Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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? [1] CaptRik (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The number of Dutch dead is 192 [[2]] One of the Dutch victems also has an american nationality. Sorced!The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC).

The Dutch government actually released after a cross check that the number of Dutch fatalities is 193 [[3]] [[4]] Svache (talk) 23:34, 18 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:

• [5] 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)

I believe the important issue here was the statement was issued and later hastily retracted. This sounds like a weak attempt at whitewashing the original brag, which was widespread and not confined to a single, possibly dubious, page.Ericloewe (talk) 23:30, 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: [6] 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)

The Strelkov post reads more like armchair speculation about what is shown in the video than an official communication from a commander. Does anyone know where these videos can be seen?Chappell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 19 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

––––––You are right. He was studying at UMF in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Cristi767 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

One if the Australia victim's was the Australia author Liam Davison, which have also an article here. Victorians among those killed in MH17 crash: Premier - Source

The Israeli passenger was likely an Australian citizen, he is not mentioned as Israeli in any list of nationalities released to media, the BBC link for the American national has the latest update it seems.175.110.222.144 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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"[7] - 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 [8]: "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)

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)

Not you, Marcusmax is part time. United States Man (talk) 19:37, 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)

So John McCain is a minor politician which means you have a lot to learn about U.S. politics. Russia and Mr. Putin are very much involved with this tragedy. I noticed you are a recent college graduate so I understand that your are VERY naive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.111.217 (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Talking to yourself? That usually passes after the second vodka shot. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 02:14, 19 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 [9],[10]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's amazing that verified, soured and factual evidence is provided from multiple unbiased sources around the world show that Russian controlled separatist forces were responsible for the missile attack on a civilian passenger plane and yet you genuinely think solely Russian state media controlled sources, that even admit in many instances they have NO EVIDENCE TO VERIFY THEIR CLAIMS, should be included or even believed because they simply say "Ukraine forces were in the area! Sure we have no proof but you should trust us". 106.68.82.41 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Harlequin

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. [11][12][13][14] 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[15][16]. Festivities around many sports events were seriously toned down e.g. Nijmegen Marches[17]. 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)

No, it's completely predictable, and trivial. What would be notable is if they didn't do it. Waste of electrons. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, can the reaction of Romania, removed in this edit, be restored? Sweden and Latvia am less sure about. India has already been restored. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see the entire section removed unless someone can convincingly explain precisely what vital information we are delivering to the reader here. Every entry is of the form

"{FLAGICON} (NAME) the (TITLE) of (NATION) expresses (HIS/HER)(SYMPATHETIC EMOTION) for the victims and (HIS/HER)(ANGRY EMOTION) at those responsible."

with little variation. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what would count as "vital" in this context. Encyclopedias tend to have lots of facts in them. A lot of those facts tend to look the same sometimes. Would you say that the inclusion of those statements made by the governments of Netherlands, Malaysia, Ukraine and Russia, for example, is wholly unjustified? The fact that USA made a comment is not noteworthy? Or are you saying it should all be summed up in a single paragraph, with the countries who officially commented just listed in a sentence? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like we go over this discussion time after time after time on just about every article from the president of the United States being elected, to high profile plane crashes such as this. Can we just end this already and put some kind of policy or guideline in place regarding reaction sections in articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I don't think there is enough material to split off an article with. If the section ever gets too large, then we can do what is necessary. Dustin (talk) 04:00, 19 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[18]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...[19] 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." [20] Dear Wine Guy, ETN is a reliable source? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@WineGuy Twitter may not be a "credible" source, but multiple news organizations who have reported on @spainbuca's twitter feed are published sources. Rather than throwing accusations of "conspiracy" let's look at the dry facts.

