Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

Shot down

Hey, I'm not a wiki editor so I'll leave it to you guys and gals. But, international standard aviation altitudes are actually measured in feet. This "33000 feet" is the correct usage.

Change this line: This is the second time a Malaysia Airlines aircraft has been involved in a serious incident in 2014, after Flight 370 disappeared en route to Beijing on 8 March 2014. - it shouldn't say involved, it should say 'victim of', being involved means they orchestrated(in part) in this context

Reports from Interfax and Reuters are saying this was shot down. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

reportedly shot down by a buk missile - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system - the plane would be within range even at maximum cruising altitude for a 777. "..can begin tracking at the missile's maximum range (32 km/20 mi) and can track aircraft flying at between 15 m and 22,000 m (50 to 72,000 ft) altitudes. It can guide up to three missiles against a single target." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.38 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is the Buk missile system known to be in the possession of the pro-Russian separatists? --Bruzaholm (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, if you can read Russian, official Russian source announced separatists had BUKs in late June [1]. Also, separatists have acknowledged shooting down a plane at exactly this time in exactly this location, thought they have (mis)identified it as a Ukrainian military transport plane: [2], again, from an official Russian source. 128.68.133.170 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Very interesting link. Is it established who supplied the pro-Russia separatist with the surface-to-air missile in question? At which side of the Ukrainian-Russian border were the missiles originally used? --Bruzaholm (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Per National Public Radio out of Boston, the plane was late/not arriving at the time expected in Russia, and then it was found burning on the ground in Eastern Ukraine. This was at 12:07 EST.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/17/malaysia-airlines-jet-reportedly-crashes-in-ukraine/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Fox News just reported that Ukraine shot it down with a BUK. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That article said no such thing. It said that all evidence points to Russian Separatists shooting down that plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorlord (talk • contribs) 00:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Codeshares

It was codesharing with KLM as KL4103 should we mention that? Were there other codeshares on this flight? Arnoutf (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added the KLM codes (at the same time as your comment). – Editør (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I moved this to a footnote earlier, but now we have the full KLM flight numbers too. It really clutters up the lead, so I moved it back to the footnote. No reliable sources are using the KLM flight number, so it's not something that makes sense to bold. A footnote makes the most sense since we can fully describe it as a codeshare there. (I'm following what the MH370 article does on this.) 9kat (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• @9kat: I think the KLM code is worth mentioning in the lead as many Dutch news sources are mentioning the KLM no. and the large no. of Dutch pax suggests a majority of the pax booked the KLM flight. Nathan121212 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What happened with MH370 and the China Southern codeshare? Is the KLM code being used much more than it was in that case, in Dutch media vs Chinese media? The few Dutch sources I found that mention KL4103 mention both. If it was being used as the sole primary name in most Dutch sources, there might be some merit, but I'm not sure that's the case. The footnote does a better job of explaining it than just including a bunch of cluttered letters and numbers possibly could. 9kat (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

last known position

08:11AM 51.2265 24.8316 107° East 562MPH 33,000 http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/1000Z/EHAM/WMKK/tracklog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.135.38 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's a primary source and is unusable. Abductive (reasoning) 17:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[Can't use primary sources?] 78.148.157.47 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are not inherently usableLihaas (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for uncontested information such as census reports for towns in Canada or something. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

FlightAware's last reported position means nothing more than that being the edge of their detection capability. HkCaGu (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Aviation Herald has an approximate crash site, and is a RS. It states "the ELT of the aircraft was recorded at position N48.1230 E38.5258." Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fatalities

I've removed the fatality/survivor count from the article, as it was reading "Fatalities: 295; Survivors: 295", which looks rather jarring. As we don't know anything yet, just the number of people on the plane is sufficient. Microchip08 (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that shouldn't be there. The sources will have actual, confirmed information soon enough. 9kat (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

People falling down from 10km usually do not survive.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

While an RS is certainly needed, the Russians are saying it was at 33,000 feet when it was hit, and witnesses are saying body parts are strewn around the crash site in a wide area, so it is virtually certain there are no survivors. So tragic. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

While we can be reasonably certain that everyone on board is now dead following such a catastrophic destruction of the plane, it's not our job to perform original research: no doubt reports from reliable sources of the level of fatality will be forthcoming soon. -- The Anome (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Note my statement about an RS. No-one's saying move forward w/o one. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where the discrepancy is currently coming from but latest reports are over 300 dead. Possibly people on the ground? [3] CaptRik (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorced!The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

Picture

How do you know that the infobox picture is one of 9M-MRD ? I don't see that in the file description on Commons and I can't see the tail number at that resolution. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The letters "RD" are clearly visible on the nosewheel door. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitive proof can be found at the original source: [4]. See the notes section.--v/r - TP 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The image has been changed to one showing the aircraft in an earlier livery. Should it be changed back? Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

I have already made many useful edits to this page whilst not logged in ( ip=91.125.15.174). I have now made this new account. Flyer500 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Has there been disruptive editing? While it is almost certain there will be POV-pushers soon, can we pre-emptively do this on Wiki? I am not objecting, just wondering what the majority opinion is on the guidelines . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have also made this new account to protect other useful edits, because some vandal is removing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. After you have made 10 edits and your account is 4 days old, your account will become autoconfirmed and will automatically be enabled to edit this semi-protected article. Requests to decrease the page's protection level should be directed to the protecting admin, Reedy (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reedy (talk · contribs) made this page protected. I suppose it is just because of the fact that it was him, he is now the protecting admin. Can the protecting admin be changed? IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No. If you continue to persist, I am going to block you per WP:NOTTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just asking for now, not persisting.IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ymblanter - calm down. What is it that makes you think threats are appropriate or that WP:NOTHERE applies at all? You really just went from 0-60 in .2 seconds there. Reedy, who created this article and has edited it extensively, has protected this article and violated WP:INVOLVED to remove Russian sources that he doesn't like because he prefers English sources against policy.--v/r - TP 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Do not you see that all the contribution of this user (which is all in the last hour) consists of the accusations of Reedy in vandalism and in bad faith assumptions against them? They have zero contribution in the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I myself removed several Russian sources because they were not reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I assume this user is the IP that was adding the sources. Besides, if you have been removing sources then you as well are involved and shouldn't be making threats or issuing blocks. Reedy has been removing Russian sources because "Russian references are useless on an english site" against Wikipedia:Verifiability#Quoting_non-English_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Then Reedy protected the article despite being heavily involved.--v/r - TP 17:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Then go to ANI and make the case there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reedy also removed useful edits made by other users, for example Ilya. Fortunatelly this informations were brought back over time and currently they are included in the article. It is recorded in the history. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a note from the guideline: "However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available" - this event is all over the news and heavily covered in English sources - unless the non-English source has unique information not found via English-language RS's, then they really should not be usedon enWIKI. Just FYI.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here - lets be straight about this. The article will be kept in as neutral tones as possible, quoting from reliable sources wherever possible. Said sources are not, repeat not, required to be neutral, that is our job. The semi-protection is valid IMVHO, for the reasons given when it was imposed. Where an involved admin makes a move that any other reasonable admin may have come to of their own volition, generally, that move may be seen as permissible. This is a hot topic at the moment, and is directly linked from the Main Page. Once things die down a bit, we can look at unprotecting the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED says "any admin" not "any one admin". I'm an admin, I wouldn't have protected it. The reasons for protection was the use of Russian sources. Russian sources are not disallowed per the two policy links I gave above. The admin's reason for protection directly flies in the face of policy. Besides being involved, would you protect an article with a reason that directly contradicts policy? The admins reason for protection is simply that he prefers English sources. Are you saying that you would protect a page to ensure your preference for sources it met? On the issue of being a current event, we don't protect articles simply for being a current event. There has been no vandalism, and there are plenty of eyes on this to guard against spam.--v/r - TP 18:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: the reason given for protection was "Reference and link spam", which is a valid enough reason for me. Now, with foreign sources, I agree that non-English RSs are allowable. However, it we have an English source and a non-English RS saying the same thing, we go with the English one. With this particular article, I would expect that we would draw on Dutch, Ukrainian, Russian and Malay sources, as well as those in English. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen the ANI report on what the protecting admin considers to be reference and link spam? Take a look at his edit two minutes after the protected. This was obviously a non-policy complaint reason for protection. You should save your efforts to justify this for a case with more merit.--v/r - TP 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, hang on. A new editor tries some edits, has them reverted. They think that's considered vandalism (because many new editors do think that). They get threatened with a block for still calling it vandalism, even though nobody thought to tell them the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Have I got this right? the panda ₯’ 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think not. It was like: A user and an IP add some information linking the carsh with sepatatists, backed by Russian sources. Reedy (talk · contribs) removes them both and comments this with some strange opinion that only English sources are ok. So I brought back one of these deleted paragraphs. Then Reedy (talk · contribs) protects the article and I cannot edit, so I write here and call him a vandal. Maybe this call is not compliant with some policy or precuations, I am concerned. IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Images of crash site

The New York Daily News has some images of the crash site up. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

All of which are copyright-protected, we can't submit to Commons. Need a freely-given image.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect to post them, but they are useful for research/confirmation of what the sources are saying. For instance, the plane seems to have missed any buildings. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I put it in ELLihaas (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki to uk:

We're currently linking directly to Ukranian Wikipedia's article on uk:Hrabove; should this be a redlink instead? Microchip08 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a valid link, but it should be clear that it is a link to a foreign language article. Will fix it. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

en:Wiki article has been created. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Useless section (aka, International Reactions - NPOV issue)

The international reactions section is really nonsensical, it should be removed. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have always disliked them. Perhaps the list could be trimmed of statements that don't indicate any action being taken? Abductive (reasoning) 17:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, these are standard for this sort of article, and I disagree - they add important information.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• • The list needs to be turned into paragraph/prose format and the reactions need to be more than just quotes. Who is starting investigations? Who is accusing whom? Who is providing aide or expertise to the investigation, ect?--v/r - TP 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Standard by what measure? We go by WP:CONSENSUS here. The Twitter sources are WP:PRIMARY and per WP:TWITTER only to be used about themselves, which they seem to be slightly overextended to build a section. For that reason alone I would remove those ones. The flags detract, and don't fit the loss of life. Widefox; talk 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is in all such pages and endless debates have ngone nowehere. At any rate, lets wait for the issue to settle down (or heat u[p) as its likely to do nowLihaas (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone has gone an uput the falgs up..Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

These were arbitrarily removed twice but someone who thinks he is the arbiter of importance [5][6] Bildt and McCain's warring rhetoric is certainly notable by any imaginationLihaas (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that reactions from Ukraine, the rebels (for lack of a more neutral term), Russia, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the USA and France should be considered notable enough. The first three due to the area in which the plane went down and the conflict going on in that region. Malaysia and the Netherlands due to it being a plane from Malaysian Airlines, which came from Schiphol in the Netherlands and had a LOT of Dutch people aboard and the USA and France because both are also confirmed to have had people of that nationality aboard. If people of other nationalities are confirmed to have been aboard, the appropriate countries should probably included as well. However, I do agree that reactions from, say, Sweden--which does not seem to have any particular connection to the plane or flight--and other nations not connected to this disaster should probably not be added unless there is something in them that would make them particularly notable and relevant. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Im in favor of keeping the section as it is notable and the standard on pages such as these. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not actually standard they are normally a reaction to the press reports when nothing else is known and in most articles will dissapear when the dust has settled. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, here on Wikipedia we even have full articles on reactions to events, seeing that this crash is caught up in another event I consider the reactions from different countries notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Still not convinced that a foreign politician like Senator McCain views are that important outside of the United States. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Important enough to have already been mentioned in two reliable Dutch sources, in any case. BNR Nieuwsradio ("BNR Newsradio"), a national radio-channel. Algemeen Dagblad, one of the large newspapers in the Netherlands. Possibly more, that's just from a quick glance at google. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. McCain is a big-wig on foreign relations committees and defense committees in the USA, and his input/influence can directly influence the U.S. tangible reactions to this event - he isn't some junior representative from Bumsquat, Iowa - he's a very powerful man.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If McCain is being quoted outside of the U.S then I withdrawn by objection to him. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• United States vice-president Joe Biden is set to give a statement soon (Watching CNN here). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lihaas, please ensure you modify or open a section with "NPOV" in it when you toss a tag on. It may be obvious to you, but to others it may be very hard to find on the TP. I have modified this section's title to that effect.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

NP, it was created by soimeone else

Also i agree with full restoration per the 2 links above as there is no consensus on the removalLihaas (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The UK has been added again without any evidence of involvement. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the entire reaction section is stupid, don't know why I added international in there. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be stupid (or it may be not, that depends on one's opinion, I'd say), but the question ought to be whether it's notable, whether it's relevant and whether it's verifiable. I don't think anyone will claim that it's not verifiable, so let's focus on notability and relevance.
Because we're not speaking of whether or not it's notable/noteworthy enough to get its own the article, it does not have to fall under the normal Notability guidelines, per WP:NNC. Instead, the question is whether it's notable enough to include in the article. Because you're speaking of the section as a whole, rather than parts of it, I will not go in-depth as to whether or not I feel the separate parts are noteworthy enough--just whether the -section- should be included. That ties in directly to relevance.
Reasons to include the section in relation to noteworthiness and relevance:

• Closely entwined with the sources on this subject. Many of the sources in use to support more than a really specific claim (such as KLM, AirFrance and a fair few others now avoiding the area) make at least passing mention of or link to responses. Several of them pay more attention to it than just a passing mention.
• There are a lot of reliable sources ON the subject of those reactions, demonstrating that they are considered noteworthy by several secondary sources.
• Through these responses, at least some information on the official or unofficial stance of several nations is given. Furthermore, they give information about what the involved countries (or their spokesperson/s) see as the appropriate next step.
• They are highly relevant in that they are directly about the article's subject: these are not responses to something related to the article's subject but to the exact subject of this article. Provided that we appropriately filter which ones should be included or not, they're also responses from people/nations relevant to this tragedy. Nations whose reaction will likely determine what happens next.
  

