Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 7 November 2014 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

New "Criminal investigation" section

I noted above several times that the criminal investigation is where most interesting developments concerning MH17 are going to occur. Thus, I created a new Criminal investigation section. I found two other relevant sources besides the ones discussed here. I'm actually surprised that the article had said essentially nothing about the criminal investigation. I have taken into account objections that had been made to my presentation of the Spiegel interview. I believe that my edit fairly represents the Spiegel interview. Note that Reuters' take on the interview was "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner". A reliable source found this notable, so this fact must be kept in. I have made clear that even though the prosecutor is "open", he nevertheless strongly favors one theory. Thus, I include the quote "Going by the intelligence available, it is my opinion that a shooting down by a surface to air missile remains the most likely scenario. But we are not closing our eyes to the possibility that things might have happened differently." I just include the first sentence; I don't include the second one. But the "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence…" bit must stand, because the headline of the English Spiegel article is "Chief MH17 Investigator on German Claims: 'We Will Need Evidence'". Thus, according to English Spiegel, that is the most notable thing that Westerbeke said in the interview.
We need a new section about the criminal investigation. So please don't anyone undue my edit. This interview with Westerbeke is highly notable, and must be included in the article. If somebody thinks something needs to be changed, please bring it up in Talk, instead of engaging in aggressive editing. Note that I am following BRD: "When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." – Herzen (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, can you please put a heading on this comment, so it doesn't dangle off the bottom and I don't get in trouble again??? Please? :) USchick (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! :-) USchick (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not the first source that says investigators are considering other theories. We have Malaysian Japanese and Singapore sources, but no one likes those and to this day we have no explanation why they're not acceptable. They were very early reports, and now we have a later report (dated today) that confirms all those early reports. USchick (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Our new SPA once again made an aggressive edit instead of following guidelines and raising the matter in the ongoing Talk discussion first. – Herzen (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If this section is getting too long, I support the idea of a new article for the Investigation. USchick (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The section is long because of all the hearsay and speculation in the "Cause of crash" section. Now that there is a real criminal investigation underway, and the chief prosecutor has said "if we in fact do want to try the perpetrators in court, then we will need evidence and more than a recorded phone call from the Internet or photos from the crash site" (something the SPA with the username ‎Tlsandy instantly deleted), all of that hearsay and speculation has become utterly irrelevant, and thus should be removed from the article. – Herzen (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Nothing needs to be removed from the article. For the thousandth time, you can call it "hearsay and speculation", but what it is is actually info from reliable sources. The existence of a criminal investigation does not change anything. Volunteer Marek  00:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) and to this day we have no explanation why they're not acceptable - again, blatantly false. This has been explained several times, you just keep pretending that it hasn't. In fact, it was explained to you in an ANI discussion which was started because you falsely accused an editor of being racist. So there's no way in hell that you can sincerely believe that "to this day we have no explanation". Stop playing games. Volunteer Marek  23:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Instead of ranting, would you like to give the reason? So we all know? The section with the links is called "Conflicting claims" there's a proposal there, but there's no discussion there. USchick (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever "explanations" may have been given, they have become obsolete, given that Reuters has published a story with the headline "MH17 prosecutor open to theory another plane shot down airliner" and IBTimes has published a story with the headline "MH17 News Update: Pilot Was Targeted Right In The Stomach – Expert Alleges" (which IBTimes pulled from its Web site, but then put back again). The "game" has changed. The idea that considering the possibility that MH17 was shot down by a fighter plane is a conspiracy theory and FRINGE just doesn't work anymore. I'm sorry to have to break this news to you. – Herzen (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
For further discussion, I would like to point out that Indian Reuters published this information. So now we have all kinds of foreign sources that contradict American sources. I like America (it's in my user name), but to ignore all these foreign sources, someone needs to provide a very good reason. If you need to me link them all in one place, just let me know. And we also need to explain in the article why America has anything at all to say about this event. They're on the opposite side of the globe and not at all involved in the crash. USchick (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Please try to distinguish between America and the USA. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The IBTimes just notes that there's a video out there which claims that a jet shot down the plane. And that this is the official position of Russia. So what? That's already in the article. Haisenko is still a fringe source, this is still a conspiracy video, this is still junk (come on, use some common sense - pilot was targeted right in the stomach? Even if a jet tried to shoot down the plane that is just stupid). So no go.
