Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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[1]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)

It's probably a good idea considering how many have raised already. Though I would suggesting waiting some time with that till a hotheads on wiki cool of a bit and meanwhile: try to collect material. SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:34, 20 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...[2] 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." [3] 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.

• Comment deleted per NOTFORUM by Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC) ---- Original comment signed by: 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)

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 [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and they have been restored countless times [11][12][13][14][15] 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)

And that's been a problem for a long time; blocks of reaction quotes are simply not encylcopedic. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 19 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)

Certainly a prose-written section to summarize the world reaction, cherry picking a few useful quotes, is a good thing. But we don't need the reaction from every country on every incident. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• To me, the worst part of this section is the useless condolences mouthed by politicians for no reason other than it is expected of them. Get rid of those quotes, keep your ugly distracting flags if it makes you sleep better at night to have defiled articles with them. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Cadwallader [partially redacted by other user per NOTFORUM]

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)

Wikipedia policy is that you must talk about changes on the talk page before just deleting someone else's edit. So, Geogene is the aggressive one here.Cadwallader (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally does not require users to get permission from others before making any specific edit, nor are new users subject to any probationary period. Furthermore and most importantly, the material which you added (and which Geogene properly removed) was manifestly inappropriate unsourced editorializing. Please don't add it again. I have also partly redacted your comments here, as the Talk page is not a place for editors to spread homebrew conspiracy theories. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this whole procedure. We do not remove others' comments. Cadwallader only tried to focus on objectivity... Geogene's attitude was not neutral. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:47, 20 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)

@MaGioZal: - KAL007 was shot down by the Soviet Military (a legal entity). MH17 was shot down by "rebels" (not a legal entity). There lies the difference. A more comparable loss is the Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk about about being semantic/pedantic, this is ridiculous the KAL incident needs to be included in that section. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. I introduced it yesterday on the wiki:it article, and they thanked me to have done it. Alex2006 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots. That distinction doesn't mean that Korean Flight 007 shouldn't be listed. From Wikipedia:See also (emphasis added): "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I think the similarities between Flight 007 & MH17 are enough to be listed:

1. A large number of passengers (there are many incidents listed at List of airliner shootdown incidents, but most were under 60 deaths),
2. was is the cruise phase of flight (not shot down while descending/landing or take-off/climbing, many other incidents were around these times of the flight),
3. involves a major airline (the lower boundary of what can be considered a "major" airline is debatable, but many other incidents were small/regional airlines),
4. both involved a "Russian" region (that's not a reference to Russia the country, but both flights were shot down by/in an ethnically Russian area). While, of course, the incidents occurred several thousand kilometers apart, in the public's mind, the incidents both involved Russians. Also, both involved an Asian aircraft.

Once again, the purpose of the "see also" section is not that the other article is exactly or almost exactly the same, but similar. I think Korean Air Lines Flight 007 is similar enough to be mentioned. I think the other shot-down flights that should be mentioned, because they were in the cruise phase of flight (except the Il-76, because it was nearby/part of same conflict) and involved a large number of deaths are:

• Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (already listed in article)
• Lionair Flight 602 possibly worth mentioning, also in a conflict zone, although cause not determined
• Iran Air Flight 655 climbing (not really in mid-flight cruise), but noteworthy because of death toll and being shot down in the middle of a conflict zone (during course of Iran-Iraq War & targeting of ships in the Persian Gulf)
• Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114 mid-flight cruise, shot down over militarily sensitive area, large number of casualties
• Korean Air Lines Flight 902 maybe worth mentioning, nearby (relatively speaking) and involves Russians shooting down an Asian aircraft, only 2 casualties
• El Al Flight 402 maybe worth mentioning. Happened a long time ago and there aren't as many similarities, except it was in mid-flight cruise. Low casualty figure.

Thoughts?? I'm going to be Bold and add the Iran Air & Libyan flights to the article.AHeneen (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

All shoot down incidents should be listed in there, be it accidental by a kid playing with a gun on his balcony.175.110.222.144 (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We have List of airliner shootdown incidents in the Seelso section, this is more than enough in my opinion. No need to take all the incidents from the list separately to the same section.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But there is the need to browse through dozens of accidents to find similar ones. Having only the one link is like only linking to List of civil aircraft from the Boeing 777 page...it helps the reader to navigate to similar incidents (more specific than just shoot-down incidents). See the quote above from the Wikipedia:See also page. AHeneen (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I’ll add the link.--MaGioZal (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting turn of the discussion: (1) All shootdown incidents should be listed on this page (2) They are indirectly through the list of shootdown incidents (3) But that list would require a reader to look at all shootdown incidents.

Arguments 1 and 3 are almost direct opposites but both are made by editors arguing we should list the other shootdown incidents.

For what it is worth - I would have no objection to add Surface to Air attacks on civilian aircraft in the last ten year in the same region. But that would limit it to the IL-76 and Siberian 1812 flights. These are similar enough to be of relevance in my opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian reaction and Russian response

I am not sure where exactly this should be mentioned, but there is a growing dispute between Australia and Russia over the shoot-down. The gist is that when the PM addressed parliament and the nation, he characterised it as a crime, and implicated Russia in the disaster (which have since been repeated by the Queensland premier; Brisbane is hosting the G20 summit later this year, which Putin is scheduled to attend).

Now, while I am aware that the prevailing political and public opinion worldwide is that Russia bears some degree of responsibility - exactly how much remains to be seen - the PM was the first world leader to publicly make the connection. MH17 was shot down at 12:15am AEDT, and the PM addressed parliament some time between 8:15am and 11:00am AEDT. To the best of my knowledge, no other world leader brought up Russia's role until at least twenty-four hours after the shoot-down.

The PM's comments and the subsequent summoning of the Russian ambassador to the foreign ministry were not received well by the Russians, to the point where they addressed his comments directly. As far as I know, the Russians have not addressed any other world leader's comments directly the way they have Australia's.

So my question is this: is this unique within the global community, and if so, how should it be addressed in the article? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, the rule of thumb applying here is that of WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS but, by far the primary policy to be applied is that of no original research. If it is not being discussed in reliable sources, it doesn't get a look in, and there is no way you can or should attempt to somehow work it into the content. The only circumstances under which it might be appropriate is if you have a crystal ball and know it is going to become a political crisis - which is evidently what you are trying to POV-push here. No crystal balls; no biased personal political agendas (whether Abbot is an arse or not); no journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As an Australian I apologise for our PM. He won power less than a year ago and is already facing extremely negative polls. He and the Queensland premier are both from the political right in Australia. Neither is well know for their diplomatic skills. This is somewhat equivalent to McCain's idiotic comments. It's crap such as theirs that pushes me to say please leave politician's nonsense out of the article.