As to its actual contents, my personal opinion can be found above, at the post at 19:16 UTC. For reasons to exclude, I wouldn't be the best person to ask, as I'm pro-inclusion. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove - Never seen such a section on any other plane crash page or terrorism page (e.g., Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 and 9/11). It's WP:UNDUE and unencyclopedic. It adds nothing to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Other than the WP:OTHER argument, how can it be WP:UNDUE when the responses are carried by multiple reliable sources? Reaction sections exist in articles on Wikipedia what makes this one any different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It gives undue weight to the individuals quoted and undue weight to the reactions as a whole. This page is about the crash, not politicians' responses. Either say "International leaders condemned the attack" and cite with all the individuals or create a separate page if it's truly that notable (it's not). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Also OTHER is more for AfD discussions. This is more of a style consistency argument. I literally cannot find an article with a list of quotes like this, including on all the "similar incidences" linked. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. As it stands, the section is trivia. It is selective of who gets quoted, in precisely the way WP:SYSTEMICBIAS would predict, stinks of WP:RECENTISM, and nothing that has been said is surprising in any way. It does not belong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say again the crash is just hours old, do you really think there will be no response of any kind to the people who did this whoever they are? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's a response. And it's fine to mention that there was one. But a list of quotes is not how to do it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid - if someone does say something worthwhile, we'll add it to the article then. We don't need a placeholder for it now, especially one filled with junk. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Nothing wrong with having a long list of official reactions. Plenty of room in the article for it. I encourage all of you to be a little lighter on the revert-warring button unless you see a BLP violation. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep since the event would likely have international consequences, international opinions are relevant. If the list would grow out of proportions then some items can be removed or moved to a separate article Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm seeing a tonne of news items on comments from various senior public officials, going beyond the usual "Our condolences to the families..." sort of material. We can lose that non-notable material, but some statements go beyond the trivial. Military or terrorist involvement is being claimed by people who have good access to good intelligence. Putin apparently blames the Crimeans, rather like those pesky Communists burning down the Reichstag. Obama and Putin discussed the incident in a phone call. These sort of statements are not the usual "terrible tragedy, our hearts go out..." guff. Keep the notable, ditch the trivial. --Pete (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Cut down, use prose no list, no flags. WP:IDONTLIKEIT / like it / other articles doesn't count much weight. WP:NOTNEWS is policy (even properly sourced content may not be encyclopaedic if it's not enduring). Initial reactions are WP:PRIMARY (see WP:NEWSPAPER, strictly - WP:PRIMARYNEWS), and that's why policy says we shouldn't have a whole section on them unless they are enduring, and notable in WP:SECONDARY sources, balanced per WP:WEIGHT. Widefox; talk 11:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but...

None of this discusses if and how the section is biased nor how to address it. Unless that is established, the tag should be removed (whether or not you like such sections). The Dissident Aggressor 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing, I don't see much NPOV there except perhaps the propaganda from Russia's Peskov complaining about US sanctions. The neutrality tag can be removed IMHO. –Wine Guy~Talk 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Continued discussion about whether or not the section is useful is encouraged. The Dissident Aggressor 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Separate article

I believe there should be a separate article on the reactions. Also I remember when I first visited this article, there were more international responses than now. I've tracked down the edits responsible for the removal of so many responses: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Also why were YouTube links removed? They are quite interesting. --UA Victory (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still too early for the international community to weigh in or repercussions to yet be had. I do feel that it will get it's own article , as I said above this is intertwined with another major event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dutch travel agencies

NOS has mentioned that two different travel agencies have confirmed that Dutch travellers have booked for the flight. It is not mentioned how many have boarded the aircraft, but it does mention that D-reizen has had 25 Dutch bookings and World Ticket Center (a Dutch online travel agency) has had approximately twenty to thirty bookings. Please see the following ref. http://nos.nl/liveblog/676042-vliegtuig-uit-adam-neergestort.html (Dutch) Christian299 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RTL just announced an estimate of 71 Dutch passengers in their evening news. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

AP reporter that saw the Buk Missile System last Thursday?

Anyone have an id on the AP reporter or where he said it, or if he has repeated his statement about the sighting after the crash? Oathed (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to twitter pic of Buk system in alleged rebel town: Via speigel.de https://twitter.com/michelhenrion/status/489823022090838017/photo/1 (User: B_part)

We can't add a copyrighted photograph to the article; sorry. If you contact the creator and get their WP:CONSENT, we'd be able to use it. Microchip08 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

AP is saying as much here.

Unnecessary Protection

Why is this article SP'd? I see no good reason whatsoever. See MH370 for a kind of policy on this type of (fast-moving, current news) article. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Events this recent are vulnerable to especially disgusting vandalism by new users, a lot of which happen to be IPs. I think that is probably one of the reasons. Sorry that you cannot make any changes if you were hoping to help. Dustin (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

By clicking on the view source button, I think you can still submit an edit request. Dustin (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, how good. No. There is no policy for preemptive blocking, and furthermore, these articles attract new editors - well they would if they weren't blocked - which is the reason why MH370 was quickly unprotected after the same misguided protection was applied there. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Register an account and stop moaning. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestion, I'll just go and register now and I'll be back in five minutes to edit it. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope! Still can't edit it. Can I start moaning again? UniversalBowman (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@UniversalBowman: Until you get your account autoconfirmed, you can request edits on this talk page using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —sroc 💬 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Please don't bite the newcomers and remember that unregistered users are allowed to edit, but autoconfirmed users have to wait four days before editing semi-protected pages. —sroc 💬 23:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You can always ask at WP:RFPP for the article to be unprotected. But be aware that if it is unprotected and there are problems, protection is very likely to be reapplied, and getting it removed again will be that much harder. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

MH370 wasn't a magnet for WP:NPOV violations though. LostCause231 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On an article as high profile as this, any vandalism would last about 10 seconds. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. Some editors don't pay attention and make new edits after the article is vandalized. At that point, because of edit conflicts, it is difficult to remove the vandalism. Dustin (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. You just don't like unregistered users. 82.31.18.26 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. Dustin (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL and inconvenience should not be used as reasons to protect a page. That said, I think the Ukraine-Russia conflict tying into this is likely to make protection necessary, so probably not worth arguing over... 9kat (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Protection is a very very good idea here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No, for the reasons stated, it is a very, very, very stupid idea. UniversalBowman (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

With the amount of drama often associated with Ukraine related topics, and something this contentious/high profile, in addition to being featured on the main page, I think that semi is definitely warranted. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"New" users are inherently untrustworthy; the time spent removing citations to youtube, twitter, and blogs that people unfamilair with how the project functions is better spent elsewhere. Keep semi-protection on at least through the weekend. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep at least 12-24 hours, twitter refs, country links, flags and the world's commentators filling it up as it is. That's disruption, with WP:PRIMARY sources rather than basing on secondary. Widefox; talk 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Image of Buk missile system

Since it hasn't even confirmed the plane was shot down, it feels WP:UNDUE to have a picture of the Buk missile prominently featured under "Cause". Let's wait until sources confirm more than just initial speculation and a reporter seeing something. 9kat (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Leonhard saw it, or maybe he thinks he saw it ? He knows BUK system, is he expert ? --94.140.88.117 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing it doesn't mean it has been used in this specific case, however. It hasn't even been confirmed as fact yet that the plane was shot down--just a lot of speculation and investigation about it. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been confirmed, but they're unsure of what model of BUK missile it was. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

If were gonna quote one side saying rebels fired, then we should the other side saying ukraine fired it for NPOVLihaas (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. That's NPOV. Not muddying the waters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Then if we follow RS, a twitter posting alleging that rescuers were b locked(Lihaas (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).

You are suggesting a Twitter post is an RS are you? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sky News is a RS, and they are saying that both sides blame the other. Will that do? Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think they have stripped most of the twitter stuff out. There should be plenty of RS (like Sky News) for most any point that is worth making, as every outlet is talking about nothing but this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft

That is background generic information it has nothing to do with THIS incident so why add it before reactions? Its commonplace on incident pages to put the aircraft info in background(Lihaas (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).

We can move it down if there is consensus for it.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okey, so lets discuss reasons for ti to get that consensus(Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)).

At some point we will make it agree with the advise of the accident project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents). MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not seem to suggest the reaction section?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thats because it is not considered to be a requirement by the project. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Then it is up to us to decide where we want to move this section (and whether we want to keep it as a separate section).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Igor Girkin

Several people have attempted to add a statement to Igor Girkin stating that he has taken claim for the attack, which so far hasn't been confirmed in any reliable source (all that's confirmed right now is that he had claimed on Facebook to have shot down an An-26 earlier today, but has since deleted this post). So any extra eyes on this BLP would be appreciated. SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this information is widely reported by Polish media. And here's a tweet by Anne Applebaum, cited by Reuters at about 6:26 p.m.
Also, Russian agency RIA Novosti has reported earlier today that the separatists have shot down an Ukrainian Antonov An-26 IN TOREZ, around 4:00 p.m. local time : http://ria.ru/world/20140717/1016409306.html (archived). I'm not sure if we'll be able to find any better sources than some screen shots, but I'll keep looking. — Mayast (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, it's widely reported that he took credit for shooting down a Ukrainian plane earlier today and then retracted it, but people were editing the article to say that he took credit for MH17 explicitly, which he hasn't (and which none of your English-language sources above say either; I can't speak for the Russian ones). SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that he is supposed to have taken claim for shooting down a military Ukrainian plane, not MH17 – and that those claims were later removed/retracted. I don't believe anyone has taken claim for the MH17 crash yet, so such additions to the article should definitely be removed. Mayast (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I don't doubt that he's the one responsible (especially since his rebel group just started removing old Twitter posts showing they had the missiles capable of doing this), but I just want to make sure we're not posting anything that's not explicitly verified by multiple reliable sources. I don't understand some people's need to have Wikipedia rush to be the first to host information like this, we're not a news site. But that's just me :) SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Anna Applaubaum isn't a reliable source in this case, especially if that is just a twitter.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://vk.com/wall-57424472_7256 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.214.210 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Could we not use european sources that are reliable? It is probably more than likely that Igor Girkin shot down the airplane as he shot down the Antonov An-26 half an hour earlier in the same area, but that post was later deleted by him. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805200-igor-girkin-commander-of-donetsk-peoples-army-igor-strelkov-says-they-shot-down-malaysia-airlines-mh17-photos/, so who knows should we wait for more US sources to put this out? Martinillo (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Except that headline is not supported by any facts within the article itself. The article is just quoting Girkin's deleted post, which makes no mention of MH17 explicitly. SheepNotGoats (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There's already been a lot of bad IP edits at Girkin's article (vandalism, unsourced, and badly-sourced stuff). As it's a BLP, is it worth semi-protecting it? (especially since there are far fewer people watching that article than there are here) SheepNotGoats (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Girkin wrote in Vkontakte web-site (popular Russian social web-site): "today we shoot down AN-26 airpalne. We told them not to fly under our sky." Later, when they found out that they shoot down Boing, the post was removed, but some people saved it. M.Karelin (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  This info is already in the article, and has been there for a couple of hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The CS Monitor story cited in support of the statement that Strelkov "acknowledged shooting down an aircraft" contains an incorrect translation of the Vkontakt posting. There is a better translation of the part in question at http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/17/malaysian-airlines-mh17-reported-crashed-just-after-rebel-leader-boasted-of-shooting-down-plane-we-warned-them-not-to-fly-in-our-skies/ The original sentence has no subject and a plural verb. While the reader might supply a subject of "we", the implied subject in such sentences is generally "they" as in "They sent me a bill." The National Post correctly translates it as "was just shot down" The posting does no more than imply that the rebels shot the plane down.