A plane has crashed and there are allegations that it was a deliberate act of mass murder or an act of war. So there are the US/Ukrainian "conspiracy theory" that the "terrorists" did it, and there is the Russian "conspiracy theory" that the Ukrainian military did it. And there are third party conspiracy theories that a bomb was detonated on the aircraft. No investigation has been conducted thus far, so this encyclopedia really has no business to choose one conspiracy over another - as the article currently favors the USA/Ukrainian controlled media version of the accusations and evidence.

You have the USA and Russia playing this game of brinkmanship over Ukraine for the last 9 months. A civilian airplane gets shot down. The Ukrainian government says the Russians did it. The Russians say the Ukrainian military did it. There are multiple news stories published supporting both sides. The Russian media have reported on this Spanish air traffic controller named Carlos whose twitter account is/was @spainbuca. They have reported the credible evidence that he was a witness to the downing of the aircraft and tweeted about it in Spanish as the situation was unfolding. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia that provides balanced coverage of the subject material using published sources. There are published sources of Carlos the air traffic controller's reports, so this is not "conspiracy theory" it is reporting on what the international news media have reported.

Of course, if you are a paid US Govt troll, then none of this will matter to you and you will claim any version but the USA narrative is a "conspiracy theory" because that is what you are paid to do. But any reasonable person who looks at all the reporting on this in International media, including Russian, must conclude that you are showing extreme bias to take only the USA version of the story, when no investigation has yet been carried out. This article needs to be more balanced and cover the story of Carlos the Air Traffic Controller, until proven otherwise by an acceptable source. Cadwallader (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

They have not reported any credible evidence that he was a witness, and, in fact, that he is a flight controller. (The guy does not speak English, which is impossible for a flight controller). They just referred to him as a flight controller without checking anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not every claim about what happened is equally supported by the evidence. Some claims are more conspiratorial and less evidence supported than others. Preferring the better supported account is not politically biased. It is, in fact, politically biased to declared them all conspiracy theories of equal validity. Der Spiegel mentions our Spanish flight controller story to say the story is "falsch". Der Spiegel goes on to note all the other B.S. being spread in the Russian media. Are you going to tell me this German publisher of pro-Edward Snowden stories is "a paid US Govt troll"?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 19 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)

Wikipedia:DRIVEBY: "Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies.... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:28, 19 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)

The figures have since been amended. There is still some ambiguity. Do you still dispute any of the figures given? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 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)

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)

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)

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 [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] and they have been restored countless times [28][29][30][31][32] 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)

WP:OVERLINKED says this: "In particular, unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, the following are not usually linked" The flags are totally relevant to the articles as they represent the countries making the reactions, they give the reader a visual aid instead of having them look at a wall of text. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:FLAGBIO "Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death" the flags in the passenger death count by country is against the guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That's in fact a misreading of WP:FLAGBIO caused by not including the end of the sentence "...as flags imply citizenship or nationality." . The flags are used correctly for the nationality here. The problem is WP:ICONDECORATION - the crux being "An icon is purely decorative if it does not improve comprehension of the article subject and serves no navigational function. " The flags in the passenger list WP:OVERLINK the countries, and so distract (slightly, subjectively), and the WP:QUOTEFARM is just that - wrong in itself (as per my comments above). Widefox; talk 22:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Should never be used" seems pretty clear cut to me, as for the other things I already responded to you above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The whole problem here is the way that, in general, these "world reaction" sections are listed. A major disaster (manmade or otherwise) happens, of course world leaders are going to send sympathies to the countries affected, so the restatement of the bulk of those are rote routine and becomes a violation of WP:QUOTEFARM. What should be done for these sections is to highlight the reactions that are more than just words, such as a country sending aid or help or the like, in a prose-like manner to highlight the unusual. Once you do that, the need to even use the flags goes away. --MASEM (t) 22:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM is not a policy or guideline here on Wikipedia though, there are articles as pointed out above that focus on reactions to certain events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but the policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to help by saying it must be thought out. So, a well considered list, or better prose. The problem we have with making prose right now is there's probably a lack of sources to tie them together. List inclusion criteria would help. Widefox; talk 02:04, 19 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)