I am not trying to POVPUSH - merely trying to ascertain notability, and for that, I had to provide some context - the timeline of events - as to what happened and when, since other countries have since made the suggestion that Russia was in some way responsible. What I am uncertain of is whether or not Russia has taken the time to address the statements of every nation that has accused Russia in some way, shape or form, or if Australia is unique in that regard - and if it is unique, then how that should be addressed in the article. After all, Australia lost 28 citizens in the shoot-down, holds a temporary seat on the UN Security Council, and has already made some pretty serious diplomatic moves against Russia, some of which have been reciprocated. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, maybe it can be included, but please attribute it very clearly to the PM, by name. Don't blame all us Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But he has the right to make such public statements, doesn't he? "I think Russia is involved", it's not a fact. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but we must remember that any politician not directly involved and who is making a statement will be mainly saying what he thinks is politically appropriate. And it his statement. It doesn't represent what everyone in that country thinks, nor necessarily what a majority there may think. It's wrong to use language of the form "Australia has said..." or "Australia has declared...". Leave that for the tabloid journalists. This is a serious encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

More on Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17

Yes this is interesting... Russian government edits Wikipedia on flight MH17. A political battle has broken out on Wikipedia over an entry relating to the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, with the Russian government reportedly removing sections which accuse it of providing "terrorists" with missiles that were used to down the civilian airliner TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder if a look at IP edits, before this page was semi-protected, might reveal some interesting Who is? results.--220 of ^Borg 06:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Calculate what is it is much chiper

A to put IP entry in sql database

B to fund 5 bilion to ukrainian revolution. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if true, which country gov is free of they V-column ?

Sorry, ip99, which column is that, V for Vikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the Fifth Column? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

phew! what a relief, I almost thought we had someone using a mask here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. The same have been tried by Israel with articles about the Middle east. I'm sad to say with some success. (this is the third time i write this, since my 2 first reply was removed by an asshole)

I think there already was such a topic in this talk page (was it archived?). This is first of all. Second, the source doesn't state which Wikipedia was subject to censure: English or Russian? Or maybe even Dutch? Since I speak Russian, I went to the Russian Wiki and the only thing closest to being acts of censure I saw there was the constant removal of the section regarding who shot the Buk (that was yesterday). This lasted all the way up to this morning when it was clear the rebels made that shot. Goes to say similar behaviors are common on the Russian Wiki, since the edits aren't monitored there the same way they are here, and multiple articles seem to suffer from original research, for instance. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And who made it clear ? And for who? Your sentences are basicaly antisemantic. Usuly the method of 'making it clear, setling the content is to threten to or block semiprotect kick or ban. Imo the w-organ is part of blowing machine. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not looking for idle chit chat. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Cui bono ?

what about those who know what hapened before any investigation ?

Sorry, a little too cryptic, unsigned ip. Care to expand or shall we delete as WP:FORUM? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the plane airoute was diverted to north , 10 earlier routes folowed more southerly route, not crosing the Ukrainian civil warzone . The Ukrainian regime is responsible to set up the air coridor parameters over its teritory. There is a database tracking past airline routes. Is the obvius conclusin (to me) original reserch to you ? If not add it to article, i can't it is blocked. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It is protected exactly to prevent adding original research such as your opinion here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, you're blaming Ukrainian ATC for separating aircraft, yes? If that airspace was deemed open (which it certainly was), one flight had to go north. That was a routine routing that had been done many thousands of times before? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A link with a useful map of other flights in the area on 17 July: [16]. Flights now diverted around eastern Ukraine. BBC Newsnight on 18 July 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 Dembinski, who had noted that, for some days previously, Russian airliners had been carefully avoiding Eastern Ukraine airspace altogether and instead flying along the border. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, ip99, where is the evidence that Flight MH17 was "diverted" at all? Wasn't just flying its normal flight plan, as filed at Schiphol, all the way to Kuala Lumpur? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I know is common to fly around Chicago at 4 Jully to watch sky ignited by explosions . Do you suggest they were flying rutinelly turists over war-zone? Open the art i can add links to FDB. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and, this is especially not a forum for crazy conspiracy theories. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the Dutch commentators reported that due to expected weather (storms) to the south a more northern flightplan was chosen. Nothing unusual, if possible planes avoid areas with expected bad weather. Arnoutf (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So there was not conpiracy but Act of God ? Could you put the ref to weather service , I can put the ref to fly database if you unblock the article 99.90.196.227 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

By all means post your proposed links here, so we can see them. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Another talk page section positively screaming out to be deleted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought what I added might be useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

8 More Australian Dead

As has been reported,here [[17]], 8 permanent Australian residents were found to have been using Dutch and Malaysian Passports. I have updated the Australian dead, but since they used passports from other countries does this mean they may have been counted among the Malaysian and Dutch dead? --Empire of War (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe they should go under dual nationality for now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The first column notes the nationalities as released by the airline, while the dual nationalities column notes people that had citizenship in a certain country but were officially assigned another nationality by the airline. Heymid (contribs) 10:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as I understand this, Malaysian airways lists the nationality based on the passport used to board the plane. This is also why Dutch govt lists 193 casualties, 1 Dutch dual nationality person boarded on a Malaysian passport. Arnoutf (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Malaysian Airlines did in the case of those who did not board the flight with any passport? I believe the reason it took so long for the full list is because a number were not checked in with a passport coming from other flights (KLM EU flights I guess). Are they going by the passport used when first boarding (as they were destined for an international flight, I guess they must have shown a passport at some stage).

Also are we including non citizen residents as well? If so, there was a NZ resident in addition to the dual citizen, I can dig up sources if we are adding non citizen residents. IMO if we are going to include non citizen residents, we should seperate them. Amongst other things, AFAIK few countries restrict their citizens taking up residency in other countries in general (they may disallow them doing stuff such as serving in a foreign army or anything regarded as treasonous and may restrict some countries). But many countries still restrict multiple citizenship.

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

Hrabove, Donetsk Oblast

Also keep an eye on this article. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your post has no RS mentioned, no value to the improvement of the article. Please don't WP:FORUM, etc. etc.HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll spell it out to you as you're a bit slow. Look at this edit I made. Can you see it now? Give me a shout when you've caught up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page is for carefully explaining complaints, not insulting others for failing to read your mind. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Polish Foreign Affairs Minister warning about missiles supplied by Russians "creating a danger to civil aviation" (15 July 2014)

I was thinking about adding information about Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski (playing an important role in formulating the European response to Russian annexation of Crimea, etc., a few months ago) who travelled to Kiev earlier this week and said (reportedly on 15 July) that "These are mobile rockets whose sale is governed by international rules and they are forbidden from being supplied to non-state groups, because that creates the possibility of the proliferation of these kinds of weapons, which creates a danger to civil aviation around the world."
Source: "Polish politics: Where is Radek?". The Economist. 18 July 2014. (currently on The Economist's front page)
However, I'm not sure which section would be appropriate for this (or maybe it's non-notable anyway?), as it doesn't really qualify as an "event before the crash." — Mayast (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I ashamed of this minister, he's unhappy in political marriage. Anyway by saing this he also suggest is ok by Kievyan Poroshenco junta to bomb from supersonics jets such disarmed and defensles people in cities who dare to refuse join e soviet. The (IMO unhuman) POV of this article lay in article construction exclusively pitting civilian killed on jets but completely omitting civilians killed by jets. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the first part of your reply. Anyway, when it comes to "pitting civilian killed on jets" and "omitting civilians killed by jets", this is an article about MH17, not 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Let's stick to the topic. Mayast (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mayast: Put it in the Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Events_before_the_crash section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Mayast (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Bodies