Chappell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

I'd like to draw some attention to the explanation posted in Girkin's group where the info about the downed plane originated from:

• [12] The source basically says that the account is not managed by Igor Girkin and offers information from open sources except for the cases when a special banner is attached to a post (example). Girkin himself has not confirmed or commented on the catastrophe yet. The deleted post about the plane was a word-for-word citation of a message that appeared before in numerous communities of VK.com.

I hope someone will add this explanation to the article to clear some things up. Доктор Хаос (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems the original post was removed and then the account which was used to post the claim, claimed that it was just reposting a claim found on some forum. No explanation why it was done under Girkin/Strelkov's name.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• What about 2 videos attached to that post ???? You can clearly see there shooted down plane in fire. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Strelkov dont have any site or any facebook/vk/etc accounts. He post some info and comments from beginning of conflict here http://forum-antikvariat.ru/topic/204348-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D1%81-%D1%8E%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%84%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0/ . This forum is linked to his hobby. All other sites take info from this forum. One month ago Strelkov made video statement ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBst_w0eOS0 ) about "official" site icorpus.ru . Site ikorpus.ru is fake. All facebook/vk are fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.213.240.205 (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See also

Is it appropriate to link to List of airliner shootdown incidents from "See also" so long as it's still uncertain whether the plane was, in fact, shot down? I mean, I personally think that it's well-possible, bordering on extremely likely, but personal beliefs and opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. To me, linking from this to List of airliner shootdown incidents feels extremely similar to adding something like List of serial killers in the United States on an alleged serial killer, to be honest. However, I suspect that removing it would be considered controversial, so I'm not going to remove it without more opinions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It can wait until we have an official cause, despite everything wikipedia is not in a rush. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

AgreedLihaas (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I would prefer it to not have yet been added, which it has been. However, as it's there, I suppose removing it can wait until we have an official cause. Even if I personally feel it should be the other way around: NOT THERE until we have an official cause. Not the biggest deal right now, though, I suppose. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion is that its inclusion can wait until an official cause. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, then we misunderstood each other. That was exactly what I was suggesting, in fact. Suppose I wasn't particularly clear because I typed up my message in a bit of a hurry to prevent getting edit-conflicted. In that case, if no one has removed it yet, I will remove it based on this tentative consensus. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reliable source policy calls for reliable sources, not "official" ones. In my view, by the weekend and perhaps even before we should be able to say whether or not there are enough reliable sources suggesting a shoot-down to warrant inclusion. Wikipedia is not absolutely infallible such that nothing is included that has not been confirmed 500 times.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why MH370 is in this section. The coincidence of it being the same airline doesn't justify it being in this section in this article. Totally different incident with zero speculation anywhere that MH370 was shot down. There's already mention of it in the article content anyway. The 2002 Mombasa attacks would even be better suited here. --Oakshade (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

References for passengers

I think considering the importance of WP:V, having the table figures referenced is appropriate (especially at this early stage). Tables often have refs. Widefox; talk 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If we have a table, it should be referenced (and the references should probably be closely checked. Most of the numbers in sources so far are just speculation. There's a fair bit of difference between "x were confirmed to have booked the flight", "possibly as many as" and "x confirmed to be on the plane") AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

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

---

I have removed the reaction from countries with no official involvement and also comments from some american politician are not that important. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And I restored it. Are you aware of who Senator McCain is, and his power on various Senatorial committees?HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes a foreign politician like thousands of others with no direct connection to the incident and just making a point. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. He has direct influence on further sanctions, if they are deemed necessary. The U.S. is the world's last "superpower" and their reactions to incidents of this nature are very important. Did you tag this section for NPOV? No-one opened a Talk Page discussion per that tag, as is required. I tried to find it in the history and gave up.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion above, you can arbtirarily detemrine what is notable. Seek consensus. Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt see the other discussion, and no I dont know who tagged it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

• @HammerFilmFan: it seems Sen. McCain's comments have been removed again. Should it be re-added, I can't do anything right now from mobile. Nathan121212 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The reaction section needs to be removed from article completely. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with flight 370?

Just noticed the template at the top. Is this really an issue? -- Pingumeister^(talk) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed it for now. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as well, per MOS:CAPTION WP:NAMB, before noticing this section. (But I guess we have reasonable consensus to do so for now.) 9kat (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Remove, keep removed no confusion. If anything, it's a see also item. Widefox; talk 14:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Midair breakup, not just breakup on impact

The article says "Initial reports and videos suggest that MH17 disintegrated and exploded upon impact due to the remaining jet fuel igniting." This is unclear, as it could be taken to mean the aircraft was intact until ground impact, or that it "disintegrated" at some unspecified time and altitude and to an unspecified extent and subsequently exploded on impact," which seems more in step with reports that bodies landed 15km away from the site. "Disintegrate" also suggests old science fiction disintegrator rayguns. Edison (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's quite clear. Look at the pictures. There's several sets of landing gear and the two jet engines all very close together in the biggest impact area. That's at least - at least - the central part of the fuselage and the wing roots at least as far as out to the engines. So that's one very large piece that came down intact. That of course does not rule out that relatively smaller pieces came off.

Yes, it seems obvious from photos of the crash site that the plane was largely intact and still had fuel when it struck ground. Abductive (reasoning) 11:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I've noticed that this article cites YouTube and Twitter a number of times, such as [13], [14], and [15]. Shouldn't these be removed until better sources can be found? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I already removed the youtube link a couple of times since it is, in addition to not being reliable, does not prove anything--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There are official Youtube and Twitter sources that can sometimes be cited. It depends on who the account belongs to (reliable?) and just what the claim is. If the claim is that a black plume of smoke arose of unconfirmed origin or location then the Youtube video would support that. One has to use one's intelligence here: how likely is it that the source is right or wrong? We have rules of thumb but that doesn't mean testing for unreliability is unthinking. It is not reasonable to believe that the FlightRadar tweet is somehow fake; both it and another tweet at issue here also appears on the NY Times website.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes it depends on the claim, but not the idea that some are more reliable than others - see WP:TWITTER - (primary source) claims about self are ok, other than that it is not a WP:RS (not a secondary, there's no editorial control etc) WP:YOUTUBE has copyright issues to navigate too. We build articles on secondary not primary sources. Widefox; talk 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Recorded phone call

During a press conference that I watched on TVP Info, Security Service of Ukraine informed that it had recorded a phone call between pro-Russian separatist leader Igor Bezler and Russian colonel Geranin, in which Bezler informs that the plane has been shot down by one of the separatist groups. Here's a Polish report by Gazeta Wyborcza mentioning the conversation, and that people who shot down the plane went to the site of the crash and only then realised that it had been a civilian aircraft. Also, here is a transcript in English which sounds similar to the conversation played on Polish television, however I have no idea who has uploaded it. Would be nice to find some English-language reliable sources on this, or the video from the press conference (a part of it was in English). — Mayast (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Also published here - by Novaya Gazeta. My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

More on this – BBC:

• "20:23: The Ukrainian Security Service SBU has published on its Youtube account what it says are intercepted conversations between pro-Russian militants in which they say they admit shooting down a civilian plane, BBC Monitoring reports."
• "20:27: BBC Monitoring reports more from the conversation between militants allegedly intercepted by the Ukrainian Security Service. The conversation starts with Igor Bezler, a key militant, apparently telling a Russian security official by phone that the pro-Russian militants have shot down a plane."
• "20:31: In the YouTube footage a militant nicknamed 'Major' is seen saying it was shot down by 'Cossacks from the Chernukhino roadblock'. Major goes on to say: 'It is definitely a civilian plane... there was a lot of people on board,; BBC Monitoring reports."

However, the YouTube video is now deleted... Mayast (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Another Youtube ... Looks strange: everything was burned to the ground, but all passports are like new.My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Not inconceivable that 15 or 16 passports could have survived intact, but obviously have been recovered after a search of bodies/ baggage. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• I just included a reference about this, but did not translate text from Russian to English. Here is translation by someone [16]. Not an RS, but possibly OK for translation, which can be done by anyone:

Igor Bezler: We have just shot down a plane. It was Mineman’s Group. It fell down beyond Yenakievo (Donetsk Oblast). Vasili Geranin: Pilots. Where are the pilots?

IB: Gone to search for and photograph the plane. Its smoking. VG: How many minutes ago?

IB: About 30 minutes ago. SBU comment: After examining the site of the plane the terrorists come to the conclusion that they have shot down a civilian plane. The next part of the conversation took place about 40 minutes later.

“Major”: These are Chernukhino folks who shot down the plane. From the Chernukhino check point. Those cossacks who are based in Chernukhino. “Greek”: Yes, Major.

"Major": The plane fell apart in the air. In the area of Petropavlovskaya mine. The first “200” (military code word for a dead person or “killed in action”). We have found the first “200”. A civilian. “Greek”: Well, what do you have there?

“Major”: In short, it was 100 percent a passenger (civilian) aircraft. “Greek”: Are many people there?

“Major”: It’s a total cluster-f*ck! The debris fell right into people’s yards (of homes). “Greek”: What kind of aircraft?

“Major”: I haven’t figured it out yet, I haven’t been to the main site. I am only surveying the scene where the first bodies fell. There are the remains of internal brackets, seats and bodies. “Greek”: I got it [obviously annoyed]. Any weapons at all?

“Major”: Absolutely nothing. Civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper. “Greek”: Any documents?

“Major”: Yes, of one Indonesian student. From a university in Thompson.

The next conversation took place between an unidentified militant and the leader of Don Cossacks Nikolay Kozitsyn:

Militant: About that plane shot down in the area of Snizhne/Torez. It turned out to be a passenger [plane]. It fell down in the area of Grabovo [or Hrabove – Ukr.]. There are tons of dead bodies – women, children. The Cossacks are looking at all that now.

Militant: They are saying on TV now that it’s allegedly an An-26 cargo plane, but they also say that it has “Malaysian Airlines” written on it. What did it do over the territory of Ukraine?

Kozitsyn: Then it means they were bringing in spies, understood? Shouldn’t have f*ckin flown here, it’s a war going on. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I found a video of the conversation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5E8kDo2n6g, it's transcribed in Russian. Your translation is pretty accurate.

— Только что сбили самолет. Группа "Минера". За Енакиево упал.
An aircraft was just shot down. It was "Torpedoman's" crew. The plane impacted beyond Yenakievo.

— Летчики. Где летчики?
Pilots. Where are the pilots?

— Поехали искать и фотографировать сбитый самолет. Дымится...
On our way to survey and take pictures of the shot down aircraft. Smoke is rising...

— Сколько минут назад?
How long ago was this?

— Ну 30 минут назад где-то.
Well, somewhere about 30 minutes ago.