"a Buk launcher can also operate in stand-alone mode"--Brian Dell (talk) 01:37, 19 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. [33] 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)

No worries, the conspiracy theories are offensive in themselves, much more so than any jokes you can think up. Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The report that Putin's plane was misidentified by Ukrainian jets appeared on Channel One Russia , the country's most popular TV network, so we should not call the sources fringe. They are, in fact, quite mainstream. But they can be both mainstream and unreliable if there is a deliberate state media propaganda effort at work.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a cock and bull story made by pundits like Solovyov. None of this is even true. Putin's involvement in the incident is obvious, no need to mystify it with false accusations. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 02:32, 19 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 (2)

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.

---

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)

• I agree. This was also discussed above. It is already excessive but it keeps growing. The many bland quotes especially need trimming. I tagged it to remind us to take care of this. --John (talk) 21:03, 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.

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)

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)

The timeline should be kept if the times of post-crash events are released/found. If not, there is no reason to have one. United States Man (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The timeline can be added later if there is a need for the chronology of post-crash events. However, now and for the near future I see no need for it. Maybe in a few weeks/months when much more detail is released. Thoughts?

• I also agree there is no need for this at present. --John (talk) 19:44, 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)

WP:CLAIM suggests claim or alleged would be more accurate than "said" when what is said in tendentious/disputed/doubtful. You should restrict yourself to replacing "claim" with said where what is said is, indeed, neutral and unlikely to be disputed. Our guideline here should be the style adopted by the NYT, wire services, etc for the particular claim or statement at issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:02, 19 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)

(edit conflict) It should probably wait until the true cause is known and confirmed. While likely, that is just speculation. United States Man (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that case, shall we also considered as terrorists the Ukrainian military that shot down a Siberia Airways 1812, the United States Navy that shot down the Iran Air Flight 655 and the Soviet Air Defence Force that shot down the Korean Air Lines Flight 007? And by the way, until now, it's not yet known who fired the missile. These air crash investigations usually take months! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags

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.

---

Could someone please put flag icons in the "Reactions" section near the comments of each respective representative, and make sure they STAY THERE? Thanks, 24.201.213.251 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no good reason to have flags, hence the reason they were removed. United States Man (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And I have re-added them a there appears to be no consensus for their removal other than "They look bad" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That is fine. I didn't join that discussion and have no strong opinion anyway. United States Man (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Actually I think there is consensus not to use them. Is there any point to them, from the reader's point of view? --John (talk) 23:10, 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Here is a source for the Belgian victims: 6 belgian nationals: 4 belgian nationals resident in belgium, 1 belgian national resident in australia and 1 dual Belgian-Dutch national resident in Belgium (already counted by the dutch victims). Neander1 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. -84user (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal and re-insertion of timeline flight

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 don't understand the edit warring. I know that this matter needs discussion. Whether the timeline of flight is useful should be discussed here. I don't want users to be banned or blocked over this matter. --George Ho (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It has already been discussed here (see above). Consensus is for removing it. United States Man (talk) 19:52, 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.

August 18?

"However, the militants later denied free access to the crash site to OSCE team on August 18." Should that not read "July 18"?184.147.239.218 (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks for the hint.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Account from pro-Russian separatists