Now reports that "Pro-Russian rebels 'stole bodies from MH17 crash site'": [18]. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC):

Just taking it to a new low... TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely there is justification for moving bodies, as quickly as possible, to a secure central location? It's just common decency. I'm not sure how this counts as "stealing". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza (in Polish, you can use Google Translate): According to Ukrainian government, the rebels have transported 38 bodies to the morgue in Donetsk and declared to carry out autopsies themselves. Local sources claim that the rebels do this to hinder the investigation. They also reportedly started to look for large vehicles to transport the wreckage to Russia. http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114875,16348805,Rzad_Ukrainy__rebelianci_wywoza_ciala_ofiar_katastrofy.html
My comment: If the wreckage is indeed moved across the border, don't expect to ever see it again. Poland is still waiting for Russians to return us the wreckage of our presidential plane which crashed in April 2010. Mayast (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obviously not as simple as just moving bodies to a morgue. But such a deliberate move would, I'm sure, be seen internationally as an even greater outrage. I wonder where the black boxes are by now. Buried even before the passengers, I wouldn't be surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all Russians are evil, aren't they? FFS, drop the anti-anybody conspiracy crap. Concentrate on finding excellent sources of information that can improve this article. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that point for us, HiLo48. But the black boxes have already been given to Russian "investigators" haven't they? Or that was the intention of the separatists in the area? And since then? Not exactly very visible, are they. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC

TECHNICAL NOTE - two military/flight experts on the national news this morning - two diff networks - said the 'black boxes' will be useless as far as determining if the plane was hit by a missile. They could determine the time of impact in that the telemetry would suddenly cease. FYI. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

How does that post contribute to improving this article? There's far to much POV on display on this page. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we please go back to the original topic (the bodies being moved) and look for more ref sources on this? — Mayast (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

[19] - 'Second black box recovered' from crash site. I think this should be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:NPOV, a few minutes ago TVP Info cited the separatists on air (more precisely, I think they cited Alexander Borodai), saying that they are moving bodies to the morgue just to prevent them from decaying in the sun. Mayast (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

BBC NEWS 24 have reported the same. As I said, I'd say that was just common decency. They also said they have been moved only to the side of the road (presumably from the middle of corn fields etc.). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

They very well might consider it common decency, however that place and bodies are technically part of the crime scene, I doubt this is helpfull in solving this. SeraV (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Our opinions here are irrelevant of course. I am unable to find any firm written source for the movement of bodies. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Common decency would be allowing OCDE experts into the crash site along with a free access to the Ukrainian government experts to secure the crash site and move the bodies instead of threatening them and forbidding any access to the crash site for families or international experts. SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Names and such

• "Oleh Bugrov Valeriovyc" [20] is wrong. 1) Bugrov looks like surname and should go last, whereas "Valeriovyc" is a father's name, should go in the middle or omitted. 2) "Oleh" is a (lame) Ukranian transcription of Олег, the Russian transcription is "Oleg". Since this is a DPR guy, shouldn't WP use the Russian version?
• Same with Avdiyivka / Avdeevka, the village name, cf. [21]
• Why is the (IMO dubious, but well) RT story about Putin assassination attempt has this prooflink? This isn't RT.

Why is the IP address not being picked up ^  ? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one very bad name translation, indeed. But whether "Oleg" or "Oleh" is used, I think it depends on the country of the source. DPR are not necessarily pro-Russian in toponymy, both Russian and Ukrainian translations can be used. So I think it's rather irrelevant. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• For place names in Ukraine, we use the Ukrainian National transliteration, per WP:UKROM. Do not use the Russian transliteration. As far as personal names, those are up for debate. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

SBU

On a side note, the is an Internet hype about SBU wiretaps of the separatists being forged. The version I saw was about upload/record date being earlier than the plane crash. Any information on that?

Yeah, it's Youtube bullshit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Is YouTube really of any relevance as a source in this case? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is, because it can serve as almost trusted time-stamp source. --Mykhal (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is that WP can state a YouTube video for sources, but I don't think it can affirm the case with such a video. I mean, it's different from real trusted news sources. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yutube is good if High commisioner to refuges confirmig this is her voice (abot who kill who). Or Mecrekel say *f* UE nicht gut, commenting VF Nulland insight in future 'election' results. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is not wholly convincing, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: the youtube-generated timestamp is the upload time (UTC), but of the previous day (-24h). Obviously, youtube servers are generating the creation date like it was taken 24 hours before the upload. --Mykhal (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

locations of the crash site and missile launch post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop what? Wrong gunman: [22]. So you are making it all up. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economist blog notes speculation about Buk theft booty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malaysian actress

She may not be a big celeb nor matter to western audience but Shuba Jaya http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysian-actress-dutch-hubby-and-baby-die-with-mh17 was a known actress in her country and region, and needs to be included as notable people onboard. inspector (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The measure is that she already has a wikipedia article or would be notable enough for a stand-alone wikipedia article to be named here. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that she should have an article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Press conference by Dutch PM

Pretty strong press conference by Dutch PM just now. He states to be disgusted by the lack of respect of people messing around at the crash site; against all international treaties. He openly states that Putin is rapidly losing the chance to show the world he is serious about supporting independent investigation. He also states that everyone hindering the salvage operation is making themselves suspects.[23] This is, with Frans Timmermans (foreing minister of NL) press conference of about an hour ago by far the strongest language used by the Dutch. Should we do something with this? Arnoutf (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

As described, it would be a very notable and reliably sourced opinion. However I'd imagine we are going to need a section or sub-article dealing with reactions from leaders around the world. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nationalities

I am not understanding this table, If Dutch-Belgian is included in Belgium dual-citizen section, why isnt the passener along with Dutch-Israeli,-Ducth-Vietnamese,-Dutch-Malaysian, Dutch-American listed in dual-citizen section of Netherlands, same for UK and New Zealand where the UK-South African and a UK-New Zealand citizen should be in the dual-citizen section of UK and New Zealand. How does one know that the people have kept ther own former nationalties and not renounced them in favour of the new ones, should they then be identified with their former countries? no other passenger tables in such articles have the dual citizen section, there was an Indian on Malaysian 370 who took up Canadian citizenship he isnt listed amongst the Indian passengers, only as Canadian. inspector (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you certain this person was a dual citizen of India and Canada? Being born in India doesn't guarantee they are a dual citizen. As I understand it, Indian nationality law doesn't really allow dual citizenship. You can be an overseas citizen of India (which some countries consider dual citizenship but India does not and doesn't really confer the exact same privileges as citizenship) and a citizen of another country, but not a dual citizen. And our article suggests the loss of citizenship is automatic, so it seems likely it's impossible that this person could have been a dual citizen (since even if India wasn't aware, as far as they are concerned this person already lost their citizenship if they took up citizenship of another country).

