, including ones which are not taken seriously by reliable sources, is NOT how we write encyclopedia articles. It's also a blueprint for a crappy article and one which serves as a continual POV-magnet ("you put these other wacky theories in, therefore you must include my favorite crazy theory in!"). I'd like to point out that DNR cannot override Wikipedia policies, or guidelines, and especially not pillars. We rely on reliable sources. That's it. We don't bend that basic, fundamental pillar of an encyclopedia to placate the whims of disaffected users.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC) My addendum to the Netherlands translation above left out the "Theory" section which is maintained there which is not present in many other of the Interwiki versions, possibly as an oversight. I have added the missing section by section number in the Netherlands outline above. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC) For the record, there is no evidence that I am not the king of France. According to Obama, Putin is "directly responsible" for safety in Ukraine [23]. And this guy claims Obama is "Indirectly Responsible" for the crash [24] Let me know when you decide to go with facts. When you have wild accusations flying around, who can argue with facts??? USchick (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC) However different, both opinion pieces agree on one thing: the plane was indeed shot down either by the rebels or by Russian military who guided the Buk, because that is what vast majority of publications tell. According to Obama, "Vladimir Putin, should be held "directly responsible" for ensuring the site of the Malaysian aircraft downed in eastern Ukraine is made accessible to international investigators" [because he controls the rebels]. According to people who criticize Obama, "The blood on Vladimir Putin’s hands was poured by Barack Obama, who is indirectly responsible, accountable and no different than Neville Chamberlain’s weakness in the face of the 20th Century maniacal dictator Adolf Hitler". This is just another clear indication what is the majority view on this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC) One can't really draw conclusions about what "the majority view on this subject" is based on what appears in the Western media. A recent poll found that 63% of Germans have "little or no trust" in the coverage by German media of the Ukraine. This is compared to 53% for the coverage of the Islamic State and 40% for coverage about the recent strike of German locomotive drivers. When respondents who said that they do not trust German media when it comes to Ukraine were asked why they have mistrust, 31% gave the reason as "coverage is one-sided/not objective", 18% said that "the coverage does not correspond to reality", and 9% said "the coverage is imprecise/not sufficiently comprehensive". (Download the PDF file to see reasons that fewer people gave.) Thus, most Germans understand that when it comes to coverage of events in Ukraine, German media are particularly untrustworthy. Since the coverage by German media does not differ from coverage by Anglophone media (if anything, German media let more objective reporting trickle through occasionally), one can conclude from that that most Germans find Western coverage as a whole of the Ukraine crisis to be unreliable. Why a majority of Germans can understand this, while some editors of English Wikipedia are in denial about this, is beyond me. – Herzen (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC) First, you're clearly cherry picking sources. Second, I'm not even sure if this source is reliable for this particular piece of info (it may be reliable for other stuff). This is one poll, conducted by... a public radio station? Published in a section which speaks of "Deep insight into the development and abysses of the media, the system and all the rest.". It's probably fine in the "Media portrayals" article where you put it, but as far as this article goes, what it does is prove that yes indeed, media and reliable sources are pretty unanimous in what happened (even if the fact that most Germans don't trust their media is true, that does not make the relevant sources unreliable. We are not most German people, but an encyclopedia).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC) I was wondering whether this still sufficiently relates to the first point raised: 1) The prhase "in what the New York Magazine called Russia's Conspiracy Theory" in the sentence "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.". In my view this is about what to do with the Russian (informal) claims about Ukrainian fighters and SAMs. Summarising it appears about half of us think this is already mentioned frequently enough in sentences throughout the article; and that this is enough since it is not the officially endorsed Russian government position. The other half thinks this warrants more attention; for example by creating a section on these theories. (I hope I summarised this fairly as I belong to the editors who think it is already covered enough I may implicitly favour that position). I don't know how to take this further as these positions are unlikely to be combined in a compromise. Any suggestions? Arnoutf (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC) I am abandoning my initial 4-section suggestion, based on opposition to the idea here and on comments at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#WP:WEIGHT for prominent but widely criticized viewpoints. Any solution has to be acceptable to all. Regarding the above comment, on what basis do you say that a statement by the Russian Ministry of Defense is is not the officially endorsed Russian government position? Is there something