The separatists in question appear to have given their side of the story, extremely bizarrely (!) suggesting that the plane was already full of dead bodies before being shot down. (Source: [34]). Regardless of my personal opinion of the claims, we should probably add it somewhere to the page. 140.180.253.174 (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"adding that he was told they were drained of blood and reeked of decomposition." Sounds like the vampires are at it again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If we do include that, we will have to make some indication of what parts may be in question. Dustin (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that the claims are utterly ludicrous, but as the separatists in question are the main accused/suspected perpetrators of the shoot-down, their reaction, however ridiculous, is very important and relevant to the article and its readers. 140.180.253.174 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to integrate Girkin's claims into the article, although I am not sure I put them in the right place. Dustin (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest hyper-linking his name (Igor Girkin), describing his title more specifically ('Commander of the Donbass People's Militia'), and mention that the militia in question was accused of shooting down the plane (which I gather prompted his reply.) 140.180.253.174 (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, in particular WP:ONEWAY is how to do this. Widefox; talk 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous and fringe are not the same thing. If the Russian media is widely reporting this nonsense, it should be included. Geogene (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fringe is ridiculous until proved right? anyhow, yes include if sourced, just without much weight. Widefox; talk 02:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17

Any way to integrate what is being reported here into the Wikipedia article? Inthefastlane (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Did they edit the en.Wikipedia or the ru.Wikipedia or what? Abductive (reasoning) 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• ru . WP:NOT#NEWS. If anywhere, List of Wikipedia controversies#2014 but not here. A see also from here may be ok. Widefox; talk 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Not sure it belongs in this article (may be some other one). But if you are going to include it, may be choose a better source? That one says all changes are permanently logged, with the username and IP address being stored. Any experience wikipedian will know this isn't true. The username or IP address is stored in the page history which is fairly permanent. But it's a case of 'either'. If editing from a username, the IP address is stored but not permanently and only viewable by a select group of editors under the WMF's strict privacy policy. While the wording in the article isn't totally clear, it could easily be interpreted to mean both the username (when one exists) and IP address are permanently logged. This doesn't matter that much to the story (although it does mean if the Russian state broadcasting company had simply used an account there's a fair chance no one could be sure or probably even realise it was them). However it does suggest whoever wrote it may be a little sloppy and while I don't see any other obvious errors, we should always be cautious. Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@ Abductive: from what the telegraph article has reported, they edited on ru.wikipedia

@ Widefox: any reason why you think this isn't news?

@ Nil Einne: the source is from one of the United Kingdom's newspaper of record, what better source do you need? Inthefastlane (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This should be added / noted shortly in the article or linked to a different article as it is indeed noteworthy/ newswothy and could be seen as an indication of any indirect or indirect involvement in the shotdown 46.7.56.247 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)M.

I strongly oppose the presentation of this if you intend to use it to indicate Russian involvement in the shootdown per WP:OR. Geogene (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Inthefastlane - did you read WP:NOT#NEWS? The topic is clearly editing of wikipedia which is in the scope of that list, and is a WP:TRIVIA / NEWS item in the scope of this article, irrespective of which sources cover it. Widefox; talk 22:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, like this non-news, you mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead of just citing editing guidelines, can you be more specific in terms of why you think this topic would be outside the scope of that list? Inthefastlane (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I found a second source: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/18/russia-edits-mh17-wikipedia-article . Ars Technica reposted the article on its site where I first found it. I am linking to the Wired UK link because that is the original version. Jesse Viviano (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is inside the Wikipedia:SCOPE of that list article. I'll say it again - I encourage anyone to put it in that list, and linking from here. As for putting it in here, with the context of "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. " it is (currently) trivia, and (currently) tangential (Wikipedia:Out of scope) to this topic - how is anyone who's uninvolved in this tragedy, but editing WP the same topic? The topic seems better placed in the WP editing list. (it's not even en WP, but ru) . Martinevans123, agree that article could be seen as quite news like, but it has enough material for a separate article, with summary style from the main one per WP:SPINOFF. That method could be used here (for covering the different article scopes), but I'm not sure a standalone article is warranted (yet). Widefox; talk 01:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

People on board by nationality/total number

I found myself to be eager to immediately alter the numbers on the "People on board by nationality" (the latest news over here, in the Netherlands, is that is 192 losses). However, I reckon it a guiding point for everyone over here, to take the numbers given by Malaysian Airlines. That also includes the nationality of those on board. I'd say we stick with what Malaysian Airlines realeses, concerning this. Unless multiple other sources say otherwise, may we agree on this?