In the case of Malaysia, there are people listed as dual citizens. There's often confusion over this but although Malaysia disallows dual citizenship after a certain age, it's not automatic. The constitution allows the government to cancel Malaysian citizenship of any dual citizen which they nearly always do, but it requires the government to actual find out and carry out the cancellation (you're supposed to inform them) so it's theoretically possible for people to be dual citizens. (This is also why most Malaysians would be travelling under their Malaysian passport when travelling to Malaysia, I suspect even if they didn't intend to go through passport control. Of course it's fairly common anyway for those with multiple citizenship to choose the citizenship of their destination if they have it, and in some cases even when it's allowed it's expected.)

AFAIK in the existing cases, they have been reported as citizens of two or more different countries. It has little to do with where they were born but what passport they were travelling under and whether any other countries has said they were a citizen of their country. (Although there seems to be some confusion over the inclusion of non citizen residents.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Cargo manifest shows L-ion batteries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page should be semi-protected

Desperate times, y'all. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Or may be some IPs should be blocked for trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Don't think it would stop people from foruming to such an event of worldwide importance. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It would reduce what threatens to be a very large volume of improper WP editing and discussion unfolding over the coming months. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice at the top of this talk page:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

I would suggest that we let the admins handle any issues that may or may not arise, rather than trying to prematurely stifle discussion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are rarely protected, especially not when the article is protected. Semi-protection seems to be working well here. The article has matured really quickly and is of a good standard. Thanks to the many editors who are watching and editing it. It's a "hot topic" both on and off Wikipedia, so some disruption is to be expected, but nothing that can't be handled. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What I don't see is an edit war going on. The protection can serve its purpose, but what "edit war" are we talking about here? Really, I just don't see any. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine Accuses Russia of Providing Missiles

NYT July 19 KIEV, Ukraine — The Ukrainian government said on Saturday that it had proof that Russia had provided the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet over eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 298 people aboard. ... At a news conference in Kiev, the capital, Vitaly Nayda, the head of counterintelligence of the Ukrainian State Security Service, displayed photographs that he said showed three BUK-M1 missile systems on the road to the Russian border. Two of the devices, missile launchers mounted on a self-propelled armored vehicle, crossed the border into Russia about 2 a.m. Friday, less than 10 hours after the jet, Flight 17, was blown apart in midair, he said. The third weapon crossed about 4 a.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith McClary (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

And how it is related to MH17? Local time wrap 10 h back in time. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight 17 or Flight MH17

Some sources, such as the BBC, are referring to this flight as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 (see here for example). Should we move the article to reflect that, or is Flight 17 the correct title? This is Paul (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

MH is just a shorthand code for "Malaysia Airlines Flight" so no need to change it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also the current title is consistent with virtually all WP articles about airliner crashes (all that I'm aware of), including Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and Delta Air Lines Flight 191. There's nothing like tradition. :) Mandruss (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Consistency is best here. Dustin (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Bias in Referring to Russian News Outlets

It is well known that the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News loyally follow Washington's lead when reporting on foreign policy, particularly when it comes to ramping up for war. Yet we do not refer to them as "Washington-backed news outlet".

This article refers to Russia Times (rt.com) and Itar-Tass as "Kremlin-backed outlet". To refer to Russian mainstream media as "Kremlin-backed" but not to say the same about American media, or UK media is bias. I suggest such bias be removed from the article.Cadwallader (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

RT is widely viewed as a government propaganda outlet, American media outlets generally are not and the specific publications mentioned are quite highly regarded. So your suggested course of action would not be appropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What a pointless, POV discussion. We have two posts. One says "It is well known that..." The other says "...is widely viewed as..." That's not good enough folks. Sources, please! Not just opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't article space. Check out the Russia Today article if you wish to read the extensive notable opinions regarding RT as Kremlin propaganda. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Even with reliable sources documenting or claiming the biases of other reliable sources, I don't see the point of including these as adjectives in front of all the reliable sources we use. The system of Western mainstream media biases is well-documented, and it looks like RT's very strong links to the Russian government are well-documented (I haven't checked in depth, but it's highly credible). But I don't see the point of overriding the consensus in the WP:LEAD of the articles about those journals. The WP:NPOV approach, given Radio Today and Washington Post could be, e.g.

• "according to the international multilingual Russian-based television network Radio Today ..."
• "according to the widely circulated United States daily newspaper The Washington Post ..."

where we take just the first few adjectives considered most important by the Wikipedians editing those articles. (The lack of mention that the Washington Post represent the US military–industrial complex POV in the lead there is presumably related to WP:BIAS, but the place to NPOV that is in that article or justify modification of the RT article lead, not here.) But aren't these descriptions distracting the reader from the main issue? All sources have biases (e.g. Wikipedia is biased towards reliable sources, NPOV, no original research, and structured content), but giving a source should enable the reader to search for more info or make a judgment based on his/her previous judgments of the source.

Another way of saying it: if the reader wants to know what biases to expect from RT or the Washington Post, the MH17 article should let the reader go to those articles to decide for him/herself, rather than imitating biases from reliable sources. The policy on WP:RS is about using the factual type of information from the sources, not the sources' style of hinting to the reader what to think.

Boud (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You neglect most obvious line of reasoning here: RT, ITAR-TASS, et al are owned by the Russian government. The examples given of the American press are not. --Simfan34 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In any event, NPOV essentially requires us not to lend equal weight to Russian media claims, precisely due to their lack of credibility. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have nothing but your mainstream American POV to tell you that Russian media are any less reliable than mainstream Anglophone media. This has been gone over and over. Many more examples can be given of the NY Times having to retract stories with major foreign policy implications than Russian media have ever had to retract after the breakup of the USSR. That means that when it comes to the Ukraine, Russian media are significantly more reliable than Western media. – Herzen (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's not the media's job to be neutral - that's our job. Assuming that American, British and Russian sources are biased, there's still plenty of sources out there in English we could use. including Al Jazeera, The Times of India and the Straits Times to name but three. It's just a question of finding the and using them. Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

" RT, ITAR-TASS, et al are owned by the Russian government." And the BBC is owned by the British government, and ABC is owned by the Australian, etc., yet I don't recall ever seeing anything like "the British government-owned BBC News reported..." printed on this article. Russian sources should not be singled out this way. --Tocino 06:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

BBS already replied your concerns in the past: "Although the BBC is funded by the UK government... a fundamental principle of its constitution and its regulatory regime is that it is editorially independent of the UK government.". RT meanwhile became famous for having journalists quit their job over propaganda lies pumped by the television. I hope you see the difference now. SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

List of 'keeps' and 'removes'

I thought it would be useful to keep a list of consensuses on the top of the talk page in order to calm down the edit warring and confusion. Here's what I can gather so far (please correct me if I'm wrong): Flagicons in responses: KEEP Flagicons in passenger list: KEEP Condolences in reactions: REMOVE Timeline of flight: REMOVE Nathan121212 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible idea. There's a lot of editing going on here so anything that clears up potential confusions has to be good. This is Paul (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a FAQ section like there is on Talk:Chelsea Manning. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good idea. Not sure there is actually a consensus for the flag icons though. --John (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy, feel free to implement a Q&A on the top of this page (see example provided above by User:Knowledgekid87) Nathan121212 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

TELAR can't engage a target independently?