--Shandris^{the azylean} 23:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On SBU's official website you can see transcriptions of the conversations in several languages. The English one is published on Youtube here. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked it here. Looks authentic to me. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• These transcripts are now on the BBC: [17] Fig (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Crew

Why aren't they being included in table? nationality can be taken as Malaysian till more information comes out, atleast the number is confirmed, there were two captains, two first officers and eleven cabin attendants according to Malaysian Wings forum, where MH insiders and people with contacts in the airline post. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For instance, one cabin attendant could be Dutch. Let us wait for the official info.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That can be changed when its clarified as stated earlier.175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but why should we add our conclusions which are likely incorrect when the correct info becomes available in a few hours?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I would say that including it now wouldn't be making conclusions, but pure speculations. Mayast (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

But why the etched in stone attitude when the article is still in its developing stages, especially the passenger section, even the number of US nationals is not confirmed yet they are included, so its assumed that majority or all of the crew are Malaysian which they normally are. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Because people come here to find out more about the incident. If we add in speculation, there is the legitimate possibility that one thousand people will walk away and think that something occurred, yet it was something that we made up. We want Wikipedia to contain reliable information, not pure speculation that we don't know the complete truth about. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, its just the nationality of the crew not anything related to how or why this accident happened, nor entertaining any conspiracy theories. So one thousand people will walk away with the information that all crew were Malaysian nationals, even if atleast one might not have been, big deal. The article is still developing they will be back to see what changes were made just as all of us are doing too.175.110.222.144 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose speculation on the crew's nationality; wait until an official release. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Crew turned out to be all Malaysian nationals as was speculated. 175.110.222.144 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Strelkov' statement

The "Minister of Defence" of such called Donbass republic Strelkov (Girkin) put in very popular russian social web-site Vkontakte the following posts (see here http://www.peeep.us/4857cec5 and here https://archive.today/gxzhN#selection-252.0-754.0.) He wrote: "Today we shoot down AN-26 airplane. We have told NOT to fly under our sky". Of course this post later was removed, but some people saved it. It is prove, that pro-russian-separratist are engaged in this incident. Of course, the statements on Russian, but you can easily translate it. M.Karelin (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Two notes:

1. We are already discussing it here: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Eyes needed at Igor Girkin.
2. Archive.today is a reincarnation of Archive.is, which is banned of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. — Mayast (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK use first link. M.Karelin (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me. This profile in Vk.com is fake. Strelkov doesnt have any official accounts in social media (except one forum) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.183.184 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the very knowledgeable people at /r/ukrainianconflict , that post is indeed not by Strelkov: [18] Thue (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article, because the Strelkov attribution seems false (even if cited in csmonitor). The claim doesn't really have much weight with attribution:

It was claimed that a post on the VKontakte social networking service was made by Igor Girkin, commander of the Donbass People's Militia, which acknowledged shooting down an aircraft at approximately the same time in approximately this location, claiming it was a Ukrainian military An-26 transport plane, and linking to video of smoking wreckage of the 777. This post was deleted later in the day and the it was confirmed that Igor Girkin has no official account on this social service. According to Google Maps, Rassypnoye (where Girkin claims to have shot down the plane) is 6 km (3.7 miles) from Hrabove, where MH17 crashed.

You remove a whole paragraph because it "seems false"? Well it "seems" true to me that a rebel bragged on VKontakte when the video matches everything we know. The location is, in fact, incriminating. Just which rebel it is is another issue as is whether the Kremlin had the post removed or whether the same rebel that put it up took it down.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Dont forget, that they attached 2 videos on that post !! You can clearly see shooted down plane in fire and people around it. Who filmed that videos ???? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been following the guys at /r/UkrainianConflict/ for a long time, and they are a bunch of nerd who know what they are talking about. And have been following the rebel social media, and know both the language and the context. If they say that that post wasn't by Strelkov, then it is so. They are pro-Ukraine, so they have no interest in playing down Strelkov's role. The social media posts and videos are still interesting, just please don't attribute that one post to Strelkov. And it seems that there actually was a post elsewhere talking about the crash which was by Strelkov. Thue (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, answer this: If the rebel commander had said they had shot down a plane at the same place and time, in a verifiable place and, then why isn't the US state department and the biggest newspaper like the New York Times and the Washington Post all over it? Thue (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is for example in the Guardian, the one which links from the bottom of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by ".. a bunch of nerd who know what they are talking about"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They have been reading everything from that blog, and elsewhere, for a long time. So they are qualified (and apparently unanimous) in saying that that specific post is not from Strelkov. Note that there are better sources saying essentially the same thing as you though Strelkov said, e.g. New York Times - I would have no objection to adding those to the article. Thue (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Passengers by country

How did we get those figures? The current source says nothing about 149 Dutch, ...US, ...UK etc. These figures have no reference, they might as well have been put in at random. Can somebody show a link to a reliable source or are we presenting speculation as fact? Nathan121212 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks to be part-speculation, part "unofficial list"-source based, part non-reffed source based.
I suspect the following Belgian (Flemish) source has been used: -click- That one has recently been updated and now says

"Aan boord zaten 283 passagiers en 15 bemanningsleden. Van 47 mensen is de identiteit of de nationaliteit nog niet geweten. Aan boord waren zeker 154 Nederlanders en 4 Belgen. Verder zaten er 27 Australiërs aan boord, 23 Maleisiërs, 11 Indonesiërs, 6 Britten, 4 Duitsers, 3 Filipijnen en 1 Canadees." (translation: "On board were 283 passengers and 15 crew members. Of 47 people, the identity or nationality is not yet known. Aboard were at least 154 Dutch and 4 Belgians. Beyond that, there were 27 Australians on board, 23 Malaysians, 11 Indonesians, 6 Brits, 4 Germans, 3 Filipinos and a Canadian.") AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That excerpt is from the Dutch Schiphol airport (port of departure of MH17) press conference. Arnoutf (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good. Can treat it as confirmed, then. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no confirmation yet that any Americans were on board. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A HKSAR passport holder was aboard on flight MH17 confirmed by Hong Kong Immigration Department. Please add it to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincmh71 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Julie Bishop (Australian Foreign Minister) just confirmed on a live news interview that 28 Australians were on the flight. I guess there will be an official announcement later today StuB63 (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

www.adevarul.ro stated that the canadian victim was of Romanian nationality, having aquired the Canadian one later. They had a background check on the individual. The source of the article: http://adevarul.ro/locale/cluj-napoca/un-student-clujean-murit-accidentul-aviatic-ucraina-1_53c8fb4d0d133766a88ace9c/index.html

283 passengers

Confirmed. Can it be corrected in the article? Normalgirl (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian officials have also confirmed 173 as Dutch nationals, why is the table showing different? 175.110.222.144 (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Biden statement

It seems US VP Biden has confirmation from the Pentagon that the plane was indeed short down by a SAM missile. e.g http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5913609/biden-blown-out-of-the-sky/in/5677250 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101838653 Arnoutf (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I am noticing that the coordinates, as written in the article, are closer to Petropavlivka than Hrabove. Where did we get the coordinates, as I am tempted to change the closest village if the coordinates are indeed correct. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've found better evidence of the coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 01:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's still a bit off, but I guess it's going to be like this until we get independent confirmation of its location from outside sources. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Splitting passengers from crew

I just undid an edit that placed the passengers and crew in separate columns as all of the crew are from Malaysia, as such having 0s in all of the other countries is redundant. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed that all the crew were from Malaisia?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No but the edit had all of the crew in one column from Malaysia and all the other sections of the columns simply marked with a 0 for the other countries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes codeshare flights have one flight attendant from the other company.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: per this [19] all flight crew were Malaysian. CaptRik (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unsupported wreckage claim

Here I removed the following clause because I could not find any support for it in the two cites given in section "Cause":

, and linking to video of smoking wreckage of the 777.

My edit comment was "removed claim video showed 777 wreckage as not found in the cites; please only reinsert with precise and reliable citing to avoid OR". The whole section is also problematic in that it does not follow a chronological order, and appears (to me at least) to rely on unreliable ephemeral sources. -84user (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The info about the videos is cited in the Guardian article, see their screen capture of the original post. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Deadliest

This appears to be the deadliest air disaster since the 1980 Saudia Flight 163 incident. Is this accurate, and if is it significant enough to be mentioned? It feels to me that it should be added in the paragraph about the number of deaths (and how it outstrips MH370). Prokhorovka (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you shouldn't cite Wikipedia... but this indicates otherwise: List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation Dustin (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. I was actually using that table but just looked for the next deadliest one, not the most recent one above it in the table. General question still stands, add this to the article? Deadliest for almost 20 years seems significant to me. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is the deadliest single-aircraft accident since the Japan Airlines Flight 123 accident. That includes all of the 9/11 aircraft (excluding ground fatalities, which of course makes the WTC impacts top of those charts) and MH370. This is a significant accident. Not sure how to word it in an elegant fashion, however. --Pete (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

time of last radar contact

Was it 13:15UTC or 14:15UTC? Nathan121212 (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

13:15 UTC. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/here-real-time-flight-path-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh-17 Anthonyliu (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The time was 13:20 UTC. I work in Dnipropetrovsk Air Traffic Control Centre, and I know precisely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.98.52.28 (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Who directed the plane into the war zone where planes were shot down before?

Who directed the plane into the war zone where planes were shot down before? Was it done by Malaysian airline or was the route directed by Ukrainian air control? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it was Dimtry Yarosh. He then shot it down with his slingshot and of course, as usual left his "Right Sektor" business card amid the wreckage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's "Dmytro", not "Dimtry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.213.251 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And? There is no reason to somewhat rudely correct someone. United States Man (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Or in other words: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth drawing the attention of the OP to the well sourced text already in our article (the "Cause" section) that says "The airspace above Donetsk Oblast was closed by Ukraine on 8 July 2014 except for aircraft in transit flying over 7,900 m (25,900 ft)." This plane was above that altitude. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

They say on CNN that it was routed ~200 miles north because of thunderstorms near the Black Sea. Others would not fly through there and go way out of the way to the south of the sea. United States Man (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph notes unusual route of the plane

[20]

Danny Fyne, a commercial pilot voiced surprise at route taken by the Malaysian flight given that a Ukrainian transport plane had been shot down earlier this week. "Flights have already been diverted away from Crimea," he said. "I find it unusual that the flight went over this area." --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That airspace had no restrictions upon it, in spite of prior issues that have taken place, the commercial aviation system had issued no notices to airman NOTAM at the time of the incident. talk→ WPPilot  02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about recent restrictions, but in recent months I've noticed on Flightradar24 that aircraft avoid Crimea but not the rest of Ukraine. Lots of Europe-Asia (mainly SEA, like Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Luala Lumpur) traffic on major airlines (like Malaysia, Thai, Singapore, Air France, Lufthansa, etc) across the part of Ukraine where MH17 was shot down. There are sometimes some Middle East to North America flights that pass through this region when traveling westbound (like Dubai-Los Angeles)...although the westbound flights usually travel a little further east (across Iran, along western Caspian sea coast, & up the part of Russia that extends south towards Caucasus), they sometimes travel a little further west (across western Iran or Iraq, Turkey/Armenia, Georgia, along the eastern Black Sea Coast, then across eastern Ukraine). Before this incident, it certainly didn't appear to me that this part of Eastern Ukraine was an "unusual" flight path. AHeneen (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From The Guardian: "A pilot for a major European airline who has flown over Ukraine since the conflict began said it was normal practice for airlines to fly over conflict zones... the pilot added that Ukrainian airspace was regularly overflown by European airlines – including British Airways, Lufthansa and KLM – and imposing a no-fly zone over the entire country would have commercial and logistical consequences for carriers." AHeneen (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

...and therefore fare price implications for passengers. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Travelling along the Black Sea is interesting, what part were they travelling? The FAA ban for US airlines extends beyond Crimea in to part of the black sea [21] [22] Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014 (similar incidents)

Similar incidents

Air Rhodesia Flight 825 - passenger plane shot down by insurgents Air Rhodesia Flight 827 - passenger plane shot down by insurgents

Rolfthelemite (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks, well spotted. I removed MH370 from the "similar incidents" list. Not quite the same thing as being shot down, unless belonging to the same carrier makes it similar? --Pete (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Named fatalities

Joep Lange has been named as one of the passengers.[23] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP the article can no tsay he is dead until it is confirmed. Reportedly dead is not the same as confirmed dead, please change the article back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Two other sources confirm it. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed at Talk:Joep Lange#Is he really dead?, suggest it be kept there. --220 of ^Borg 11:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Reaction

Statement from King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands.[24] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Crew names released

Sin Chew has released the names of the 15 crew.[25] 203.9.185.136 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

International Reactions Section Removed?

I thought there was a discussion going on. Why was this removed arbitrarily? 99.245.11.41 (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See section immediately below EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing international response section - BRD

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

Closing the section I created so that discussion can continue at the appropriate previous section.