Agreed. Also, is the American-Dutch counted in both the Netherlands and US count? If so, shouldn't the Malaysian-Hong Kong citizen be included in a Hong Kong section? If not, then again the numbers don't add up. Assuming the lower number for the disputed countries, the numbers add up to 302 not 298. Anthonyliu (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 21:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How to classify people with dual nationality? 1.9.122.144 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think they are classified by whatever their current home country is.--Empire of War (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I reckon one should follow the numbers and information given by Malaysia Airlines. But that's how I feel about it. 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 22:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, how to confirm which is their home country if they have dual citizenship? For example, one has US citizenship and any other country citizenship? 1.9.122.144 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This could get tricky. Might have to go as far as making a separate row in the table for dual-citizens. United States Man (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone with dual nationality can live in a third country. In any case, trying to claim that one nationality of a dual nationality person dominates over the other just because s/he recently lived in one of those two countries would be WP:OR. Boud (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do is count the USAmerican-Dutch and Malaysian-PRChina(HK) citizens twice, and add a note to explain why the total of per-country numbers adds to more than the total number of people. Boud (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Again: I reckon that information given by Malaysian Airlines should be followed, as they are the carrier. Further details might be included in the article, IMHO. 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 22:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree here as well. United States Man (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the info from Malaysian Airlines should be used. Regarding dual citizenship, I had started a section about this subject abovemoved below...see #Dual citizens. AHeneen (talk) 23:18, 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)

Unique circumstances for investigation

As this source suggests, this seems to be the first time an airline crash has ever had to have been investigated in a war zone. Maybe this point should be made explicitly? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I might be in support, but I would first like to see what others think. It may not carry enough weight. United States Man (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur, it might be worth exploring. Maybe it ends to nothing, maybe it ends to its own article. Depending on sources it could be something. So I'd say: agree! 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 23:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Flights now avoiding Ukraine airspace

A link with a useful map of other flights in the area on 17 July: [35]. Flights now diverted around eastern Ukraine. Tonight's BBC Newsnight made much of the fact that someone (we don't yet know who) was "to blame" for not closing Eastern Ukraine airspace to all commercial flights earlier. Brian Flynn, spokesman for European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation was interviewed as was "aviation expert" Chris Yates. Mention was also made of aviation blogger Michael Dembinsk, who had noted that, for some days previously, Russian jets had been carefully avoiding Eastern Ukraine airspace altogether and instead flying along the border. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda Warning

This article covers an event that is highly relevant to the political struggle between Russian and the USA to control Ukraine, not unlike the sinking of the Maine was to the Spanish American War. As such the "controlled" or state-friendly media of both countries have a tendency to parrot the propaganda of their respective country concerning this tragic event. Furthermore, Wikipedia has the highest PageRank score on the Internet. Therefore controlling this Wikipedia page as a means to sway public opinion in their favor is extremely important to the American, Ukrainian, NATO and Russian governments. I urge Wikipedia editors to be alert to propaganda or paid government trolls trying to dominate the content of this page to tell only one side of the story. Red flags for this type of manipulation include arguing that certain published facts should not be included because they are "conspiracy theories". Over 290 people are dead, by what appears to have been a deliberate act of murder or war. All sides seem to agree that the downing of MH-17 was a deliberate act. Was this a case of mis-identification or a deliberate act? Both sides say it was deliberate, therefore there is a consensus among all parties that there was a conspiracy to shoot down Flight MH-17.

The explosion of the USS Maine was used as a propaganda tool to justify the US invasion of Cuba in the Spanish American War. Like the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, the true cause of the explosion was not determined. However, American media seized upon the event to suggest and insist that Spain destroyed the USS Maine in order to justify starting the war.