The article states "A single BUK missile launcher cannot acquire a target without the radar and target support provided by the other vehicles." Logically this makes no sense, as the whole point of a mobile system is to be able to protect attacking forces as the edge of the battlefield changes. Other sources (e.g. ) state that the TELAR itself can track and fire on targets independently but lacks the increased range and global situational awareness that integration with one or more higher levels of C&C provides, including awareness of commercial traffic from civilian ATC sources.

67.173.128.39 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good find, every reliable media source I've seen says that a single BUK launcher can down a plane, but that without the second radar vehicle, it cannot do things like differentiate civil and military aircraft by transponder signal. Since there was no reference for the statement you mentioned above, I deleted it. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So which variant of BUK was this alleged to have been? From the article the "Gang type" appears to have the non-cooperative threat classification system installed, "allowing targets to be classified without IFF via analysis of return radar signals." So maybe the airliner wasn't even challenged by IFF (which might have saved it)? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the actual evidence the masked men at the debris field are separatists?

If Wikipedia is going to assert that the masked men at the debris field are separatists and not anti-separatists what is the evidence? We're told this is a separatist-controlled area, so why are they masked? Are they fakes or is the area not so separatist-controlled after all? A neutral tone is needed. Silent Key (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The separatists have been wearing those masks for months. The reason behind them is undoubtedly the same as why some Russian and Ukrainian security forces wear them - to protect the anonymity of members, so that they or their families do not face retribution (or other consequences). I've seen no claims from Donetsk, Luhansk or Moscow claiming that they're fakes, so I think you ought to consider accepting them as genuine. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Saying "Because he wears a mask, he's a separatist" is the worst piece of logic and, obviously WP:OR, on this page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Borodai was there. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the Russian who is leading the "rebels" said, that the debris field is in the rear of their controlled territory and therefor a ceasefire is not necessary. So that should be proof enough first. Furthermore Russia has GRU units operating in Ukraine - so Masks are used in order to conceal the identity of their troops so that they are not identified by the media or Western Intelligence Services. Or perhaps they are masked because they are in fact aliens... :rolleyes: 46.7.56.247 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC) M.

I would say that asking for evidence in this case is like asking for evidence that black is black, and white is white. All parties involved (Ukraine, Russia, separatists, rest of the world) seem to agree that the area is controlled by separatists, and there have been no reports of any "anti-separatists" present in the area. As for why they need the masks, Poindexter Propellerhead and 46.7.56.247 provided some logical reasons, like protecting anonymity of members and their families, also from other intelligence services. — Mayast (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, wearing a mask provides anonymity, for anyone. That's the point. If, purely for example, the Ukrainians wanted to try to smear the rebels, they too would wear masks, wouldn't they? I would. Once someone is wearing a mask, you simply cannot be certain who they are. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't those YouTube videos show them also in uniform? Not sure how one would ever get a reliable secondary source to verify the identities of these individuals. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how either. Wikipedia cannot claim certainty based on someone wearing a mask in a YouTube video. That really is silly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What difference does wearing a mask make? Even if they were not you could make the case they were pro-government forces "pretending" to be dissidents, which, well, that requires citation, not what is being said by every semi-reliable source (including RT et al) on the ground and as of now not contradicted. They are saying they are separatists, the onus is on one alleging otherwise to make the case. Mind you, I fully expect people to start claiming this- that the "rebels are not in Grabovo. The rebels were never in Grabovo". --Simfan34 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a point in discussing hypothetical scenarios, like Ukrainians posing as separatists by putting on some masks. So far, I haven't seen any reports of this actually happening, or that any side of the conflict disagrees that those men we see on the photos are indeed pro-Russian separatists. However, I'm not saying that such a scenario isn't possible – if and when it happens, sources/evidence might be needed. — Mayast (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There exist methods to determine if black being black. For example use white light to see what is intensity and spectrum of reflection; if the reflection is zero ,it is perfect black if equal iluminance is perfect whithe betwen are shadows of gray (given no difraction etc). Bsicaly this simplistic thoght reject whole spectrum of possibilities and thus is max-blind POV.

For not color blind: The initial question is IMO somehow valid. Is like to devise in set of red and blue the other is black (Donbas) or not white, and the search for surces why two preceding can be rather sino-zolte or blue on white flags? The first casulty of war is truth so logical falasy is predictble modus operandi here. However i doubt if one can so late sale it out. It may lag like powel sale of gas in Syria. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this lecture in optics, as a student in electronics and photonics I'm a little familiar with those concepts ;) The point I was trying to make was a bit different: so far everyone agrees that those masked men are separatists, including Ukrainians, Russians, and the masked men themselves. So, personally, I'm pretty certain that they are indeed separatists, and not anything else. ("If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, ...") And I'm not sure I understand the need for any hard evidence supporting that (like I don't need to measure light intensity to determine if I'm wearing a white T-shirt, and not black). That being said, I cannot completely rule out the scenario I described earlier, and so I'm not saying that such evidence won't be needed in the future. — Mayast (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Rene Descartes has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia, due to tendentious editing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is one piece of "evidence" indicating that these are rebels, from the OSCE observers. [link]. --Simfan34 (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Donation of a news report

I give a piece of news to those dealing with this article:

Ukrainian rescuers find two black boxes at crash site, but their location is secret – Donetsk authorities

RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Dustin (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Russian Case"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fully protected

Following a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard (section "Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, TheAirplaneGuy and John" at the moment), I've levied indefinite full protection onto this article. This is not an attempt to prevent people from editing: it's meant to prevent the edit-warring that's been happening and to ensure that this develops as an encyclopedia article, not a news story. Please continue to discuss changes; I'll be happy to implement changes that are agreed here if you let me know when something's been agreed. Of course, I'm not appointing myself the ruler of this article; any other administrator can do it, so please use the {{editprotected}} template if I don't respond or if you want input from someone else.