---

I had removed this section as undue and unencyclopedic (as a bold edit, reverted by Knowledgekid87). I've not seen such a section on any other plane crash wiki page (and I've checked a fair number working on days of the year pages). For example, no such list on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 or even 9/11. It adds no information to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored it per the discussion above, I know editors try and be bold here but twice now I have seen editors have either not looked at the talkpage or have said "look at the talkpage" and were unable to point out the relevant section of discussion. I know the editing is fast paced here but it is frustrating. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A link: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Useless section (aka, International Reactions - NPOV issue). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did skim the talk page before the edit but missed it. I'll add my thoughts up there. Really needs to go. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The earlier discussion is already too deeply buried. I'll continue here. The section is undue. Everything there is predictable, and meaningless. It doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So you can disregard all of the opinions above? Why rehash the same argument, the one above is not even a day old give people time to weigh in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

How did the aircraft was lost?!

Hi, according to BBC and CNN news: the airplane just shot down by a missile and lost contact located in Ukraine areas. However the Boeing 777 is a good airplane/aircraft and never crashes, that involved 3 of them were lost. --Allen ^talk 02:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources state that the plane disappeared from radar somewhere over Ukraine. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM. United States Man (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Passengers en route to AIDS conference

"About 100 of the 298 people killed at the Malaysia Airlines crash were heading to Melbourne for a major AIDS conference"[26] - this is a noteworthy addition to the article. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See also Joep Lange, one of the researchers among those mentioned above. And Talk:Joep Lange#Is he really dead? --220 of ^Borg 11:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From [27]: "conference organizers said they had only been able to confirm seven names. ... 'we think the actual number is much smaller'" I removed the count from the article due to this. A minor bit of good news, perhaps. 9kat (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Claims of a downed An-26

Both ITAR-TASS (Original, Archive) and RIA Novosti (Translated copy) published articles making the claim that seperatists shot down a Ukrainian An-26 in the same area yesterday. As of right now , no one has seen this downed An-26 so I think it can be assumed that such articles are making reference to MH17. In that case, they should be mentioned. --Simfan34 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It crashed on Russian land. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I recall hearing that a cargo plane was downed Monday and a military plane from Ukraine was shot down Wednesday. I'm not sure if it was this An-26 you are talking about though. United States Man (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am speaking of the "An-26" shot down near Hrabove. Which is meant to be a misreporting of MH17.

The New York Times: "Rebels have claimed responsibility for attacking a Ukrainian military jet as it landed in the city of Luhansk on June 14, and for felling an AN-26 transport plane on Monday and an SU-25 fighter jet on Wednesday."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

An An-26 was shot down near Izvaryne on Monday, 14 July. Perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely. Several sources from yesterday in Russia talk about a An-26 being shot down with the time posted being just around the time . I have archived them as a precaution, though it seems like it a normal citation will be alright. Ria.ru Archive Peeep.us Archive Lifenews.ru Archive --Super Goku V (talk) 06:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

McCain

Why was McCain's statement about "bringing hell to Russia" removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.213.251 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it's idiotic? More seriously, the rabid outpourings of a currently minor politician from just one country, exclusively for the domestic consumption of similarly rabid voters in that country, really has nothing to do with this plane crash. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

On a WP:FORUM side note, I find it hilarious that the U.S. tries to scare Russia without even knowing who is responsible. United States Man (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

On a WP:FORUM note, you removed my WP:FORUM and badged me as "vandal", for doing just the same thing you're doing right now. Am I too "John McCain" a.k.a. only an IP address owner for you, Mr. Big Username User, to do that to me? 24.201.213.251 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just having a little fun. I just wanted to make sure you knew the policy, so you don't make a habit of bringing up these discussions. It's a one-time thing for me. United States Man (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Just for fun", eh? Read up on WP:HA. --Marcusmax(speak) 04:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Marcusmax: I've seen a lot of things here, but a part-time editor telling me that I am harassing someone (when all I did was make an innocent comment and acknowledge that I know policy; I didn't even go remotely out of the way in my replies) beats everything. If anything, he called me Mr. Big Username User, but that doesn't bother me. I do realize it seems a bit hypocritical, but, as I said, I just wanted to make sure he doesn't make a habit of breaking WP:FORUM. This is the only time I've ever done it. United States Man (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

lol "part-time editor"... I've been in Wikipedia since 2007, boy. Surprise me. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@24.201.213.251: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=prev&oldid=617403550 This] is why you got a warning message. That isn't a forum; looks more like vandalism to me. Someone else removed you're "Putin Did It" thread. Maybe I was thinking of another situation with another editor when I made previous comments here (I warned another IP about WP:FORUM on this page; I don't always look at usernames and can't keep people straight). United States Man (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah, whatever. I just made you fffu, didn't I? Go tell Obammy Mr. Big Putsky just wiped your a... 24.201.213.251 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, if the President were to say "If we find out this is Russia, we nuke it", it would've been considered appropriate for Wikipedia? The President of the United States is not a puppet, he can make his own statements loud and clear. Obama choosing that path doesn't mean his words are "relevant", while someone else's aren't. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There is simply no need to include a statement from every politician. Especially not this early after the crash. Presidents are notable, however. United States Man (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't already noticed, there is one party in the United States that cries for war whenever something happens in the world. The fact that McCain said this is nothing new, as he is pandering to a small portion of his base who wants a war with Russia. There are people who still believe that each nation is still at war with each other (Putin) and have yet to accept that Russia is not the Soviet Union (Putin), so removing an idiotic quote by a politician helps to explain that our national policy is not going towards a war with Russia. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of us Republicans think McCain should retire, be retired, or otherwise keep his mouth shut. Perhaps some of the attention should turn away from Russia and toward some of the Caucasian Islamist groups associated with ISIS and al Qaeda. One of the more prominent figures in the ISIS group, Omar al-Shishani (alias Tarkhan Batirashvili) is a Georgian Kist, who is an avowed supporter of Chechen separatists and an enemy of Russia. Would it be too far-fetched to suggest even a slight possibility that this particular aircraft was purposely directed into perilous airspace by someone allied with this group? And what are the odds that tragedy would befall Malaysian Airlines, each time under suspicious circumstances, twice in less than half a year? Why would a terrorist group announce responsibility for an "incident" when not doing so might provoke a significant conflict between countries that tend to be moderately antagonistic toward each other and, in their eyes, are the Greater and Lesser Satans? Where does Ukraine fit in? It doesn't. It just happened to be a convenient excuse for the perpetrators, especially considering that the United States tends to view these situations in a nearsighted way.
In the eyes of the United States, Russia will never do anything right, regardless of who is in charge there, yet Americans are oblivious to the fact that we are rapidly succumbing to the very scourge that suffocated Russia for almost 75 years!Kontrapunktus1750 (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because then you are bordering into a conspiracy theory that we have no proof occurred. Now, if it was the only one that flew into that space in a month, you might have an argument, but it was a matter of chance at this point, even if the conspiracy theorists will surely think otherwise. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, maybe it was the aliens? What makes you think it wasn't, if you just came up with enough speculation for about anything regarding anyone possible in just one plane crash thread? Wait, I know! It was Lex Luthor, he wants the kryptonite buried under Slavyansk! 24.201.213.251 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight Number retirement

Does anybody know when the airline will retire the MH17 designation for its AMS-KUL route? I know that the airline retired the MH370 designation on its red-eye KUL-PEK-KUL route after Flight 370 disappeared. The airline's website flight status for AMS-KUL (MH17) is still showing as "On Time" departure for 18 July 2014. I think we should give Malaysia Airlines a couple of days to retire the flight number. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

yes, perhaps on oneWorld timetables tooUFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They're still using it today, with MH17 in the air right now [28]. (But looks like they avoided Ukraine.) 9kat (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the flight number will be retired on 25 July 2014 and will be changed to MH19. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the flight is wrong. Plane lost contact with ground control at 13:15 UTC.

Flight timeline is wrong. Flightradar24 states that plane lost contact at 13:15 UTC, not 14:15 UTC as stated in the article. The picture to the right of the timeline was improperly corrected to conform to the timeline and should be reverted back to the original state. Exemplary snapshot of the flightradar at the moment of the mh17's demise: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsxF_J_CcAAycNi.png:large Jd31415 (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Flight started 10:14 UTC, last contact 13:21 UTC. It was @ 15:21 CEST (Amsterdam time), or 16:21 Ukrainian time. See flightradar here: ALTITUDE 33000 FT, SPEED 490 KTS, TRACK 118°, UTC TIME 13:21
  Julo (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

aircraft shortage due to jull loss of two long-hual B777s

WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For a small airline, the airline's reduction in its 777 fleet size will greatly impact its's ability to serve its global destinations. Please monitor this because it will surely change. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

is Malaysian Airlines livery purposely painted grey on belly to look like Air Force jets?

WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is a concern for me, because the underside of MH, UA, and AA jets are painted grey (the same color as Air Force and Navy jets). This should be a notable concern that should be noted in this article. As an aside, insurance premiums should be greater on civilian aircraft painted grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk • contribs) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Grey or bare metal bellies and engines were quite common till the 1970s and even 1980s, Air China and Lufthansa are two others that kept the look along with he airlines you mentioned, so nothing fishy there, infact over 90% of the airlines with white or other colour bellies now, sported grey and bare metal look in the past as it was the trend of those times.175.110.222.144 (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Right now this article is extremely one-sided

How about sticking to known facts before jumping to conclusions about blame and responsibility?

At the very least, non-neutral and unverified statements from Western media about Russia should be identified as such. "Western media claims..." or "The U.S. State Department claims..." should be inserted before such statements in the interests of maintaining NPOV.

I say this as a "neutral": I am neither Western nor Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.229.28 (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See the section called "Lead" above. -Super Goku V (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Casualties from US

I noticed that the People on board by country table in the article mainly reflected information from the Malaysian Airlines official press release, but supplemented it with "23 US deaths" based on this Independent article, which in turn cited "Ukrainian Interior Ministry" for that number. While Independent is a reliable source in general, in cases of fast moving and often conflicting real-time reporting, I think it is best to stick to official stats rather than try and mix and match data from sources of varying reliability and timeliness. So for the moment I have edited the table to match the Malaysian Airlines official data. If the US deaths are indeed confirmed by the airline or say the US state department, we can update the table accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

there needs to be a section for multi-nationals because US is among countries that allows dual citizens. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

showdown between Interstate Aviation Committee and NTSB and Dutch Safety Board

WP:NOTFORUM Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AJAM reported that there would be complicated jurisdictional issues among Interstate Aviation Committee and NTSB and Dutch Safety Board. This is pertinent to the article and should be included. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

apology to country of passenger origin [Netherlands]

WP:NOTFORUM Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reposting due to WP:NOTAFORUM. Please consider the fact that I rephrased my post. The Ukrainian was quick to call the Dutch PM to express condolences, but not the Malaysian PM. I am seeking a source and explanation of this differences. UFO and Bermuda Triangle (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC

International Reaction : India

Under section International Reaction, this information may be added: Indian PM Narendra Modi expressed his condolence for those who are affected Modi, MH17. "Indian PM Narendra Modi's First Tweet about MH17". Twitter. Narendra Modi. Retrieved 18 July 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |ref= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). Notably, his return flight from 6th Summit of BRICS (Fortaleza, Brazil) was bound to take the same route within few hours Modi Flight, MH17 Route (18 July 2014). "Indian PM Narendra Modi was to take same route that of MH17". http://www.thehindu.com. No. Online. The Hindu. The Hindu. Retrieved 18 July 2014. {{cite news}}: External link in |ref= and |work= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). Mahiru Foundation (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes that route would have been used by very many airline routes. But not sure about adding. Should comments be limited to neighbours and those with nationals aboard? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to put this forward (He is a Punjabi ie Indian). Thanks for your response. (Mahiru Foundation).

Punjabi doesn't mean Indian.He is Malaysian

Allegations on the cause

The whole section on the cause of the crash deals only with allegations against Russia and contains anti-Russian statements made by Ukraine or the United States, whereby all other presumptions casting doubt on the involvement of the Ukrainian armed forces or any other relevant parties are apparently concealed. Thus, the neutrality of the article is heavily breached as it leans towards favouring a side in the whole story. I think it's necessary to tag the section with the appropriate tag until its current content is counterbalanced.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I also find violation of the neutral point of view in the rest of the article. For example, the intro reports on what the American intelligence officials speculate about the crash. Frankly, it's a bit strange to me when Wikipedia has become means to reveal speculations. Seems like the whole article needs improvements as it chiefly informs about how the others speculate on Russian involvement when no results from the official investigation have been disclosed yet. Therefore, I'll place the tag on the top of the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are these "presumptions casting doubt"? and where are they reported? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What is NON neutral is that 298 innocent civilians have died, and likely because of some act of war/terror in that region.