Wikipedia is not a yellow journalism institution. We cannot follow the lead of American periodicals in blaming Russia, or the lead of Russian periodicals in blaming Ukraine. We should cite sources from both sides and tell the story all the way around, leaving it for the reader to decide. We Wikipedia editors do not know. We must report all sides of the story in order to be objective.

Considering that this event is being used to justify a push for sanctions and possibly war, and this Wikipedia page is key terrain for the battle to control the narrative of what actually happened in this event - the ultimate content of this page may have an influence on the life or death of thousands or tens of thousands of lives. Please do not use this page for propaganda.

Acceptable sources for this story are subject to the [Wikipedia Reliable Source Policy|Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources].

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Cadwallader (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I deleted an unsourced paragraph that claimed that "propaganda" was being produced by "both sides", that Ukraine was being fought over by Russia and the USA, and that opinions as to what happened were being made prematurely. All of that is POV. We can add some Russian views, but those views only appear to have traction inside the Russian Federation, and they should be presented as such (ie, not on equal terms). The Chinese are not commenting, and the rest of the world seems to be saying that Russian-trained separatists shot it down with a Buk missile. If we find out this is wrong later, we'll just change it. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would submit this to WP:arbcom if you would like to make an official statement stick, it would help if you could point out what sources you disagree with rather than give a warning in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

GeoGene is a brand new editor (March 2014) who just reverted my paragraph without talking about it FIRST. I will revert his/her changes manually. Cadwallader (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Being a bit aggressive, aren't you? Geogene (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Timeline section needed, Cause will be determined by investigation

The current structure and order is convoluted and there is no authoritative Cause until the investigation is completed (personally, I've heard the tapes and think it was the militia). NPOV can be waaaay better than this and the article needs to be properly structured if it is to get better. JBVaughan (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is why we're attributing blame to the politicians that placed it. Ie, "Obama said...". I'm not sure I see where the accusations of "propaganda" are coming from. Geogene (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example of an edit I don't understand [36]. This one is by user:9kat. Numerous sources and several countries seem to believe that it does, in fact, appear that this aircraft was shot down by a "Russian-made" missile. Why shouldn't we say that? Geogene (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This event is being used to justify economic sanctions between countries. Therefore any premature "truth claims" as to who did it will be used, and already have been used, for political purposes.Cadwallader (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

All three factions (Ukraine, rebels, and Russians) use the same equipment. It's fine to cite it as a Russian-made missile, if there was any real evidence that such a missile was fired, so long as you specify that all players in the theatre are using the same equipment and the manufacturer does not provide any insight as to who actually fired it. Cadwallader (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

However, thus far, there has been no evidence provided by non-interested parties, that a BUK missile was used. Do we have report of sensor readings of a launch location? Was the missile body found? No. It is entirely conjecture and propaganda at this early point in time. Cadwallader (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I reverted two apparent POV-pushing additions: [37] [38]. It's too cumbersome to note "(according to U.S. intelligence)" in a infobox; that type of information goes better in the body. Just calling it a "Buk missile" might be okay; it was the "Russian-made" and "launched from Ukraine" and similar that are the issues, from both sides, as being WP:UNDUE to prominently ascribe blame when there's no need to do so. 9kat (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The only standard of truth here is WP:RS. We have them. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit: yes, I see how "shot from Ukraine" and "Russian-made", while both technically true, can lead to unwarranted conclusions. Thanks 9kat. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not then place in the article references that state why a BUK missile was not used to balance things out then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Buk missile itself was not the real issue, but the POV phrasing of both additions. I don't see any credible sources claiming a Buk missile wasn't used; I'm not arguing that... (But there's also no confirmation past Ukrainian and U.S. statements yet, so we need to be mindful of that until sources reflect otherwise.) 9kat (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine Interior Minister and video: Buk missing one missile "en route to Russia"