Note that the protection is indefinite: this is because I have no clue how long we normally protect such high-profile pages in this situation, not because it needs to be protected long-term. I ask for help from any editor familiar with protections in this context: let me know how long we normally make these protections if you're not an administrator (I'll be happy to reduce the duration), or if you are an administrator, please modify protection yourself. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather surprised. The only real dispute here was over that map in the NYT article which was attributed "Source: Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Second that. I don't see any edit war whatsoever going on in the article... Maybe we're talking about several people editing the same information in and out i.e. constantly conflicting their own edits? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I would leave it to Nyttend to implement the changes, for a while, I will try to help here on the talk page only. The key is to make proposals that are clear and ready to be inserted, and be clear about here it should go. Everyone can vote it up or down, preferably in a concise way. Lets keep it simple so changes can be made quickly. Protection is just for a limited time, so help by contributing, not complaining. Please. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not just keep the two editors who caused the mess away from the article for a bit, I don't see why two should have to impact this article so much. Anyways even if we go by consensus on choices it will still take longer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and wasn't that dispute like twelve hours ago or something? Dustin (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With new information being revealed rapidly, I don't think full protection is the best idea. I wish that an administrator could just block the disruptive editors from editing this article without a need for further discussion here (sadly, the MediaWiki software does not permit this sort of specialized block). Meaning, they could edit anywhere on Wikipedia except for the article for the time being. Dustin (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Current section link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17.2C_TheAirplaneGuy_and_John.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Full protection is a very bad idea, and is doing more harm than good here. The article will quickly become outdated and inaccurate. With this many edits and this big an event, some editwarring is inevitable; deal with those users individually if they can't use the talk page. The article was developing nicely overall before it was protected. It will be impossible to get changes needed through talk page requests, so potentially useful edits will simply be lost. 9kat (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said over at WP:ANI I think a topic ban for the editors for like a week would do better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is no deadline on Wikipedia. We need to avoid WP:RECENTISM, and holding off until the picture becomes clearer is an excellent idea. Allowing the article to become slightly outdated is better than it constantly changing based on every piece of tabloid drivel. RGloucester — ☎ 01:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I said here, part of the reason is to ensure that the article not become a news story: we need solid, better-reasoned sources rather than simply the latest breaking news. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Entropy (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Nyttend, thank you. For the full protection, that is. I was about to request that somebody do that, but you beat me to the punch! :) The reason I'm bringing this up is that there is now a news report about the Russian Government editing the Russian Wikipedia page about the incident. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10977082/Russian-government-edits-Wikipedia-on-flight-MH17.html )

Again, thank you, and happy trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that full protection will help to keep out a lot of what comes with recentism, I also think that this protection should not last for too long. Being a recent event, information will rapidly be introduced and continue to change, and there are obviously not that many editors willing to submit edit requests. (Only two so far from what I can tell). Dustin (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Exclusion of Russian view. It's unfortunate this has been blocked for editing after a very summary and hasty conclusion as to the cause of the disaster being a surface to air missile, according to the US, and excluding the Russian POV. http://politikus.ru/events/24720-strasti-po-boingu-pervye-priznaki-rakety-vozduh-vozduh-sbival-ne-buk-m1.html A Russian newspaper has posted photos showing a wing or tail of the plane was hit horizontally by an air to air missile. There have also been reports, I believe this may have been on RT, that eyewitnesses saw Ukrainian fighters tailing the airliner. JPLeonard (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 July 2014

Please expand the first ref (for the map) in "The Ukrainian case" section to: "Maps of the Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 - NYTimes.com". The New York Times. 2014-07-19. Retrieved 2014-07-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Cites National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine as Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you'll find a friendly admin to help you. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would consider that completely uncontroversial and appropriate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Everyone, please remember that uncontroversial requests (like this one) can be fulfilled without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001 Ukraine

There was a similar incident s in 2001. At the time Ukrainian military shot down a passenger plane using one of its old missiles systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812 . It probably is worthy of mention. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 is worthy of mention.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please also add Iran Air Flight 655. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The incident described by that article did not happen in or near Ukraine, and did not involve alleged Ukrainian or Russian missile systems or personnel. I don't think it's similar enough.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: replacing blank link with plain text, as it was an uninformative link that we do not want for talk pages.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash by who benefit in this. The in the leaked tape R Sikorski PL-minister reveal who benefit blaming Rusia on this IMO perhaps false flag crash. Definietly not the people who he swear to represent. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

99.90.196.227, I don't understand what you are trying to say here [regarding Sikorski]. Could you please rephrase it somehow? And in what way does it relate to incidents that are similar to MH17? — Mayast (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that MH17 and Polish Tu-154 are connected because in both cases Russia benefited somehow? I haven't listened to the leaked tapes, so I don't understand the other part, and also what that "false flag crash" means. — Mayast (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"False flag" refers to a technique in information warfare or counter-espionage wherein clandestine agents commit some act while disguised as members of another faction, to confuse or deceive others. You can bet that any comments referring here to a "false flag" and not pointing to any reputable published analysis are inappropriate for the talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.
As for the similar incidents, the only similarity I would see between MH17 and Tu-154 is that separatists might be making the investigation difficult, just like Russians did four years ago. But it's far too early to say that, and so I would oppose adding that crash to the article, as all its other circumstances are completely different. — Mayast (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For an example, see Gleiwitz incident, part of the beginning of World War II — German agents damaged a radio station and posed as Poles in order to make things look like a Polish attack on Germany. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• To make this easier, if there is a consensus in theory, can someone propose an exact sentence/paragraph, including cations, and where it to be placed, so the community can vote it up or down. As admin, we do NOT want to interpret what you mean here, we want only to implement exactly what the community wants, verbatim, so there is no misunderstanding. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Note that there is a section above on which excatly incidents should be added to the See also section.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 July 2014

I request the removal of the "dubious — discuss" tag from the map showing the crash site and approximate launch location published by the NYT. There are some editors who feel, roughly speaking, that published accounts based on information or claims made by the current Ukrainian government should not be treated as reliable sources. My understanding is that part of WP's proper role is to report, not question, mainstream discourse. Thus any NPOV concerns about lending too much weight to Ukraine's claims could be addressed by attribution (e.g., "approximate area of missile launch according to Ukrainian Council of National Security and Defense") — personally, I question whether even that much is warranted — and by properly weighted reflection of opposing published views. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Voting: Full protection of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abbott's Quote

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 hope someone will add this quote by Australian Prime Minister, I think it is one of the best;

"Russian controlled territory, Russian-backed rebels, quite likely a Russian supplied weapon - Russia can’t wash its hands of this"

–Tony Abbott

One of he best for what? Political point scoring? HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

HiLo you are well known in the Wikipedia community for you far-left and anti-Abbott views, I understand that. But put aside your politics like Labor and Liberal have done. I'm not a fan of Abbott either, but I think this is one of the clearest and most condemning quotes used against Russia over this tragedy.--Empire of War (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Empire, that is very presumptuous and is just asking for a fight. You need to retract that statement and keep your discussion on the merits, not your personal opinion of other editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