in the original Russian sources that I am missing here? On the issue as to whether these positions are unlikely to be combined in a compromise, see the section below. This theory has been mentioned once only by a Russian governmental official, at a time almost nothing was known. After that time no Russian official has confirmed/stood by that claim. Since that time official Russian claims have been much more cautious; only suggesting this as one option not the truth. So while this may have been the original Russian response immediately after the downing of MH17 there is no reason to assume this is still the case. Arnoutf (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC) That argument makes no sense whatsoever. Russia does not need to explicitly keep affirming this position. Russia has consistently maintained that it had nothing to do with the downing of MH17. Since Ukraine has denied that the rebels captured one of its Buk launchers, that means that if Russia was not complicit in the downing of MH17, the perpetrator must have been Kiev. This is so obvious that Russia does not have to keep on repeating this explicitly. – Herzen (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC) This is a very good point. It would be very interesting to hear an opposing argument. USchick (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC) It is a typical example of an original idea, which we cannot use. So it does not need any opposing argument to ignore it. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Your bizarre claim that Russia no longer endorses the idea that Kiev shot MH17 down is an original idea. – Herzen (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC) If Kiev denies a BUK was captured and Russia denies being involved and Kiev denies having shot down the plane (which they do) the only conclusion can be that the plane was never shot down......... or someone is lying. When parties are lying nothing is obvious. Arnoutf (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I think we can all agree that (1) the plane was shot down (I just had to revert an edit according to which this fact is "presumed") and (2) someone is lying. There is no point in my saying anything more, since, as Guy Macon noted, this DRN case appears to have failed. – Herzen (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC) It hasn't failed yet. This point seems to be the main disagreement. Since this is a Russian claim, would it be reasonable to accept a Russian source for making this claim? If not Russian, what source would be acceptable? How about Malaysian? USchick (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Be specific. What claim and what source? Better yet, provide an example of the actual change. And please. Do NOT drag out that Malaysia Times article that is based on a loony conspiracy website again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion 05 It is beginning to look like this content dispute cannot be resolved, but I am going to keep trying for at least a few more days. Let me explain the advantages of arriving at a compromise here, even if you don't get everything you want. This is very likely to be submitted to Arbcom if I close this as failed. I can't speak for arbcom, but if I can close this as resolved, they may very well decide to not accept the case. Unlike DRN, Arbcom does not deal with content disputes, nor do they try to get people to compromise and/or agree. Instead, they deal with user conduct issues, and the tools they use to enforce their decisions are topic bans, blocks, and site bans. Unlike DRN volunteers, who purposely have zero authority other than persuasion, Arbcom is the ultimate authority on the English Wikipedia. If you hang on to your position here and cannot find it in your heart to compromise and accept part of what you wanted, there is a very real chance that Arbcom is going to act in such a way that you will get none of what you wanted. You may very well end up as a spectator, forbidden to edit this or any related article. You may very well end up not being allowed to interact in any way with certain other editors. And you might end up not being able to edit Wikipedia at all. Even if you are 100% sure that any Arbcom ruling will favor you, keep in mind that Arbcom is good but they are not perfect, and mistakes are possible. So I would advise everyone here to look deep into your hearts and try to find some area, no matter how minor, where you are willing to compromise. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your advice! Here is my advice to DRN volunteers. First of all, please do not take any requests submitted by POV-pushing SPA with significant block record. Second, please check wikipedia page in question. Do not take the case if the page was in a good condition, because it means that wikipedia community has been able to already resolve the problem. In all such cases your involvement will not be productive. Finally, you need to know the subject to help. Now, speaking about arbitration, this subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions. If anyone has complaints on behavior by specific users, this should be submitted to WP:AE. Only if AE administrators are unable to deal with the problem, that indeed could go to Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC) User:My very best wishes, please withdraw from this DRN case for 24 hours, starting with the time I post this comment. Everyone has been given ample warnings regarding talking about other editors, and "POV-pushing SPA with significant block record" is unacceptable behavior. If it happens again, it will be 48 hours. Everyone else, thank you for not responding. keep up the good work. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved user; The interwiki page for the Netherlands version of this page reports that the update from the Dutch Safety Board appointed internationally to oversee the investigation was updated on 9 December with the following report; "December 9, 2014 "Recovery of the wreckage of flight MH17, commissioned by the Dutch Safety Board, began at the crash site on Sunday, November 16, 2014. The recovery was preceded by a long period of preparations. To enable the recovery of wreckage, the Dutch Safety Board agreed certain arrangements with the Ministry of Disaster Management with regard to handing over the wreckage and SES (the Ukraine State Emergency Service) assistance. These documents have now been published. The first document concerns the recovery of the wreckage. The second concerns the period subsequent to the recovery. "On December 9, 2014, two of the four convoys carrying wreckage have arrived at Gilze-Rijen air force base. The transport will be unloaded in accordance with a fixed procedure and will then be photographed, scanned and categorised. The investigation of the wreckage and preparation for the reconstruction effort will then commence." As I am uninvolved here and only translating from the Netherlands page, users should note that Netherlands is awaiting the final investigation report due for completion within about 6 months. As a temporary solution to the debate on the English wikipedia version, it may make sense to insert an opening comment or reference to the concern that all analysis of the event are tentative subject to the final report due in 6 months. In any event, the Netherlands version of this page currently has twice as much emphasis on the human losses in this crash, rather than speculative and partial attempts at forensic reconstruction without having the final report. The current "Theory" section is kept to a bare minimum until the final report is released. Possibly such a temporary six-months measure might be of use at the English version of this page. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC) There is no need for any "measures" because article is in a great shape, thanks to excellent work by numerous contributors. Saying that, one could certainly make more emphasis on the human losses by adding more materials. The future results of the ungoing investigation must also be included when published, although they will not be an ultimate answer. But this has been discussed already on article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC) As a general rule, articles that are in great shape don't end up at ANI multiple times, at DRN with a good chance that the result will be "failed", and (likely) at arbcom. (Note that My very best wishes cannot answer until tomorrow. I have no problem with waiting). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC) So, here is the question: why do we have a lot of terrible pages, which do not appear on ANI, and a few pages in a much better condition which appear on ANI and DRN? The answer: such discussions have almost nothing to do with the quality of pages, but only with the subjects (more popular subjects attract more people who happens to disagree) and with people. Some people simply do not want to peacefully negotiate with others on article talk pages and drop the issue when WP:Consensus is not on their side, but complain on various noticeboards. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC) This is a classic ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And you have no basis for your assertion. Articles which are in great shape DO wind up at ANI multiple times and at DRN with good chance of failure when they concern controversial topics and involve users who are WP:NOTHERE (that may be "talking about other editors", but you brought up the issue of why this has wound up at ANI and here, and that issue cannot be addressed without stating this fact).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC) To provide some context, here is a blog post about the downing of MH17 by David Swanson, who is best known for opposing the war with Iraq. Swanson is American and has absolutely no specific interest in Russia or Ukraine. His main guiding principle is being against war. Swanson appears to be instinctively skeptical about the story that the Western media have presented about the downing of MH17. And I would say that Swanson is representative of people everywhere in Western countries – both on the left and on the right – who are critical of US foreign policy. The thinking among such people is that in the same way that the Anglophone media lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction (a main interest of Swanson's), it is now lying about the theory that Ukrainian rebels shot down MH17 being an open and shut case. Thus the discussion about MH17 at Wikipedia has been skewed, because it has been cast in terms of Russian media versus the Western media. But this ignores Western anti-war sentiment, which aligns with the Russian point of view when it comes to MH17. The reason that Western anti-war sentiment is ignored at Wikipedia when it comes to Ukrainian articles is the Wikipedia policy of treating corporate media but not alternative media as reliable sources. I don't know if this issue has been discussed before at Wikipedia. If it hasn't it should be. Alternative media such as blogs now serve the function that samizdat served under the Soviet Union. Thus, having a blanket policy that corporate media are inherently more reliable than alternative media leads to grave bias. – Herzen (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This is an untenable position, and demonstrates why this dispute is not a content dispute, but a dispute with the very foundations of the project. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Before we decide that this dispute is doomed to failure, I would like to point out that one idea has not been explored yet. The idea of starting with facts. Are we ready to try this before we give up? Please? USchick (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Yes this "idea" has been discussed before. It was more or less the subject of the recently closed RfC. As pointed out above this "idea" is a loaded question. It's basically asking - like the flawed RfC - for a blanket permission to remove any material that you, or some other editor, simply DOESN'TLIKE. The "facts" are that reliable sources, relying on "facts" available, put the blame on the separatists. Now. Here is the question which is actually relevant to this dispute: "Do you plan on adhering to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources?" This *might* sound like a loaded question, and under most circumstances it would be, but given that several editors have more or less explicitly expressed the sentiment that they don't think we should adhere to this policy on this article, it's quite pertinent. So... reliable sources, yes or not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Is this question to me? Yes, I support using reliable sources. I proposed reliable sources on the talk page, but they were dismissed as "flawed articles." The "idea" has been dismissed without any serious discussion, and never implemented. The "facts" don't put any blame anywhere because they are facts and not opinions. As a last effort, maybe we should consider it. This is my last comment about this, because I don't want to start another argument. USchick (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved user: "Facts" are slippery. That the sun rises in the east and sets in the west every day is a fact. But there is another fact beneath that fact--that the daily movement of the sun across the sky is only apparent and the result of the earth's rotation. It all comes down to interpretation in the end. And that is not just any interpretation, but interpretation by reliable sources. Thus, the bare listing of "facts" is not going to lead anywhere because the interpretation of those facts by reliable sources will always be involved. So the fundamental questions here are "How reliable is the Russian media and what weight should it be given?" There is no such thing as "Western media" as identifying an entity such as that requires some sort of centralized control. There is no centralized control over "Western media". There is, however, a clearly defined "Russian media" with centralized control from the Kremlin. So Russian media consists of one, and only one, data point, while "Western media" consists of multiple data points. But the true believers in the Russian narrative will be unlikely to admit this. The root of this article's problem is the problem we face in every single article dealing with the conflict in Ukraine: we are dealing here not with facts or neutral reporting or interpretation by reliable sources, but by "true believers" in the Russian narrative. As such, there is more in common here with articles on religion than there is with articles on historical events. --Taivo (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Since we haven't tried this approach, there's no way of knowing how it's going to turn out. We can start with bare indisputable facts and then decide if anything needs to be explained with opinions. To take the idea about the Sun, the curve of the Earth may have been the first way to prove it. It was a theory only until space travel became available, and now it's a fact. Anyone who wants to go up in space can verify it for themselves. USchick (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I am not against limiting to facts. In fact I have repeatedly supported that before on article talk. The undeniable facts are limited: Plane was shot down above Ukraine. Many people died. Lots of fuss and finger pointing in international media. Most of the debate including the current discussion is about how much about the fuss should be in or out. Arnoutf (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. For an "uninvolved user", you are pretty involved, since you just made a personal attack on me with your "true believers" and "religion" remark. As for "there is no centralized control over 'Western media'": there doesn't have to be. Western media were very successful in convincing Americans that Saadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was complicit in 9/11. The American media very successfully lied the American people into a disastrous war. MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for not joining in the drumbeat to war. No "centralized control" was necessary. Nothing comparable has ever happened in post-Soviet Russia. As for your xenophobic claim that Russian media is "centrally controlled from the Kremlin": the existence of news outlets such as Novaya Gazeta and Echo of Moscow demolishes it. – Herzen (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Finally, it is just plain silly to accuse Russia of "centrally controlling" its media, when it is Ukraine that has a Ministry of Propaganda, not Russia. Judging by the disambiguation page, the only other countries to have ministries of "information" are Burma, Cambodia, Egypt, Israel, Bahrain, Singapore, and Iran. That is the company that Ukraine keeps after the coup. – Herzen (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC) This "let's just stick to the facts" idea is not going to fly, and it was not taken seriously before (like in the failed RfC) simply because it is 1) way too vague and 2) not based on Wikipedia policy. More. The way it's being presented and pushed here (and on the article talk page) is explicitly *in violation* of Wikipedia policy. This is because it seeks to circumvent the requirement that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources; it tries to have them be written on users' fancy ("I don't think this is a fact, so I'm removing it because "I JUST DONT LIKE IT!"). Specifically, what in the article is NOT a fact? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Also, doesn't anyone here find it strange that we haven't heard a peep from the account that filed this request in almost two weeks? That is, since they filed the request? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC) No, this is not strange. This guy is smart. He did not show up. Do not you think that each of us would spend his/her time more productively by doing something else instead of squabbling on this noticeboard? My very best wishes (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Not a fact: anything that starts out as "The Ukrainian government says," "Russian government claims," "social media website attributed to," "Russian President Putin said," "United States President Barack Obama said." These are people blowing smoke. Let's clear the air and see what we have, and then go from there. For starters, do we all agree on the first paragraph? Is there anything there that's not a fact? I think it's a very accurate summary. Do we need to take a vote? Or how do we want to show agreement/disagreement? USchick (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Nope, those are all facts. It is a fact that the "The Ukrainian government (said) the missile was launched by "Russian professionals and coordinated from Russia"". In fact, it's a very notable fact. It is a fact that the "Russian government blamed the Ukrainian government." In fact, it's a very notable fact. It is also a fact that "a post appeared on the VKontakte social media website attributed to Igor Girkin". And in fact, this too is a very notable fact, as evidenced by the fact that it was covered in sources such as The Guardian and Christian Science Monitor. And also it is a fact that "Barack Obama said the United States would help determine the cause". Now this one, ok, the way it's worded is a bit trite and could be put better. But it's still a fact. So, again, what in the article is NOT a fact? And no, we don't decide NPOV by a vote, as you've been told a dozen times. The first paragraph is fine. Also, you do realize that two out of the four lines of texts you claimed were not "facts" are actually in that very first paragraph which you then say is a "very accurate summary". So which is it? Make up your mind, either these are things you want to remove, or it's a "very accurate summary", you can't have both. Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. @MVBW - yup, chances are that editor's moved onto their next account (and I have some suspicions about that) and this request was just a provocation; since these things always get heated somebody might end up getting sanctioned. Speaking of that, @User:Herzen, I'm going to give you half a day for you to strike your accusations about xenophobia that you make above. I've asked you, and warned you, repeatedly to stop making baseless accusations against other editors about supposed Russophobia, racism, xenophobia etc. You keep persisting in this behavior, and I've had enough, I've given you third, fourth, fifth chances on this. Strike it, or I will file a AE report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Closing case as failed. Little progress has been made in coming to an agreement, but I had not yet given up hope that we might have reached some sort of compromise on at least a couple of issues. Alas, some of the recent comments have convinced me that multiple participants are simply unwilling to abide by the simple DRN rules ("Please discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.") so rather than spend more time acting like a cop, I am closing this case as failed. I do appreciate the work all of you have put into this, and i apologize to those of you who obeyed the rules. Here is the place where I traditionally give my opinion as the where to go next. (Which you can ignore if you choose; by design dispute resolution volunteers here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard have zero authority and our opinions should not carry any extra weight.) This is a tough one: It has been to ANI several times, At least one RfC has been tried, and there has been enough talk page discussion to fill a small encyclopedia by itself. Furthermore, there are similar issues on other pages, some including participants that have not gotten involved in the Flight 17 page. Given the above, I must reluctantly conclude that this should be sent to Arbcom, and if Arbcom accepts it and there are any remaining article content issues after Arbcom has dealt with the user conduct issues, a new DRN case can be opened with the editors who don't end up blocked or topic banned. I have followed every Arbcom case for may years, and I have advice for anyone filing one: First, it is really, really helpful to start with a short, neutral description of the problem (no emotions; calm, cool, and evidence-based wins here) followed by a list of all the venues where these issues have failed to be resolved. Again, just the facts. Also, if you don't diffs showing a particular behavior, don't bring it up, and make sure that the diff actually shows what you say it shows. Finally, ask for help. Write up your arbcom case on a subpage of your talk page and ask various editors (especially those named in it) to critique and improve it. Tweak it and polish it before submitting it to Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.