This should be added to the part next to the wiretap recordings. The article with video says: "Secret surveillance units of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry this morning have recorded a caterpillar tractor with the Buk missile system on it, moving via Krasnodon towards Russia," which is missing one missile. This has been picked up the media, examples: [39] [40] [41] [42] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetyetnono (talk • contribs) 23:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

How is this link supposedly not necessary? It definitely is relevant. Dustin (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh, you must be new to this sort of article. eg Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, TWA Flight 800, Japan Airlines Flight 123 TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@TheAirplaneGuy: Don't make assumptions, and please give an actual reason. That link has already been there for a while now, and your supposed reasoning is not reasoning at all. Just because those articles are one way doesn't mean this one must follow suit. Dustin (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for its exclusion either, can you provide any reasoning other than pointing to other articles? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I also don't see a reason for its exclusion. I'd like to see an explanation as well. United States Man (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this really be (just) a Category? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, except the problem is that we already have a nearly 300kb list article. Dustin (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking it should be renamed to at least 100 fatalities, sadly there are many wit hat least 50 to list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a decent list to me, and its a featured list. Dustin (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Due to the high-profile reportage on the incident, and the fact that it is undeniably confirmed, I think it's safe to bypass WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS with regards to its inclusion in the list. The content of the article, however, needs to be monitored carefully for the usual policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I tagged the article and made a discussion on it's talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of External Link to Wiretaps Audio

There was a link to a YouTube posting Ukraine's claimed wiretaps. That link was deleted just a short time ago by an editor that questioned its authenticity. Should we link to it, or not link to it? Geogene (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would vote for keeping it, but adding some kind of disclaimer next to the link. United States Man (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an actual template for YouTube links, {{YouTube}}. Dustin (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the editors above. No reason not to keep it, properly described.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Vavilevskii (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, add the following infromation:

On 18 July Russian Defense Ministry spokesman reported to journalists that "Russian radar facilities during 17 July detected work of 9S18 "Kupol" (radar station of detection and targeting for 9K37-1 SAM "Buk-M1" squadron), stationed near ukrainian-controlled village Styla (30 km south of Donetsk)", and stressed, that MH17 was shot down in the affected area of the ukrainian SAM "Buk-M1" batteries, stationed at Avdiyivka (8 km north of Donetsk) and Gruzsko-Zaryanskoe (25 km east of Donetsk), while Russian air defense systems were not deployed in the border area that day and the air force did not commit sorties, adding that "This information is fully confirmed by means of objective control"

It also remains unclear, even if the separatists were able to fix the captured 9K37-1 SAM "Buk-M1" and then not having 9S18 "Kupol" SDT system, which is separate facility of the squadron, could "Buk-M1" shoot at a target at an altitude of 10 km, using own onboard radar system 9C35, which is covering only ±60° in azimuth and 0-7° in elevation, as simple geometric calculations says that at this elevation angle "Buk-M1" had to be located at 80 km far from the aircraft, and the maximum missiles range is only 30 km (covers maximum altitude of ~3-3.5 km, and this number is indicated as the lowerest range distance of "Buk-M1"). Vavilevskii (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vavilevskii: Regardless of whether or not the content is added, where do you want it to be added? I mean, what section? Dustin (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: "Timeline" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vavilevskii (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done: If someone removes it, they will discuss it with you. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vavilevskii: Oh, I forgot to say, that "done" only applies to the first part. The second part I am little less easy about, so I might pass that off to another editor. Dustin (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

2nd part of request  Not done @Vavilevskii: My concern is that this is a matter of expertise and is covered by WP:RECENTISM and WP:OR. At this point, until the area has been properly secured and the technical details investigated, you would need to bring very solid WP:RS to the table. Not yet within the scope of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: The sources just mentioned that the radar of the launcher weaker than radar system "Kupol" and its range - less. But the exact technical data about altitude - contained nowhere. Probably because in Russia this type of old radars was never been used. Anyway, the missile is equipped with striking elements in the form of shrapnel, and more than 10 kg of explosives, so that traces of them in a variety must be found in cladding soon.