With the Reuters story you guys are seizing - and misrepresenting the sensationalist headline. Why not focus on what the article actually says. Like "An interim report issued by the Dutch Safety Board, which investigates air crashes, listed several passenger jets in flight MH17's vicinity, but no military aircraft that would have been capable of shooting it down.". All that the article says is that prosecutors will consider all possibilities, even the unlikely ones. It does not say that the prosecutor considers all theories equally possible. In fact it explicitly says that that isn't the case. This is just another attempt at pushing a POV in this article. No go. Volunteer Marek  00:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Lklundin, yes, please excuse me, US sources. USchick (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So the headline is both "sensationalist" and "misrepresented" by me? How does that work, exactly? How do I "misrepresent" a headline by quoting it verbatim? And no matter how many times you accuse me of pushing a POV, it is you who are pushing a POV, by trying to keep the article from abiding by Wikipedia policy. All I am doing is "striv[ing]… [to] document and explain the major points of view". If Reuters reports that the "MH17 prosecutor [is] open to theory [that] another plane shot down airliner", then that is a major point of view. That the prosecutor does not find this theory to be the most likely one doesn't change that in the least. Wikipedia policy is to "describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"." You keep insisting that the Buk missile theory is the best view, but that does not matter to editors who understand Wikipedia policy. – Herzen (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

 Volunteer Marek , please link to a discussion that you claimed happened for this edit [1]. Please self revert or I will call for sanctions to be enforced. Thank you. USchick (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Time Magazine thing is all over this page. Read the talk page, stop playing these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, don't threaten people with sanctions when your own behavior has been quite egregious (like falsely accusing others of racism, misrepresenting sources, moving people's comments, misrepresenting editors, etc.), and quit wasting other people's time.
I should add something about the title of this section "edit war". USchick has been trying to add a POV tag to this article for some time. There is no consensus that such a tag is warranted, much less that it has been meaningfully substantiated. USchick's response has been to initiate and inflame edit wars on this article based on some kind of logic which says "if there are edit wars then that means the article is not neutral". See similarly titled section above. This is obviously acting in bad faith. Stop it. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There's an open RfC about the tag specifically for people to comment there. Your attempt here is to edit war after a BRD process. I call for an admin to review the history and enforce sanctions please. USchick (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Then gather your evidence, provide the diffs and file the report in the proper venue, WP:AE, where the accuser takes as much risk of being sanction as the accused. Generically "calling for admins to enforce sanctions please" is just a smear-intimidation tactic which alleges sanction worthy behavior without actually offering any proof to that effect. Volunteer Marek  21:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
And let me point out that you've repeatedly tried to force text into the article despite numerous objections on talk. And then you come to the talk page and pretend that these objections don't exist, endlessly asking "show me the discussion". It's right above. Volunteer Marek  21:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This article is sanctioned for a reason and I'm calling for enforcement. The discussion above gives no reason to remove sourced content except WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and shows repeated refusal to discuss. Proof [2] Since you have to have the last word, go ahead, I'm done arguing. USchick (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The BRD process you refer to above demands that after a bold addition (by Herzen) and a revert (by me) discussion is finished before anyone (including USchick) adds it again. So you reverting me already goes against the idea of the WP:BRD process which you yourself bring to the table. In that light Volunteer Marek had every right to revert your edit in turn. Arnoutf (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I think you're right about that! I just read the BRD more closely, and my edit was wrong. VM continued the edit war. Ok, I recall my request for sanctions, but we still have an edit war. Now do we want to discuss it? USchick (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: after the above comment (22:29) a new section was created above regarding this topic. Stickee (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I reported the incident to ANI, without much hope though.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for this article