As it is now there is fairly compelling evidence pointing towards the rebels in eastern Ukraine - i.e. their own facebook page, their earlier shooting down military transports, their tapped telephone calls, their claims to have seized BUK systems - oh no wait now that such a systems has become the weapon perhaps not - etc.

Ukranian armed forces have denied to have SAMs in the region, also since the rebels have no air force there is no obvious motivation for the Ukranian army to fire missiles.

The pattern of Russian politics is fairly consistent with their "attack is the best defense" approach we have seen so many times before. So in this instance I think we should not take the Russian response overly serious. Let's wait and see what we hear in the coming time. Arnoutf (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Your concluding sentence clearly says much about your stance on this whole story. We're not here to discuss on the pattern of Russian politics but to work on reaching a neutral point of view. The article focuses only on accusations and speculations from Ukraine and the United States on Russian involvement but unfortunately does not mention even a word about the accusations that the airplane was shot down by the Ukrainian armed forces with all the implications beyond it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Then stop whining and tagging and put some effort into the article! WWGB (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to do my best as much as I can but the article suffers from multiple issues. Yet, discussing the issue is necessary and the tag should remain there for some time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are these "presumptions casting doubt"? and where are they reported? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, come through with your sources and put the balance in. And of course this article suffers from some issues, it happened less than a day ago - many of these will be sorted out in the days to come; but are at the moment based on the best available information. Arnoutf (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are some news including various accusations addressed to Ukraine: Reuters, CNBC, Fox News, Daily Mail, Washington Post, NY Daily News, etc. Please also note that many media present countered stances on the whole story to reach some sort of neutrality, albeit still being slightly inclined on the side favoured from their country of origin. The pattern they use starts with accusations from one side and denying from the other side, ending with accusations from the other side and denying from the first side. This can be easily replicated to this article as well. As for the best available information, statements for different sides involved in the story are welcome but there should be no room for speculations. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(deindenting) Kiril, I added a few statements from Russian media and the article already cites a number of Russian and DNR media sources. Note that the perceived imbalance may originate from the fact that itw as Russian media that openly reported shooting of Ukrainian airplanes by DNR using "Buk" until yesterday evening when they realized it was a passenger plane and changed their coverage completely. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We can't use the Daily Mail as it's a tabloid. Can you propose an actual edit you would propose on the article, Kiril Simeonovski? It seems currently to contain the allegation that you want it to contain. --John (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the sources before blaming me for something and read my proposal bellow. If you think that the article should stand in its current shape, it doesn't guarantee that others will always agree with you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The information you provide is already in the international response - Russia section. Note that Putin does not deny that it may have been rebels shooting down the plane, but that the reason that rebels were targeting planes is the renewed campaign of Ukraine (so an indirect cause - and if we go there - if Russia had not annexed Crimea, the rebels in Eastern Ukraine would likely not have rebelled, and hence the Ukraine would not have needed any campaign - Dutch commentator on radio last night).

Also note that until investigation is concluded there will be speculation. But that does not make it non neutral per se. Arnoutf (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If we're here to accept and interpret what the journalists and commentators have said in reaction to the crash, then the most logical conclusion is that Ukraine should bear responsibility for the crash, irrespective of whether it was shot down or not, since the airplane crashed on their territory. As for my sources, not all of them report about Putin's response. Please read them more thoroughly to get gist of what I mean. Finally, my proposal is to rearrange the article to include two countered stances, one favoured by Ukraine and the United States and other favoured by Russia and the rebels. In addition, speculations from uninvolved parties like the one of the American intelligence officials in the article's intro should be immediately removed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Following this line of reasoning the crash of the planes in WTC and Pentagon was the responsibility of the US, and the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie that of the United Kingdom as these "accidents" happened in their territory. Seems a bit far fetched. Arnoutf (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I was posting exactly the same response to that silly comment but you beat me to it in an edit conflict! An utterly ridiculous comment by Kiril Simeonovski. Fig (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The stance of the rebels - now that is interesting. Before 17-7 late afternoon: We are great, we have BUK in operation, we are shooting down many airplanes; including one today!. After 17-7 late afternoon: Shooting down airplanes, who? We? never head of?. BUK systems.... Not us never had one, never will. Which of these standpoints should we take? Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you both haven't understood the meaning of my comment. The 9/11 attacks are a different story though the United States bear full responsibility regarding the security. Shooting down airplanes or whatsoever this would eventually appear to be cannot be matched with terrorist attacks and the country where it occurred must explain the reason for an incident on a territory they control.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So now you claim the Ukrainian government actually CONTROLS the Donetsk region. Can you source that as Ukrainian government officials have claimed that they have no control over the crash site. Arnoutf (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

All countries in the world recognise the Donetsk region as part of Ukraine. The inability of their government to control one of its administrative units is not our problem.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet one country promised active support for Russians in the region in conflicts with their official government, allowed rebels to open offices in their capital, and neglected to put any border control to prevent smuggling of heavy weapons in place. Arnoutf (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

When did posts on social networks like Facebook and Twitter become relevant sources on the same level of official statements and reports? Having in mind that there are numerous accounts on Facebook and Twitter for same things, how did one conclude that the messages were posted from the official accounts and that the people using them are exactly those that are presumed to be?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Where are the official statements of the rebels, and who is able, allowed, entitled to give any formal statements on behalf of the rebels in this case? As a rebellion is by definition not official that will be tricky. But in any case, humor us by providing these official statements. Note that we should take these with some caution in any case, as at the moment the rebels are the prime suspect (and not even Russia denies this) so anything they say will have a more than average level of self-interest. Arnoutf (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please answer my question before to ask your own. Your attempt to avoid answering simple questions does not help improve the quality of the article. I'll remove this information from the articles as it is shameful for Wikipedia to recall on messages posted on Facebook and Twitter as relevant sources.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It would all be so much more convincing if the rebels protested the existence of these account BEFORE they were accused of shooting down a civilian plane. But in any case, as far as I can see no direct references to Facebook of Twitter are made - but to respectable sources reporting on this.

Secondly, you want a more balanced view by including the view of Russia and the rebels. However you have yet to propose an actual text suggestion backed by reliable sources. This is your original stance, yet you do nothing to make it come through. Arnoutf (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the only sentence mentioning Facebook from the article. There are plenty of more formal ways politicians, diplomats and governmental officials use to state something rather than sign in on the social networks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No objection to that specific removal, I agree with you on that line. Arnoutf (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Passengers; don't report rumours in the infobox.

There is, as of this writing, no confirmation that there were Americans onboard. Wikipedia is not news, but an encyclopedia; wait for confirmation on deaths. Iselilja (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. The article in its current shape contains only allegations on the basis of speculations and conspiracy theories.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

addition to See Also

• This is a fast developing article and as such there shouldn't be any edit-blocks by overzealous administrators.121.217.42.243 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See also

• List of airliner shootdown incidents
• Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down
• Siberia Airlines Flight 1812

Tsarapoid (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Change the title to talk about "Crash of..." or something specific.

WP:AVINAME 60.242.1.97 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MH 17 is a normally scheduled flight and will resume service (possibly under a new flight number) between AMS and KUL in the coming days. Also, MH 17 flew on 16 July, 15 July, etc., without incident. This needs to reflect information only related to the crash occurring on 17 July. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:503C:3F40:1573:7BD5:261E:DA46 (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC) N Not done - See the style guide for naming articles about aviation accidents. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight route? How many airlines use that part of Ukranian airspace to get to their destinations?

I was reading that 16 airlines use that route as it save on fuel costs when traversing Ukrainian airspace.

Can we get a list of airlines that flew that route?

That is to prevent people from blaming Malaysian airlines as the only airline that flies over a warzone.121.217.42.243 (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is blaming MA for flying this corridor which was cleared and assumed to be safe by air traffic control. Arnoutf (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well there clear is a question over this because several journalists were asking about it at the press conference including at least one one who asked if they made a mistake. The Malaysians likewise were very quick to mention that it was an approved airspace etc. (And journalists likewise were talking about why they were flying there, whether they were allowed to, and the fact many others were still flying over there even before it was certain it had been shot down.) I don't think this is that surprising although I do agree from the details we know there wasn't anything unusual or wrong with MA for being there. Considering this is coming on the heels of MH370 were some mistakes may have been made, it's even less surprising that people are asking the questions.

So it's probably worth having some coverage without violating WP:UNDUE of the fact it remained a well travelled route right up until the shooting. We can also mention the fact a small number of airlines have said they were avoiding the airspace, as well as the FAA ban which didn't cover this particular airpspace. Again without violating [[WP:UNDUE}] it would be interesting if there is some sourced information on whether those airlines who have said they were already avoiding it (like Qantas) were really doing anything significant. Or because of different destinations both starting and ending as well as the number, they weren't actually increasing travel time or cost much at all compared to the many others who choose to continue to use the route.

Also while we will have to wait to see how this develops, there are suggestions it may lead to airlines flying over conflict zones a lot less, even ones like Afghanistan where the militants can only dream of having anything sophisticated enough to take down a commercial jet.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Makes some sense - perhaps in the fragment where we now state that the air space was closed immediately after (under header response). We could add something to that implicitly giving this information like: "In response to the accident and even before official closure of the airspace other carriers changed flight plans to avoid crossing the area for both their scheduled and in route planes ." and give this reference http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28356745. Or is that too implicit? Arnoutf (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I came across [29] which is interesting. Although the part of the route the plane was on was fine, it seems that the route in Russia it was supposed to travel along had been closed hours earlier. (This has also lead to people questioning why Russia closed those routes.) I would wait for more sources reporting this and from the earlier details, it sounds like at least some other airlines were probably head to the same closed Russian routes. The NYT source does offer something interesting, as it shows some airlines were definitely travelling out of their way rather than just choosing alternatives which weren't much worse (although it's still not clear what percentage of their flights were affected). It shows that the area over Crimea and the Black Sea was banned not just by the FAA, but also Eurocontrol (although different parts of the Black Sea), so unsurprisingly anyone who did fly avoid Ukraine also had to take a wide berth around Crimea lf flying that way. Also I should clarify my comment above about militants in other Afghanistan, I meant shooting down a commercial jet flying at cruising altitudes. Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the main flight route to Asia, except for direct flights to China. 15 of 16 Asia-Pacific airlines are using this route according to the press conference.[30] Mightyname (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

The Indian mentioned in the article is not an Indian ,he is Malaysian Tekkanphan (talk) 10:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian media

I have just added the following paragraph but it was reverted by @John: as "badly written, badly sourced". Can you please explain in more details and fix the paragraph instead of deleting it? I attempted to collect the most prominent stories from Russian media as this is what is being reported on large scale in Russia right now. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

On 18 July Russian Defence Ministry declared that during the time of the crash "anti-aircraft units of Russian Federation did not operate in that area" but claimed that Ukrainian "Buk-M1" units were located north-west from Donetsk and that Russian units detected their radar activity.[1] RT suggested that air control should not have allowed MH17 through the conflict zone and additionally the route from 17 July was diverted by 200 km north compared to usual routes.[2] RIA suggested that similarities exist to Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 that was erroneously shot down by Ukrainian missile during anti-aircraft training in 2001.[3] DPR representatives changed their position, initially announcing that they shot down a military An-26 transport aircraft[4], then claiming they had no missiles to reach 10 km level when it became evident it was MH17[5], and then claimed that they had witnessed an Ukrainian fighter Su-25 shot down the Boeing.[6] Gazeta.ru pointed out inconsistencies in stories by other Russian media and wrote that both sides of the conflict, Ukraine and DNR, were in posession of "Buk" missiles and that the Su-25 theories are unreliable since the fighter's service ceiling is 5 km.[7]

I can't say much about the quality of the sources, my Russian is not up to it. But from the face of it, it does not seem much worse than some of the Western sources in the article. To be fair with John though, he has also removed poor western sources throughout; so he may know more.