He has told me himself so it's okay, but in my personal experience HiLo has always tried to derail my messages, even on this one. By posting that message he tries to start mini-fights with me. I retract the statement, we should stick to the tragedy and real facts and leave the derailers to their own being--Empire of War (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Empire of War - Three things: Firstly, maybe you should just stick to trying to answer my first question. Secondly, this may not please your ego, but I attack nonsense when I see it, not the posters of nonsense. I am not consciously aware of ever trying to derail a message specifically of yours. Your name does not even ring a bell. So I'm not aware of ever having told you anything, such as being "far-left". I think such labels are useless. Simple labels to please simpletons. Thirdly, please read WP:INDENT. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Empire, do not remove other people's comments again or you will be blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed my comments as well Brown? I did it to stop an argument forming, I want to stay on topic here stop derailing it--Empire of War (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Separatists were expecting Ukrainian cargo plane

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

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

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

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

Precice words to be inserted in the end of "Crash" section after "An-26 had been shot down by the militia near Torez at around 16:00 local time." and before "U.S. analysis of the launch plume and trajectory suggested": According to sources of Oleg Kashin separatists had a source in Ukraine military, and they expected an Ukrainian cargo plane, that's why they were sure that they shot An-26. Yozh (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

Please fix this redlink: I originally fixed with this edit, but it was broken again by Simfan34 with this edit. Dustin (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Done; thank you. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. --Simfan34 (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Images of Debris?

Would it not be appropriate to have images of the debris? JDiala (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice, but we would need pictures that are not subject to copyright. There's been plenty of such pictures shown in the media, but that means those media outlets, or their sources, own them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What you write is oxymoronic because you state that many pictures not subject to copyright are in the media but we cannot use them because they are subject to copyright. Logically “such” reference to not subject to copyright. Please write clearly when editing articles. I might as well fix your statement for you:

“It would be nice, but we would need pictures that are not subject to copyright. There’s been plenty of copyrighted pictures shown in the media, but that means those media outlets, or their sources, own them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk) 2014-07-20T04:20:51

My apologies. I try, but I am not yet perfect. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

But a copyrighted image may be used under WP:FAIRUSE rules if a strong enough case can be made. Would suggest that any image is proposed and discussed here before it is uploaded and added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 2014-07-20T05:08:37

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a hard case can probably be made for the fair use of a copyrighted photo of the debris. The main question would be which picture from what media outlet should be used.AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the "Assigning responsibility" section

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

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

Additionally, here's a list of specific problems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARBCOM sanctions query

I noted the template on the top of this page saying:

”The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.”

Am I allowed to put that notice on the Malaysia Airlines talkpage? There is a fair amount of activity on that article page, including un-sourced or poorly sourced edits from IPs about who/what brought the aircraft down. I have been removing statements that it was 'definitely' a missile. As the article page infobox here says:

"Summary

Suspected of having been shot down by a Buk surface-to-air missile; exact cause is still under investigation"

Over there text related to this 'crash' is on the page in about 3 2 places (lead, "2014 aircraft losses" and "Accidents and incidents" sections) so there are inconsistencies occuring on the page itself.--220 of ^Borg 05:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novorossiya is now a country, and Girkin's their national spokesman

Really? 173.228.54.18 (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But Girkin being the national spokesman would in my view happen to be incorrect. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be fixed as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest adding a footnote next to 'Novorossiya', stating that 'Novorossiya is a state with limited recognition that has declared independence from Ukraine' in order to prevent confusion. EDIT: I take this back as I realise that instead of clarifying that Novorossiya is not a country, it would likely have the opposite effect on readers. OakleighPark 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Woa!! Oppose. Novorossiya is absolutely not a 'country'. It is a part of the Ukraine over which an illegal and, so far, completely internationally unrecognized claim has been made by the rebels. Or do you propose that Wikipedia be the first to give them credibility? Ex nihil ^(talk) 08:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the article should recognise Novorossiya as a country; in fact I was trying to suggest that it be clarified that Novorossiya is in fact not a country. OakleighPark 10:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we should definitely either removed "Novorossiya" or move it to the very end and place it under unrecognised entities.Jeppiz (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Novorossiya is not a country. Arnoutf (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Novorossiya deserves to be listed, somehow, since they are a direct player in this crash (they control the territory), regardless of their disputed legal status. Maybe Novorossiya should not be listed under "countries" with the rest of the UN member states, but rather under a new category, such as "disputed entities". See the Response section of the Shelling of Donetsk, Russia article as an example for the correct way to treat Novorossiya. --Tocino 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Or as a sub section of Ukrainian response? Arnoutf (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Novorossiya" does not exist, and thus should not be listed in any way, shape for form alongside legitimate nations. What should be done is create another section for the non-nation opinions deemed relevant. There you can list NATO, the UN, the ICAO, alongside the statement of the terrorist/separatist/whatever group. Tarc (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request: 20 July 2014

Please add to ICAO's reaction in order for flag usage to be consistant, thanks. Nathan121212 (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It can not be done via template and reuires some technical solution. If someone suggests the solution I can add the flag to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Remind me, what do the flags add to the article? --John (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

But I guess we should either have all the flags, or none, it does not make sense to have only several of the flags.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

None would work. As has been discussed, this mish-mash should be written out as a paragraph and all the little flags removed. Adding more would be a retrograde step. --John (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, per Ymblanter, all or none. For the moment, all is better than nearly all. Mjroots (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I was sleeping, else I would have said "none". Outside of international competitions, I find the flags are usually overused and ugly clutter. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Dennis, the flags are ugly clutter and adding more is counter-productive and against consensus. But thanks, I guess, Mjroots. --John (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a tool in the propaganda war

The article is fully protected and all reactions from world leaders towards Russia are kept out. So we do have a section on International reactions, but at the same time that section is heavily edited to keep out what world leaders are actually saying about this incident. It's rather disgraceful and a huge disservice to Wikipedia.

Some actual quotes from world leaders, cited in WP:RS

• Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott "Russian-controlled territory, Russian-backed rebels, quite likely a Russian-supplied weapon. Russia can't wash its hands of this."[24]
• British Prime Minister David Cameron "This is a direct result of Russia destabilising a sovereign state, violating its territorial integrity, backing thuggish militias, and training and arming them."[25]
• Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte described the behavior of the pro-Russian rebels as "revolting".[26]

Is there any reason, apart from a pro-Russian POV, to continue to keep international reactions out of the article?Jeppiz (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Rutte comments are provided but in the section recovery of casualties. The international response is more geared towards the accident itself while his comments fit better in the investigation/aftermath section. Arnoutf (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ukraine had financial incentive to keep air space open" - Industry insider

Interesting quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, July 20:

"However, an industry source said in this case, the “road” was more like a toll road, as the cash-strapped Ukrainian government was receiving overflight fees for each commercial flight above its territory and therefore had a financial incentive to keep the airspace open as long as possible."