Since sources are considered on an individual basis, can we please get agreement on whether or not the following sources are considered RS for this article. USchick (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

New Straits Times

  • Yes. it's the oldest newspaper in Malaysia that predates the formation of the government of Malaysia. They have an editorial board and this source has been critical of Mlaysian government. USchick (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Since we already know the topic, can you please clarify what else we need to consider? USchick (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No we don't as a column in that newspaper, or a personal opinion, or a letter in the discussion section may not be reliable in a specific context. So we need the actual article you want to refer to for that decision. Arnoutf (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, just a regular article, not an opinion, not a special column. It's buried somewhere on this page and I will link to it later. If someone can link to it now, I will be most grateful. USchick (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Here it is [3]. It quotes Robert Parry an Associated Press reporter. If Global Research is a problem, Robert Parry is not. The newspaper has an editorial board, and they chose to cover this story. It was picked up by another independent source Malaysian Digest [4] Then later on the same day NST changed the headline on the same story (probably to make it more neutral). [5]. USchick (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
No discussion has taken place only disapproval without a reason. We have already been to ANI to determine that discrediting Malaysian sources for no good reason is unacceptable. USchick (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't the conclusion of ANI. The conclusion was that calling people "racist" and saying people that people "slander" is unacceptable. Stickee (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Please start a new discussion to talk about ANI. This one is about the source. USchick (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You brought up ANI. ANI discussion was about you making bullshit accusations of racism, not about the source. You almost got blocked, the only thing that saved your butt is that you retracted the false accusation. This whole farce is so absurd it's almost funny. Volunteer Marek  03:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Please start a new discussion to talk about ANI. This one is about the source. USchick (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Since there are no objections to these Malaysian sources, I take that as consensus to include. USchick (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
There are no clear arguments where to add for what reason, which was the request and this has ended up in the middle of a long thread, so I am pretty sure that this silence should not be interpreted as consensus. Arnoutf (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Please stop trying to play games. There's obviously objections. Volunteer Marek  18:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify what the obvious objections are to using this source. Maybe then we can move on to discuss how and where to use it. USchick (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
You already know that. WP:Games. A Blogger and an OSCE guy are the source for the "New Straits Times" article, who are accepted as experts. Which they are not. Haisenko is not worth mentioning again and the Michael Bociurkiw interview is on youtube, and he says there, that he is not trained to identify damage. The article just has no base. Alexpl (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The New Straits Times published an article about MH17 in its print version which it did not post on its Web site. Graphics of the front page of the relevant edition of the newspaper and of the MH17 story are available here. The first paragraph of this story states:

Investigators are looking into an emerging theory that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it entered its death dive.

Haisenko, Bociukiw, and Robert Parry are not mentioned in this story, but "experts" are, although the nationality of the experts is not identified. But in an interview, one of the authors of the article says, "on that basis [examination of photographs of MH17 fragments, Malaysian investigators are working on the alternate theory." A segment from the interview can be viewed at the video found here:
International Business Times: MH17 News Update: Pilot Was Targeted Right In The Stomach – Expert Alleges (The relevant segment begins at 18:35.) By the way, the way I came to this International Business Times story is that when I did a Google search for "mh17", that link was the third one to come up.