The paragraph is not well written. It is somewhat circular in places and tries to state too much at once. Arnoutf (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If I analyse the paragraph (without the sources) I come to the following

On 18 July Russian Defence Ministry declared that during the time of the crash "anti-aircraft units of Russian Federation did not operate in that area". --- This is relevant

Russia claimed that Ukrainian "Buk-M1" units were located north-west from Donetsk and that Russian units detected their radar activity. – this also may be relevant

RT suggested that air control should not have allowed MH17 through the conflict zone and additionally the route from 17 July was diverted by 200 km north compared to usual routes. – this is less relevant as that is not up to a TV station. Also other sources claim it was on flight plan route – so whether is was a usual flight plan does not really matter.

RIA suggested that similarities exist to Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 that was erroneously shot down by Ukrainian missile during anti-aircraft training in 2001 ---. Ukraine was not training in the area so what are the exact similarities? Seems too speculative at the moment

DPR representatives changed their position, initially announcing that they shot down a military An-26 transport aircraft, then claiming they had no missiles to reach 10 km level when it became evident it was MH17, and then claimed that they had witnessed an Ukrainian fighter Su-25 shot down the Boeing . – This seems relevant to me

Gazeta.ru pointed out inconsistencies in stories by other Russian media and wrote that both sides of the conflict, Ukraine and DNR, were in posession of "Buk" missiles and that the Su-25 theories are unreliable since the fighter's service ceiling is 5 km. – This also seems relevant

Now to make a story that flows through from what seems relevant and I would suggest something like:

On 18 July Russian Defence Ministry declared that during the time of the crash "anti-aircraft units of Russian Federation did not operate in that area". Russia claimed that Ukrainian "Buk-M1" units were located north-west from Donetsk and that Russian units detected their radar activity. DPR representatives changed their position, initially announcing that they shot down a military An-26 transport aircraft, then claiming they had no missiles to reach 10 km level when it became evident it was MH17, and then claimed that they had witnessed an Ukrainian fighter Su-25 shot down the Boeing . Gazeta.ru pointed out that both sides of the conflict, Ukraine and DNR, have "Buk" missiles capable of reaching 10 km altitude, but that the service ceiling at 5 km of Su-25 fighters make it impossible for that plane to shoot down a high altitude airliner.

If you think that makes sense with the sources I would be ok to something like this (can you put the relevant references if they fit to the right places?). Arnoutf (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph presents a very good starting point towards reaching neutrality. I think it'd be more convenient if we find these news articles in English since several Russian media regularly publish their articles in both Russian and English. We should also use the article on the Russian Wikipedia as an example of how the countered views can be placed within the article. You can note from that article that there are two sections dealing with the allegations from the both sides separately.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you - just adding reworked version. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: English sources are preferred per WP:NOENG, and as Russian media is more aligned with the state currently (an active party in the dispute), WP:WEIGHT and significant "minority view" (WP:GEVAL WP:FRINGE) need considering. We use SECONDARY / TERTIARY sources to balance, not WP (ru or other) WP:NPOV. Widefox; talk 12:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but let's be fair - the paragraph as listed now does not give information that is opposite to anything in Western sources, so at this stage I do not see a problem here. The phrasing is also sufficiently cautious (not Russia had no SAM in the region, but Russian Defence claimed not to have SAM). Arnoutf (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: replacing text filled with ref tags with plain text, as it sticks a reflist at the bottom of the page that we do not want for talk pages.

Russia Today also reports that Ukrainian Buk was operational at the time when the airplane was downed (Source).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just a couple of refs - claims that All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company edits version of this page on ruwiki [31],[32]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Response

In this edit the reaction of Romania was removed, together with that of Latvia. As Romania borders Ukraine, surely the inclusion of a reponse is quite relevant and appropriate. Is there a consensus as to what constitutes an "involved" country in this incident? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No, and IMHO the whole section is becoming a boring list of highly predictable comments from all the usual suspects. A waste of electrons. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you include comments only if they weren't boring, e.g. threatened military retaliation? But I was asking a different question. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that Ukraine (territory where it happened), Malaysia (home of the plane / destination) are definitely involved.

Than I would say that the Netherlands (more than half of the casualties and departure of the flight) is involved.

From there on it becomes less clear. I would say that any country with passengers on board could be involved

The US might be involved because of Boeing constructing the plane.

Russia might be an involved country because the plane went down near to the Russian border, BUK are Soviet weapons systems, and DNP are pro-Russian separatists.

From there on it would probably be countries in the close region and neighbors of Ukraine. But that is already pushing it in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• The quotes are out of place. See WP:QUOTE. --John (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? What quotes? What place? Arnoutf (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The quotes in the reaction section. If they are needed, they should be summarised, not quoted. --John (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that single words like "shocked" (Germany) should not be quoted. But full lines from a statement (literally translated) such as Dutch PMs "I am deeply shocked by the dramatic news regarding the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur over Ukrainian grounds". could be quoted in my view. That does not change the suggestion that summaries might be better suited indeed, but I think these are two (slightly) different things. Arnoutf (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, do the anodyne conventional quotes add to the article? Of course everybody is going to condemn the shoot-down. --John (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

I agree they add little. But they are problematic for another reason than general words quoted. For that reason I was confused. BTW interesting response by Dutch government to send the minister of foreign affairs to Ukraine in person. The man is fluent in Russian and has worked at the Moscow embassy for several years; so probably the best person to be at the spot this moment. Arnoutf (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we add in the response section that Ukrainian and Russian citizens spontaneously brought flowers to Dutch and Malaysian embassies in Kiev and Moscow. [33][34][35][36] Arnoutf (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Also Dutch teams in the 2014 Tour de France wore a black ribbon today, as did Dutch teams in many other events[37][38]. Festivities around many sports events were seriously toned down e.g. Nijmegen Marches[39]. While this all may be trivia it also shows the deep sorrow that civilians have, which in my view says much besides the obvious governmental retorics. But I am hardly neutral here (Dutch citizen) so I would appreciate your comments before adding. Arnoutf (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the reaction in Kiev and at the sporting events is relevant. AHeneen (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Brisbane G20

As Australia is hosting the G20 in Brisbane this year, and as they sustained the third highest loss of life, there is current talk about inflicting sanctions on Russia and even blocking them from attending the G20. Should this not be mentioned?--Empire of War (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait until a decision is made and communicated by the Australian govt. Arnoutf (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks--Empire of War (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

spainbuca

What about @spainbuca's comments? He -allegedly- a Spanish air controller in Ukraine. He tweeted that 2 military jets escorted the passanger plain. His twitter page (!10 500 tweets!) has been deleted recently but you can still read his comments (#spainbuca). FOCUS.DE also mentions him[40]Fakirbakir (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Proven fake, the twitter account is down, and not a RS anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Proven fake? Do you have any source about this? Focus.de is not reliable?Fakirbakir (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Proof not required, but it needs to be WP:RS? Maybe we're going to see a separate "Conspiracy theories" article emerge again? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, BBC.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we should delete the whole section named "Theories on cause"... We got nothing just allegations. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any relation. Is the section based on "spambuca" twits? Not much as far as I can see.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir: Twitter is not an acceptable source, and your ref to focus.de even says that it is "not verifiable", that the account has been taken down, and refers to it as "propaganda on the net", and "alleged news." WP does not include every idiotic thing someone posts on twitter. –Wine Guy~Talk 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not just Focus.de mentioned the "alleged" Spanish air controller's story. Google it. The section is, for instance, based on "the story of Girkin' post". What is the difference? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that the story of Girkin's post was republished by dozens of reliable media and has not yet was proven fake. Spambuca is just a channel for Kremlin propaganda, which has no relation to Borispil air controllers whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it was just a channel for Kremlin propaganda? Is it just your own POV? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked me for a link, I provided it. This is in the link. Why do not you go and read it?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already read the Ukrainian version...[41] I am not convinced. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

According to ETN he is a real person. "ETN statement: The information in this article is independently confirmed and based on the statement of one airline controller and other tweets received." [42] Dear Wine Guy, ETN is a reliable source? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Tagging

Can I ask editors not to immediately put NPOV tags and the like on this article? Please propose your specific changes (with sources) here and discuss for at least 24 hours or so before resorting to this. Thank you. --John (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up; I've been thinking the same thing. Littering the article with maintenance tags every time you don't like something is not productive. –Wine Guy~Talk 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this request as the tags are part of the protective mechanism of Wikipedia to critics on the quality of its articles coming from outside. The lack of proper tagging implies that everything is in order with the article and thus may give false image since there might be multiple issues discussed on the talk page at the same time. In general, tagging is not something that makes Wikipedia less valuable or not relevant, but just an invitation to the readers to visit the talk page and find out what are the mooted points of discussion on the talk page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. to be cautious with tags. Of course it needs maintenance, it is happening while we write. Everybody knows this will change, so no need to tag the overly obvious it only pollutes the article. The hatline tag claiming this is a recent event should say it all for the whole page.

Tagging an article should be a last resort if it appears no changes will be forthcoming in the near future (say weeks); not even after some considerable effort (say days) starting a discussion has failed. That is clearly not the case here. Arnoutf (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be deluded with the presumption that our readers know about Wikipedia as much as its editors. There are many people who have never been informed about the purpose of the talk pages and their role in modifying the content so that they may falsely get every information from the article as it stands there without paying attention to the fact that its neutrality or relevance may be subject to an ongoing discussion anywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are for editors not for readers. Inviting readers to talk pages defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. Arnoutf (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you point out to the rule that explicitly states it? Where do you recommend the readers who detect false information and inaccuracies in the articles to go and advertise their issue?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding article improvement tags to an article that is being actively worked on, especially while wiki-lawyering in talk and not making specific and actionable proposals, will be seen as tendentious editing and is likely to result in your privilege of editing the page being withdrawn. This is a collaborative endeavour and you must work with others, even those you disagree with. --John (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the changes that I've made to the article before blaming me for wiki-lawyering. You're not the owner of the article nor the one with the power to introduce rules on how the tags should be used and in what way the article should be edited. I'd say that you're the one who uses rules-lawyering here. If you intend to collaborate on improving the article, then you're encouraged to do it without making non-sense requests on how the rules of Wikipedia should apply and threatening that others may be deprived of editing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an essay not a rule. And it also states that is is best to use as few tags as possible. In this case the recent event tag at the top states that all information is provisional and might change. What do any additional tags add to that? Arnoutf (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Every single tag has specific meaning and none of them is too general to replace several others. For me, it doesn't make any serious difference on whether the article will be tagged or not and I really don't think that this discussion should be carried on here along with the other open topics. I was just surprised from the behaviour to request this and the argument that was used to support it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See also section

Variuos users in good standings add in this section a list of all possible air disaster. I personally removed them already six times, but they pop up all over again. May be it is time to discuss what we want to have in this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

These are not random air disasters. The removed list consisted of a recent 777 incident of the same airline. The other entries were commercial airliners shot down by SAM missiles. Hardly "all possible". Arnoutf (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They are all contained in the list prominently linked from the same section. Are they really so necessary given that they add an extra screen?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

The table of nationalities is incorrect. According to the source listed, there were only 27 Austrailians, and no one from South Africa. Also, the numbers don't add up right now. The total of the people listed right now is 300, instead of 298. http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/mh17.html 99.247.141.23 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Missed expected arrival

In the MH370 timeline, it shows the time when the flight missed its arrival time. Should we include that here? If we do, it would be at 20 Jul 2014 @ 06:10 MYT, 12h10m into the flight. According to http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en.html Anthonyliu (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No seems irrelevant here as the wreckage was found and confirmed well before expected arrival. The flight was no longer missing at that time. Arnoutf (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Passenger Count

Where is the source? The current source, http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/mh17.html, shows different numbers than the chart. Anthonyliu (talk)

At present it is 189 Netherlands, 44 Malaysia, 27 Australia, 12 Indonensia, 9 UK, 4 Belgium, 4 Germany, 3 Philippines, 1 Canada, 1 New Zealand, Four passengers’ nationalities remain to be verified. That adds upto 298, which is the death toll, including the crew. The current table adds up to 297 (but says 298) CS Miller (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags and country links

Thoughts on:

1. no linking to indirectly involved countries per WP:OVERLINK, and
2. no flags (and their country links)