The head of the IATA, Tony Tyler, also says that Ukraine is responsible for the decision to keep the airspace over a war-zone open to commercial traffic.

Link - Ukraine responsible for airspace safety: IATA - Sydney Morning Herald, July 20

I believe that this should be incorporated into the article somehow. --Tocino 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems far too trivial for this article - perhaps in a spinoff. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Terrorist"

I very strongly disagree with the phrasing of the following sentence

"On 19 July 2014 Andriy Lysenko, the spokesman of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine announced to the press that the terrorists removed 38 bodies from the crash site in order to extract from the bodies exploded parts of the rocket used to shoot the plane and destroy the evidence.[100]"

Please remove at least the indirect quote and make it direct. Terrorist is a very strong and subjective term that i think should be used very carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PremiumBananas (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if you are right or not, but the Ukrainian government refers to the rebels as "terrorists" which might be why other sources do(though not all). 331dot (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay.. but.. there isn't even a single, clear, definition of "terrorist" Terrorism

Frustration of AUS/NL PMs about Russian promises vs action

Would it be worthwhile to construct a paragraph for the investigation section where we discuss that both Dutch PM Mark Rutte and Australian PM Tony Abbott show frustration that Russian president Putin promises to do everything he can to support independent investigation, but that there is no indication that he actually has done (other than making promises) any thing at all to support such an investigation. (NB this is not about the blame of the accident, but about the follow up, recovery of bodies and investigation). What do you think. Arnoutf (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

Removal of By Country subheader in reactions section

I propose to remove the subheader "By country" in the reaction section because

1. It is unnecessary: It does not add any relevant sub-division as it is placed immediately after the reaction header. The only other subheader (media coverage) makes the distinction between official and media coverage sufficiently clear even without the country subheader.
2. It is factually incorrect: The by country section also lists non country entitities (Novorossiya; EU, UN, ICAO).
3. Labelling these international responses as "by country" is leading to irrelevant and unnecessary discussion of what to do with Novorossiya reactiona see: Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Novorossiya_is_now_a_country.2C_and_Girkin.27s_their_national_spokesman (Arnoutf (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be better to just get rid of the reactions section, comments from the main players can be added to the general narrative and a lot of the others are just not that important. MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that too, but that would requires a lot of in depth revisions of the article. Just deleting this 2 word subheader would be an improvement over what it is now. We can work from there to integrate the reactions later. Arnoutf (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

OK understood. MilborneOne (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Concur. The subheading should be nixed simply because there are IGOs mixed in with the "by country", which is pretty clearly wrong. And really, there aren't all that many reactions at this point... just lump them together for now. My suggestion would be to separate into IGO, national government, and NGO subsections if it gets to the point where there are that many reactions we want to list. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Add link to Aviation Safety Network

At the registration number of plane, link to this: http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20140717-0

I cant see why it would be needed, I dont think the registration is a point in dispute. MilborneOne (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, just to provide a source per WP:V.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We crossed, so if there is consensus it is not needed I can remove it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

They may be a better source, but it is not that important at the moment it can be left in. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Intercepted separatist talks confirmed authentic

"Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations..." -- US Embassy in Kyiv United States Assessment of the Downing of Flight MH17 and its Aftermath -- Nazar (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest adding this to the description of the intercepted calls. It's important in light of doubts about their authenticity. -- Nazar (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How can it be authentic, when the official video cited by everyone, on the official channel on Youtube, has the encoding date of 16 July 2014 in its metadata? I admit that the date set on the computer encoding this was wrong by 1 day, but how plausible is THAT explanation? The security service did not comment this in any way. Also, this is conflicting with the other data. The alleged conversation states that the missile was launched from a location situated 40km from the crash site. Then the US Embassy writes that the launch was from near the crash site because someone shot a video of a transport said to carry missiles (though I failed to identify any missiles).Capilleary (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See also bleeding over into references

Please place {{clear right}} at the bottom of the See also section. That will fix the current bleed-over into the references section. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Infrared Space Systems Directorate and infrared signature of BUK missile

Why has this been totally removed from the article? This is highly notable, and is reported to be the source Obama based his statement of the origin of the missile upon. There are several sources stating this: Ars Technica, NBC News, and New Scientist. This should be readded as soon as possible. Nulla Taciti (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is very helpful if you show us a diff of where it was removed. The above statement is so vague that an ininvolved editor could not restore it with so little information, nor could the fellow editors vote the idea up or down. Provide a diff and lets see what the crowd says. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Here is the diff. Another editor later added a few sentences next to Obama's statement further elaborating upon the infrared signature, but I can't seem to find it. I feel this is one of the most, if not the most, compelling pieces of evidence regarding the culpability of this incident, and it distresses me that it has apparently been scrubbed from the article. Nulla Taciti (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See above (my comment of 05:31, 20 July 2014) for my reasoning for removing it. In short, there wasn't room, and I noted that it should be put back if anyone suggested a spot that would work. Tell me where to put it, and unless your placement will cause similar display/image stacking issues, I'll put it there. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If you could add it to the bottom of the "Investigation" section, that should work. When the article becomes available to edit, I will add a brief paragraph drawing upon the sources I gave above plus others to the end of this section. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree it should be re-added. Am not sure stacking or conflict with images is good reason to leave it out. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

See also No-fly zone Trackteur (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? --John (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 July 2014

Please reorder the nationalities list by the highest to lowest number. Official sources, like that of the Malaysia Airlines, list the number of passengers and their nationalities from highest to lowest number. More pages also have the table in the intuitive and much more useful numerical order, such as: Japan Airlines Flight 123, Air India Flight 182, Iran Air Flight 655, American Airlines Flight 587, Air New Zealand Flight 901, United Airlines Flight 175, Garuda Indonesia Flight 152, Korean Air Flight 801, EgyptAir Flight 990, China Airlines Flight 676, Birgenair Flight 301, LOT Flight 5055, Kenya Airways Flight 431, PIA Flight 268. A complete alphabetical order may make sense if no nationalities are overrepresented or the official source has them listed so. A rationalization made at this page that the alphabetical order is more neutral does not make any sense to me. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a sortable table, so you can get it to sort numerically without difficulty, while the current format makes it easier to find each country. Moreover, I note that the first example you gave, Japan Airlines Flight 123, doesn't have them in numerical order. With that in mind, I'll do it if people agree, but only if. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with this proposal as most other articles about aviation disasters use that format. Also, the 'dual nationality' column should be removed because it would be almost impossible to make it complete and it unnecessarily clutters and inflates the table. It would be much more useful to instead have 'passenger', 'crew' and 'total' columns as these are also used on most aviation disaster articles and for simplicity and consistency I think it's best to follow the standard format as much as possible. OakleighPark 12:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)