So, we have a reliable source reporting that Malaysian investigators are pursuing the alternate theory. Sorry, that means that Wikipedia cannot treat the alternate theory as a "conspiracy theory" or FRINGE. – Herzen (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this NST story by Haris Hussain (the same guy you see in the video) keeps being brought up demonstrates just how fringe this really is. Also that IB Times link isn't working. Stickee (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone please provide a source that says this is a fringe theory, because according to several reliable sources mentioned above, this it an alternative theory. I'm sorry that some people don't like the individuals in the reports, but I don't like Strelkov and his VKontakte page, but that information is still in the lede. USchick (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks like they took it down. Don't see what the point is, since the article just reports what's in the RT report, which isn't going anywhere. The article is still cached by Google; don't know how log that's going to last. As for "this NST story by Haris Hussain … keeps being brought up", I don't see your point. By "this NST story", I take it you mean this. That isn't the story I brought up. Somehow I don't get the impression that you read what I write very carefully. – Herzen (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I screen captured the story in case we want to refer back to it, I recommend others do the same. According to policy, reliable sources have to report the story, there's no requirement for them to "keep it on their web site" indefinitely. Would anyone like to see an RfC on this topic? USchick (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You have screen captured an excerpt from a Russia Today/RT documentary on the MH17 crash? LoL. You are not really helping your case here. Alexpl (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
That isn't what USchick said. What she said was that she screen captured the story that International Business Times published on its Web site and then deleted. You are not really helping your case when you jump to the conclusion that USchick screen captured "an excerpt from a Russia Today/RT documentary", when what she actually did was screen capture a story by International Business Times about the RT documentary. Unlike International Business Times, RT does not delete stories that it has published because they contradict the official line that its government is pushing. If you are going to post comments in Talk, you really should make more of an effort to understand the discussion that is being held in Talk. – Herzen (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thats exactly what she said. Your business times article [6] quotes the infamous Russia Today. But I´m sure you already knew that. Its Haisenko over and over and over again. Maybe somebody else quoted that dude somewhere on the net, than you can present those writing here as well - and repeat it, until someday, when the guard is down, you can put them as facts in this article. In the future, read your source, and when the word "Haisenko" is in it, spare WP with it. Alexpl (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The double standards for RS are unbelievable! In the lede, we have reliable sources that quote Vkontakte! How is this RS any different? USchick (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. That guy published mostly conspiracy theories on his blog before that crash. He is no reliable source, not even by Russian Federation standards. Oh, the Spiegel just published another list of "experts" frequently quoted in russian media who arent experts at all: [7]
Lorenz Haag
Christoph Hörstel
Ken Jebsen
Kert Maier
+Haisenko. Just to make sure. Alexpl (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire Network

Analysis by Ivan A. Andrievskii, an engineer [8] USchick (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
See how this comment is off by itself? Is this supposed to be the end of the discussion? Please don't complain when the discussion continues and this comment is "misrepresented." USchick (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Leave my comment alone. And read WP:POINT. Volunteer Marek  20:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no discussion on the topic. Just a seemingly endless line of accounts, trying to redeem the russian federation by repeating the same arguments. The "New Straits Times" article [9] is based on info from the bloggers Robert Parry and Peter Haisenko. So as reliable and old that newspaper may be, this particluar info is not so good, or just rubbish. So quote the "New Straits Times" if you like, but tell the reader that the story is taken from two bloggers who had no access to the crash site or additional info and who are just speculating. Alexpl (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@VM Please read WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT USchick (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

MST has an editorial board. If they choose to cover information they consider relevant, that's their responsibility as a newspaper. I would like to point out that in the lede, we have information from a credible source about a Russian social media profile, which is also rubbish. Somehow that information is still in the lede and no one is willing to consider removing it. USchick (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that that has been done for this specific article? Many good newspapers allow space for personal opinions of readers and opinion leaders that they think are relevant to show, but NOT agree with the content. Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that was all a bluff to free Girkin/Strelkov from blame - again. Wikipedia:I just don't like it But if you insist: There was a post on vkontakte, in his name, so short after the crash, that can be considered to be part of the main event. Nobody says here in the lede, that he actually did write that himself. I see no problem. If you dont bring up anything new, further posts on that matter shall be removed per WP:Forum. Alexpl (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
So you're not even claiming that that social media post was done by Strelkov. Thus you effectively admit that it was black propaganda. So what is it doing in the lede? I have to agree with what editors have said before, ending their work on this article in frustration: never have I seen such a biased article as this one. – Herzen (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Both this and the preceding comment by Herzen are made later in time than the next comments. Any disruption of flow and misunderstanding becayse of these two remarks is fully due to the later addition of these remarks. Arnoutf (talk)
Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  20:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Are we bothering you? Are stopping you from doing anything? Please stop telling people what they're allowed to discuss on a talk page. USchick (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
As someone who cares about the neutrality of this article, yes, you are bothering me. By wasting my time. By repeating the same nonsense, even after explanations have been provided multiple times. Even after it's been shown with direct quotations or text that you are completely misrepresenting sources and editors. By engaging in tendentious and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk pages are intended to discuss concrete suggestions for article improvement. This talk page has long since degenerated into bickering about interpretation of wiki policies and a lot of wikilawyering. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Arnoutf, I did propose a specific approach, please see section "Proposal - Article Restructuring". The arguments for and against the proposal should be discussed in terms of Wikipedia policies on the Talk page before changing the article, but - you are right - if arguments degenerate into bickering about what the written Wikipedia text means, then it needs to be referred for clarification upwards. Tennispompom (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The underlying problem is that this Wikipedia pillar must be observed but isn't in this article:
we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view".