Widefox; talk 19:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree - there is certainly nothing in WP:MOSFLAG that justifies their use. Distracting clutter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not only would I agree, but I see that "Passengers by nationality" is using flags, against WP:MOSFLAG. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking about the list of countries of origin and numbers of passengers /victims then it should be the same as MH370 which used flags but no links! MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about FOUR countries. Flags are clutter and I can't see what justifies them in policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Where in WP:MOSFLAG does it suggest that flags are appropriate in such a context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just making the point that the two article will be different. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No flags in the "reactions" section, but if a table of nationalities of the victims is added, flags are appropriate there. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? The victims do not 'represent that country, government, or nationality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:MOSFLAG that prevents the flags from being used in the reactions section, deaths though is in the guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My reading of WP:MOSFLAG is that the passenger list (they're not officially victims yet) do not warrant flags, per Andy. Officials of countries seems tenuous too, even if it's a country's official statement (which clearly Twitteque reactions aren't). It should be prose not flag list style. Widefox; talk 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I can agree on the passenger list but the flags should stay in the reactions section as they represent the countries reacting to the event, prose can come later on, do you expect things to be in prose now when the article is a hotbed of editing? There are also list of reactions articles present and seeing that this is tied to another event it is too early to tell what reactions by countries may unfold. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't need flags to 'represent' countries reacting - we use text for that. This is an encyclopaedia, not a colouring-in book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion as there is nothing against Wikipedia policy that says flags in reactions sections can not be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Every other page that has ever been made about air disasters has used flags in the passenger list table, so if you are going to remove them from this article, then you should go and remove them from the hundreds of other articles about crashes as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer500 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the flags in the passenger death toll by country per WP:FLAGBIO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think either the passenger list or the "reactions" section should use flags or contain material sourced to Twitter. --John (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Where in WP:MOSFLAG does it say you can't use flags in a place such as this? They are people representing their countries. Dustin (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that but again there is nowhere in the guideline that says flags can not be used in reaction sections. People keep reverting saying "See the talkpage" but it looks to me that nobody has been able to answer this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a certain amount of common sense is required. Nowhere in the guideline does it say we cannot use an animated image of a Pokemon character either but we do not. As an encyclopaedia we primarily use words to convey information. What, in your opinion, do the tiny flags add? --John (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(see reaction section above for why this reaction section is based on primary sources, so should be cut right down.) In that policy context, there's no room for flags making it moot. Knowledgekid87 what information/tone are you trying to convey to readers with colourful flags on a disaster, anyhow?! Colouring-in book indeed. Widefox; talk 11:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Flags have been removed countless times [43][44][45][46][47][48][49] and they have been restored countless times [50][51][52][53][54] Make up your minds. This also means the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article should to get rid of flags too. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG is clear that flags are secondary to the info (the country), and many of them is too much WP:ICONDECORATION. As we don't link countries (see above) and that link is needed by the flag, it seems clear cut that it's WP:OVERLINK and ICONDECORATION. With the comment in the markup, editors can at least use MOS to argue for or against. Re WP:OTHERSTUFF, if there's a consensus on the other pages then that may be a localconsensus, but in any case, we go by policy, and guidelines (like MOS) not other articles. Anyone can change those (or this), but strength comes from policy/guideline based argument.

Widefox; talk 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Every other page that has ever been made about air disasters has used flags in the passenger list table, so if you are going to remove them from this article, then you should go and remove them from the hundreds of other articles about crashes as well!!! Flyer500 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(see comment immed above) Feel free to be bold with them, and the matter can be taken up in the MOS - either explicitly allow or deny! Widefox; talk 14:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, okay but people are still continuing to add the flags back. I'm just pointing that out. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Put them back, especially in the list of world reactions. They make it easy to home in the one or two you want to read, instead of having to scan the whole paragraph. 141.6.11.18 (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I totally agree Knowledgekid87. It is nothing do with WP:MOSFLAG. Flags should be used to differentiate on the article. Filled with many examples. Recent events: Reactions to Operation Protective Edge, Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting, International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis, 2014 Thai coup d'état, 2014 Jinnah International Airport attack, 2014 Southeast Europe floods and more.. – Maurice Flesier (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've moved this thread down to try and get more replies. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Knowledgekid87. We regularly use flags to indicate to the countries whose officials reacted on the event, so there is no reason to avoid that practice just because of some trivial reasons stated above. And since the whole section may become rather long with the reaction from every single country, my suggestion is to create a separate page that will list all reactions to the accident and keep just few of them in the section.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(see my primary sources comments above as for why policy means we don't include whole sections like that - it's WP:NOT#NEWS). Make your case based on policy rather than what other articles have. They can all be changed to fit policy / guideline and so have little weight. The corollary is valid, seek to establish this in, say a MOS if flags and WP:OVERLINKED countries are important. Widefox; talk 19:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think that other articles can be changed to fit our policies and guidelines, then you're encouraged to start and make the changes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Youtube videos of Buk missile launcher vehicle ONLY (without its acquisition radar and command vehicle) seen leaving Torez/Snizhne area on 7.17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HJmev5xg0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5NSSzYygk. User Causantin incorrect in assuming that radar on launch vehicle is enough to properly use full 3+ vehicle Buk system. See http://www.janes.com/article/40902/civilian-airliner-crashes-in-ukraine-believed-to-have-been-shot-down However, no major news outlets have picked up on the YT videos yet, and they are not normally good sources for Wikipedia. Oathed (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696847/They-shouldnt-f-g-flying-There-war-going-Ukraine-intelligence-officials-release-phone-calls-claim-PROVES-Russia-shot-Flight-MH17.html For further information on a strong, well-supported chain of events where a Buk missile system possibly manned by Russians or rebels but missing crucial parts of the SA-11 system (the other two vehicles) were unable to tell the difference between a civilian airliner and an AN-26. Oathed (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be very much original research. E.g. it may be that the additional vehicles were around just not on the Youtube video; it may also be that without these vehicles the missile may not even have been launchable. Let's not speculate based on such videos. Arnoutf (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Some facts are still to be verified

Possibly I am not completely up-to-date, and possibly some people have more information than I have. Nevertheless: is it not too early to make a wikipedia page about something whose circumstances are yet unclear? 188.87.231.11 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is clear the plane came down and that many people died. It is also clear this has led to an emergency meeting of the UN security council. That alone makes it notable and hence relevant for a Wikipedia article. Arnoutf (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Putin's plane

There is a conspiracy theory that Putin's plane was the intended target, which was readded to the article. [55] This is based on similar colors and the planes supposedly having been close at some point (but which is itself apparently based on contradictory reports.) The RT ref notes that Putin (obviously) wouldn't be flying over Ukraine. I think it is WP:UNDUE to include in the article. 9kat (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If the flight-paths crossed at all that would be around Warsaw - about 1000 Km to the north west of the incident and well outside the range of the used radar systems. Arnoutf (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already stated above that there should never be place for speculations in encyclopedic articles. Since this was reported by a news agency and wasn't subsequently followed by official statement or report, we definitely shouldn't take it seriously at this stage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This is actually the conspiracy theory heavily used by Russian media, so that I would say it can be mentioned.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I also added that same information from a RS. It was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why Russian supporters would want to shoot down there own man, perhaps it is time for a MH17 made up stuff, speculation and other guff article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that it was the Ukranians (or CIA) shooting down MH-17 because they thought it was Putin's plane.--v/r - TP 17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait until we also have an alien/UFO attack theory Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian army fired tree trunks at the plane (beech trunks), don't question yourself anymore. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What a disappointment, simple beech shooting (btw are you sure - might have been birch) And that just when the McCain thread actually raised the possibilities of alien --- including Kryptonite for good measure. But no, simple trees. Why is it we always overlook these as a dangerous weapon? ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll break the joke down for you, Mr. Leno. "Buk" in Russian means "beech". It shoots trees, get it? 24.201.213.251 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

suddenly not so funny anymore. Arnoutf (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, both Arnoutf and me live in a country which lost 190 citizens - the worst such disaster from the 1970s, and has declared today the national mourning. I am still waiting for the passenger list to check whether I knew anybody there. It might be not the best time for jokes.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you don't have to publicize your daily deeds list to WP. This is the internet, no matter what country you are from. Nobody knows that beforehand anyway, and is not supposed to. Maybe I'm sorry for you and your country, but only because I'm writing on the talk page and replying to someone who already started the joke, you don't have to rub it in my face, pal. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Hungarian reaction

Please, add Hungarian goverment's statement:

• The Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it is important that an independent international body investigate the shooting and name those responsible for "this cowardly and inhumane act". Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán described the crash as "unusual, rare and shocking", and added that "a significant influx of refugees from eastern areas of Ukraine has been registered in Transcarpathia. These movements affect the Hungarian community living there as well as Hungary itself".

Not sure it is really relevant to the incident. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why not. If someone else judges it irrelevant, they can just remove it again and discuss anyway. Dustin (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hungary is a neighbour country. It is relevant. --94.21.194.167 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I am sure you would comment in this way and you should not be restricted due to the semi-protection when you have constructive intent, I will add, and if anyone disagrees, they may re-remove it and discuss it with you. Is that fair? Dustin (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, at least for now. If someone chooses to remove it again, discuss it with that user. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree most of these reactions are not relevant to the incident and should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that for the IP at least, it is more fair for you to discuss why not to include and then remove it than the other way around. My reasoning is that the IP cannot edit the actual article. Dustin (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am only saying that it is not relevant and should not be included, I have neither added or removed it from the article. When an addition has been challenged it needs consensus to be included, the status quo is not to include it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

Most of the reactions are just not relevant to the incident but the longer they remain the more and more keep getting added. Most of these reactions are standard diplomatic fare and have no relevance to the incident. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see my suggestion above. I find it helpful to create an article listing all reactions to the accident and keep the section in the article shortened to include only few of them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The reaction and response from the main players can be relevant but to include Uncle Tom Cobley and all is just a waste of effort. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That's my point as well. In the main article we should keep just those that are relevant the most.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Total fatalities

It equals 299 in the deaths by nationality box if you do the math, yet the infobox says 298. WikiWinters (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I'd say there's too much speculation going on here resulting in an extra person being added. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox at the top says 283 passengers + 15 crew = 298, but yet it says fatalities is 299. The infobox with "people on board by nationality" adds up to 301, but says total is 298. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Dual citizens

Is it appropriate to separate dual citizens? The passengers by nationality table currently has one dual Dutch-Belgian citizen & the US state dept spokeswoman tweeted about a dual US-Dutch citizen. Are these people usually separated? Should they be included in the totals for each of their citizenship with a footnote (eg. "Includes persons with multiple citizenship"), although that would make the table not add up to the total at the bottom? AHeneen (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It gets more complicated than that. One citizen was born in Zimbabwe and lived in South Africa, but was travelling on a British passport. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Background

As we all know, Pprune is not a RS, but it is a useful research tool. Post #369 on the discussion thread has some interesting links that give some background to the alleged possession of BUKs by the rebels. Will leave it open as to whether or not the info should be added to the article, Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of flight

This section seems unnecessary. There's just two times listed and unlikely to be many more noteworthy events. This isn't like MH370, where there were many events and such a listing is useful. On this article, those two times can be easily found in the article's text. AHeneen (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree not that complicated it needs a timeline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The post crash events may need a timeline… --Pete (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Here is a source for the Israeli victim Bonus88 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done – United States Man (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema quote

The article quotes Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema as saying the militants don't have BUK systems. The original quote appeared in the Kyiv Post and actually said: "Members of illegal armed units have not seized air defense launchers of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Donetsk, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema said".

That's a big difference from saying rebels don't have them at all. Instead he is saying they don't have Ukrainian BUK assets. The article should be updated to accurately reflect his quote.

ref: https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/ukrainian-prosecutor-general-says-militants-did-not-seize-ukrainian-air-defense-launchers-356619.html 154.20.228.233 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS Expressions of Doubt

The words "claim" and "alleged" appeared quite often in the article, I've replaced them with "said" as much as possible per WP:CLAIM. In one case the wording I used, in regards to the Ukrainian wiretaps, still implies some doubt. Geogene (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism in Ukraine

Is there any reason to call this an act of terrorism? The evidence suggests this was an unintentional downing of an airliner by pro-Russia separatists who mistook it for a An-26 or similar plane. What is fundamentally different about this incident compared to the incidents involving Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 or Iran Air Flight 655? I also don't think the category War crimes is appropriate for these reasons. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My guess would be that pro-Russian separatists are considered "terrorists" by many medias. Therefore, any of their involvement is subject to the cited category, whether or not there was an actual terrorist attack. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)