Pro-Russia vs. pro-Russian

I know what "pro-Russia" means: it means proponent or supporter of Russia. What exactly does "pro-Russian" mean? --50.46.245.232 (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

An easy guess would be a supporter of Russian people. United States Man (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've never heard "pro-Russia" in use before. "Pro-Russia separatists" just sounds wrong. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I believe that Wikipedia prefers for the prose to use the adjectival form of the word. Dustin (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-Russian" could mean proponent of anything relating to Russia—e.g., Russian football, Russian music, Russian women, Russian hats? "Pro-Russia" seems rather less ambiguous, but I've seen both "pro-Russia" and "pro-Russian" in use by reputable news agencies. Any guidance from WP:MOS? --50.46.245.232 (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Pro-Russia" anything just sounds wrong. However, by itself it sounds better than "Pro-Russian". United States Man (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be "Russophile" instead? And btw, if it were up to me, I'd use "Russia-aligned" instead, because "pro-Russia" makes it sound like "pro-Kosovo", as if the entity doesn't exist. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather than disputing terminology already being used in articles surrounding current affairs issues in Ukraine, why don't you stop wasting time and take a look at the protracted discussions over the use of 'pro-Russian' on the related article, plus simply google the term specifically filtering 'news'. It's hardly WP:OR or a pejorative: it's based primarily on economic allegiances. The fact that anyone querying the term here is misinterpreting the WP:COMMONNAME use in the media, after it's been examined thoroughly for neutrality and accepted by both POV sides over and over again means that we should not have to go through the WP:TEDIOUS process again. Thank you, in advance, for taking some time out to read the relevant talk pages and archives (i.e., Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine as merely one of the articles) before starting to parse imagined implications because you've only just had your interest triggered in the subject matter due to this single incident. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Uh-huh. I get it. You want me off the website. Fine, be that way. This happened 7 years before, this will happen 7 years later. I will be 35 years old and surrounded by teenagers teaching me how to behave. Whatever. I'm going to order some pizza. Please feel free to remove everything I ever wrote (you and your kin keep removing my "Zombies" section anyway, and will most likely even remove this very comment because WP:WHATEVER, so yeah) and just block me indefinitely. I made another mistake by coming writing here anyway, I was way better editing minor sites everyone forgot about for a long time. But noooooo, I had to come here... Well, at least it was deserved. Please talking to ya, m'am. 24.201.213.251 (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not add the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 to the “see also” section?

It is the most similar incident that occurred (Asian civilian airline passager plane caught in a tense region of the Soviet/Former Soviet Union), even if we go along with the Russian official theory that the plane was downed by a Ukrainian missile…--MaGioZal (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Because OPPAN:GANGNAM STYLE 24.201.213.251 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why it isn't included. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't get what the IP editor was talking about. Dustin (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Ignore him. He is about halfway a vandal, and has been acting rudely to some people on here, including me. United States Man (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Reorganise Reactions Section

Currently the Reactions section is split into 'Countries Involved', containing reactions from Malaysia, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, the Rebels and the EU, and 'International', containing reactions from Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, UK, the US and the UN. I don't see why it even needs to be split into two sections, and in addition to this, the titles of the sub-sections are misleading because many of the countries in the 'International' section are actually involved in the disaster. I think there should be just one list of reactions, containing only countries from which relevant and notable reactions have been given. I'm not sure exactly how to define what should be included and what shouldn't, but countries which were home to victims would be a starting point and any other countries/organisations with a significant involvement in the events (such as Ukraine, Russia, UN...) could be added to it. But reactions from countries like India, Hungary, South Africa, and Tanzania aren't particularly notable and, unless it is revealed that they were home to victims, they should probably be removed because the section is becoming too long and unencyclopedic. OakleighPark 03:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a long discussion ongoing above on the reactions section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)