Any attempt to implement WP policy in this article by "document[ing] and explain[ing] the major points of view" gets trashed. If that stopped, the bickering would stop, too. – Herzen (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Which is a good example of the wikilawyering I was talking about where User Herzen left out the opening sentence of that pillar which state we report: the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. in favour of lines further down in the text. Also Herzens quote actually starts with "in others" clearly implying this is not a 'must' as Herzen claims, but a solution that can be used in some specific situations. Arnoutf (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If the only two theories that Time magazine considers are that the rebels shot down MH17 and that a Ukrainian fighter plane shot it down, then due weight requires that Wikipedia consider both theories. Doing anything else is a clear case of holding that there is a best view. Please stop the lawyering and admit the obvious. – Herzen (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Above, I made this "concrete suggestion for article improvement": to use this unimpeachable source to add the following to the end of the "preliminary report" section:
According to Time Magazine, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.
Yet editors continually shoot this proposal down, because hate the theory that a fighter plane shot down MH17, defiantly holding to their position that there is a "best view", thus unambiguously and flagrantly violating Wikipedia's second pillar. – Herzen (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  22:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
According to Time Magazine, in regard to "other theory" "This hypothesis, a favorite on Russian state television, does not fit well with the audio recordings taken from the cockpit of the plane." Why aren't you quoting that part of the article?  Volunteer Marek  22:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Does not fit well" does not negate "vague enough to leave room for". Your compulsive insistence that there is a best view is not encyclopedic. Please make a minimal effort to be collaborative, instead of viewing Wikipedia as a battleground in which you can push your POV with wild abandon. – Herzen (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, as someone who's accused others of "hating Russians" or of holding particular views simply because they are of some national background, you got no room to lecture others about "battleground" and "collaborations". Or POV pushing for that matter, seeing as how I just showed that you were selectively quoting from the Time article in order to make it seem like it was about something else than what it really was about. Volunteer Marek  22:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17. That is what the article is about. No qualifications, hedging, and regretting that investigators had little chance to visit the crash site changes that. And as I recall, Time doesn't say that audio recordings "fit well" with the theory that a Buk missile shot down MH17. So that Time says that the audio recordings don't "fit well" with the theory that a fighter plane shot down MH17 is not probative. There simply is no getting around the fact that editors who want to keep this article out (as a compromise, one could add the qualification about the audio recordings, but they don't even propose that) are blatantly advocating a best view, violating the second pillar. – Herzen (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@USchick: Yes, you and whoever you deem to be part of your 'we' are bothering me and wasting my time. I did go away for a while to actually contribute only to come back and see that you are still preventing any meaningful discussion about this article. Lklundin (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen: "The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17" - are we reading the same Time article? That is not at all what the Time article is about. The Time article is mostly about how, quote, "Pieces of the downed Malaysian airliner were pillaged after the crash, contaminating the work of investigators who published their preliminary findings on Tuesday". You know, there is a reason why they put that blurb right at the top, it's called a summary. The article however does discount the Russian government propaganda story about the plane being shot down by a jet, by noting that, among other things, it doesn't fit in with voice recorded data. If that's the source evidence you've got for why "multiple theories" should be included in the article, well, you don't really have anything. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It's funny how editors who insist on preserving the egregious systemic bias in this article at all costs cannot refrain from personal attacks. A reminder: In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible.You managed to use "you" or "your" four times in just two sentences. Also, note that "Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia, making up less than 15% of contributors." Your accusations do not help close the gender gap. – Herzen (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Says the guy who went around accusing other editors of "hating Russians". And as far as the gender gap... huh?  Volunteer Marek  00:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me spell it out for you, since you apparently do not understand the Wikipedia policy onsystemic bias: "The gender gap has not been closing over time and, on average, female editors leave Wikipedia earlier than male editors." – Herzen (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What on God's green earth are you going on about?  Volunteer Marek  00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Systemic bias is an essay, not a policy. Please, if only to save yourself from looking silly, stop citing it as though it were. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Time article

@Herzen: "The Time article is about there being two main theories of who downed MH17" - are we reading the same Time article? That is not at all what the Time article is about. The Time article is mostly about how, quote, "Pieces of the downed Malaysian airliner were pillaged after the crash, contaminating the work of investigators who published their preliminary findings on Tuesday". You know, there is a reason why they put that blurb right at the top, it's called a summary. The article however does discount the Russian government propaganda story about the plane being shot down by a jet, by noting that, among other things, it doesn't fit in with voice recorded data. If that's the source evidence you've got for why "multiple theories" should be included in the article, well, you don't really have anything. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen: Regarding your wish to cite the Time article that a Ukrainian fighter jet had intercepted the airliner and sprayed it with chain-gun fire, I think this should be one of several items in my already proposed new article: 'Russian propaganda regarding MH 17' - along with details on the until now secret and super-capable Ukrainian SU-25. Lklundin (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There is Western propaganda about MH17; I am not aware of any Russian propaganda. Unlike Western coverage of MH17, Russian coverage is fact based, not unbridled speculation. To quote from an interview with Edward S. Herman, an expert on American propaganda and hence a reliable primary source:
This is an amazing story, with Obama, Kerry, Power and The New York Times and company, immediately and indignantly accusing the rebels and Russia of responsibility for downing the plane before any investigation had been carried out. And this was accompanied with furious accusations and with a quick retreat to silence without the presentation of any evidence supporting the US-Kiev-NATO party line by either Kiev or the United States. …
The rebels and Russians had absolutely no interest in destroying MH17. The Kiev government and the U.S. did have an interest, if it could be turned into a successful "false flag" operation with blame successfully placed on the enemy. It has been so treated, with the help of the Western propaganda system, which made the enemy guilty based on no evidence, and protects the likely real killers with protracted silence.
If there is a section on Russian propaganda, there must be a section on Western propaganda. To proceed otherwise is to promote grave systemic bias. – Herzen (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Time article is about the DSB preliminary report, as its title clearly indicates. And here is what the article says:
According to the crucial part of the report from the Dutch Safety Board, “The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from the outside.” This could be consistent with the West’s prevailing theory of what brought down the plane, namely a BUK surface-to-air missile launched by the pro-Russian separatists over the territory they control. …
But the wording of the 34-page report … was also vague enough to leave room for one of the more common theories among the rebel fighters in eastern Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the disaster on the Ukrainian government on the night of the crash; and in the days that followed, some of the separatists claimed in interviews with TIME that a Ukrainian fighter jet had, for some reason, intercepted the airliner and sprayed it with chain-gun fire.
Time magazine could not express itself more clearly. The West has one "prevailing theory" or POV; Russia and the rebels have another theory or POV. Both are equally consistent with the report. Thus, this article favoring one theory over another requires OR, and holding that there is a best view or even the truth. And note that I'm not even asking that equal weight be given to the Russian theory. All I'm asking is that the article mention that the Russian theory is consistent with the DSB report in just a single sentence. But editors are fighting tooth and nail to suppress even a single sentence mentioning that the only reliable information we have to go on, the DSB preliminary report, favors this possibility no less than the US government's conspiracy theory that the rebels shot down MH17 for some unknown reason with weapons they most likely did not have. This is getting really tedious. – Herzen (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well said, Herzen. Even Time, one of the most reliable sources, admits that DSB supports multiple theories. Yet only one of these theories is discussed in detail here. 118.210.196.217 (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are presenting this information as alternate possibilities, and this is confirmed by the investigation. To label them Conspiracy Theory would be OR. It has been discussed previously why having a section on "Russian press coverage" is problematic. To jump to conclusions before the investigation is complete is also OR. USchick (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen. Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@USchick. Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Really, quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion ended in VM announcing that there will be no discussion. One more comment like that, and we're going back to ANI for being disruptive. USchick (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The case is watertight. There is an impeccably reliable secondary source clearly stating that the theory that the rebels shot down MH17 and the theory that Kiev shot it down with a fighter plane are equally consistent with the DSB preliminary report. Thus, for this article to utterly exclude one theory as anything other than a crazy conspiracy theory is to seriously violate Wikipedia policy against OR and editors writing as if there is a best view or even the truth. So you might as well drop your battleground attitude and the IDONTHEAR in this case. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to POV push our pet theories. – Herzen (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Already. Discussed. To. Death. NO. Quit it with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek  03:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. There is no majority or significant minority view that the plane was shot down by Kiev. According to sources, such view or claim was propagated by Kremlin, but this is already reflected in "Russian press coverage" section and other parts of this article. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It was never "discussed to death". You have claimed in the past that discussions had been held regarding a content dispute with consensus being reached, when in fact there had been no such discussion. In this case, when reasons for excluding this source were put forward, I rebutted every one of them. The reason I stopped participating in those discussions was that it was obvious that some editors were not willing to abandon their battleground attitude. This time, I am more inclined to pursue this further, because I found out about the five pillars, with their principle that we do not describe one particular view "as 'the truth' or 'the best view'", which gives opponents of the inclusion of this article no leg to stand on. – Herzen (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading that quote from the Time was also vague enough to leave room for -- Does not say the Time supports those theories. In fact the wording strongly implies the opposite: The current evidence is too vague for any theory to receive support. I find the argumentation that lack of evidence is construed as strong support for adding a theory problematic (there is also lack of evidence for an alien deathray; meteor strike; Goldeneye satelites etc etc. - yet we do not mention those). Arnoutf (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Time is not in a position to support a theory. They report. Just like WP editors are not in a position to support a theory. There is also a lack of evidence for the prevailing theory. There's a reward (the largest in history) for anyone who can produce evidence, but no evidence has been produced. The US has satellite data, but they won't release it. USchick (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What USchick said is absolutely correct. Time is not in the position to "support" any theories, and neither are editors (although there's a lot of supporting of one particular theory going on; hence all the bickering); what Time does is report the news, and what it reported is that the DSB preliminary report is consistent with both of the two most prominent theories of who shot down MH17. Readers coming to this article will most likely be curious about who shot the plane down. Time reported, on the basis of the DSB report, who the main suspects are. This issue is notable, and on the basis of WP policy, there are absolutely no grounds for excluding what Time reported from this article. Since this is a new section, I will copy the sentence I proposed here:
According to Time Magazine, the preliminary report was "vague enough to leave room for" both the theory preferred in the West that the rebels downed MH17, and the prevailing theory among the rebels and in Russia that the airliner was downed by a Ukrainian fighter plane.
That sentence accurately represents what Time reported about the implications of the DSB report as to who the perpetrator might be. This is just one sentence. Why some editors are fighting this one sentence tooth and nail is beyond me. – Herzen (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not fighting the sentence at all. The sentence claims that the Dutch safety board report does not support nor rule out any theory, and that is indeed the case. It can not and should not be interpreted as a sentence that supports the SU25 theory. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Arnoutf: That's very nice to hear. But I wouldn't call the second theory "the SU25 theory". As far as I know, the idea of an SU25 came up at the Russian military briefing, where it was just offered as a suggestion of what the military jet might have been. Bloggers instantly went crazy trying to prove what the operational ceiling of an Su-25 is. But as the Russian engineers' report indicates, the radar signature of a SU-25 is very similar to that of a Mig-29. A Mig-29 is a fighter; an Su-25 is an attack aircraft, so it would have made more sense for the former to have been used. – Herzen (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_21&oldid=632777414"