Jump to content

Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

'Best' source

How do we judge which source is best? A case in point would be the summary of the incident in the infobox having 4 sources, all quoting the same comments from Obama. Personally I would like to remove at least 2 of them to remove clutter, but I am unsure how best to judge which ones to keep. Possibly Fox news as the most notable internationally? CSJJ104 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Fox News reliable, it's known as an organ for the Republican party. BBC and France 24 (in English, French and Arabic) are far more reliable. Among newspapers The Guardian, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine are better than American newspapers, especially regarding European-Asian related news like this. Boeing720 (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure I would go that far; however, I was wondering about a preference of FOX over the LA Times. Juan Riley (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Quoting Obama is really typical wikipedia fan boy behavior. Obama has almost nothing to do with this despite efforts to inject Obama into as many articles as possible. It would be different if Obama threatened to bomb Russia to avenge the death of the US citizen. Leave Obama out of this. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Reuters

Reuters is considered a reliable source. "In an interview with Reuters, subject acknowledged..." stands on its own without insinuating that Reuters is not reliable. Any allegation that Reuters "mistranslated" needs to be substantiated with other sources, as opposed to engaging in WP:original research. The New York Times addressed the Reuters interview here and noted that:
Almost as soon as the Reuters interview was published, Mr. Khodakovsky tried to take the comments back... Reuters responded by releasing audio of the interview, in which the commander could be clearly heard saying that he was told on the day of the crash that another separatist unit, from Lugansk, had in fact deployed an SA-11 Buk missile system...."
 Bottom line is that there was an attack on Reuters' credibility, the New York Times reviewed it, and found no evidence to conclude that Reuters had misrepresented what was said.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2014

One passenger has the German and Dutch nationality. She was reported as German, but she is Dutch. So it are 194 Dutch passengers and 3 German passengers.

There are more sources. http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/3837573/vliegtuigen-met-slachtoffers-mh17-weer-geland-in-eindhoven.html http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/vliegramp-mh17 (is the official Dutch government site)

88.159.208.149 (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article reports nationality cited on the aircraft manifest, regardless of dual citizenship. If she used a German passport to board, then she is reported as German. If you know the name, it is easily resolved from this manifest [1]. WWGB (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done: -Explained above. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Crash navigation info

Is it just me or is the navigation info in the Crash section para 3 not only confusing but possibly referenced with an admixture of secondary and primary sources and some OR? Juan Riley (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. One of the sources is FlightAware.com screenshots hosted at Zero Hedge. This itself is problematic-- because we're linking to possible copyvio, secondly because we're using Zero Hedge as a source. Geogene (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree too, some of it looks like OR and SYNTH based on a primary source. I see that it was boldly removed (thanks Juan), but has now been reverted, and is back in the article. I support deleting that whole paragraph.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The Zero Hedge source is gone. I don't think I support taking the whole thing out. --John (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Account of MSN story

The article currently states, in the 'Cause' section, "Local eyewitnesses and unnamed separatist sources later stated that the Buk M-1 missile launcher entered Ukraine from Russia with a Russian military crew escorted by two civilian vehicles". This is referenced to the MSN source What happened? The day Flight 17 was downed. The source states: "AP journalists saw the Buk moving through town at 1:05 p.m. The vehicle, which carried four 18-foot (5.5-meter) missiles, was in a convoy with two civilian cars." The report of the Buk escorted by civilian vehicles was *not* from local eyewitnesses and unnamed separatist sources, but from AP journalists, and this was *not* at a point of entry into the Ukraine, but in the town of Snizhne. - Crosbie 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, in the source, the claim that the launcher entered into Ukraine from Russia is sourced to Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda, not local eyewitnesses and unnamed separatist sources. This sentence is unsupported by the source. I will remove it. - Crosbie 05:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That's incorrect, it says, "The vehicles stopped in front of journalists from The Associated Press. A man wearing unfamiliar fatigues, speaking with a distinctive Russian accent, checked to make sure they weren't filming." I will readd it. Please don't misrepresent what sources are saying and please don't be so fast to revert war. Cla68 (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing I wrote was incorrect. I did not misrepresent the source. I will remove any material which is not supported by sources. - Crosbie 07:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You stated you were going to re-add the material about "A man wearing unfamiliar fatigues". This material was not previously part of the article. You did not re-add this material. You added it. I did not remove this material. It was never part of the article. The sentence I removed, as I state above, was the sentence, "Local eyewitnesses and unnamed separatist sources later stated that the Buk M-1 missile launcher entered Ukraine from Russia with a Russian military crew escorted by two civilian vehicles". I removed the sentence because it was not supported by the supplied source. - Crosbie 08:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Media coverage and the confusion created by both sides

This article needs a mention [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.51.201 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 July 2014

Italian journalist claim

The article currently states 'On 22 July an Italian reporter cited a soldier from "Oplot" separatist squadron who confirmed the plane was shot down by his unit after it was mistakenly identified as a Ukrainian airborne transporter' which is cited to the Corriere della Sera article «Così è stato colpito l’aereo» . Can anyone provide a translation of the key claim in the article? The best I can find with Google translate is "We just hit a plane of the fascists in Kiev, we were told". This supports the claims based on intercepts that separatists believed they had hit a Ukrainian plane at the time of the shoot-down. However the claim that the plane was shot down specifically by this soldier's unit seems to be an interpolation not based on the source. We can say that a soldier from the "Oplot" separatist squadron confirmed his unit was told that separatists has shot-down a Ukrainian aircraft. We can't say that it was this soldier's unit that did it. - Crosbie 06:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

AP / Guardian Buk sighting synthesis

The claim that the Buk claimed in the Guardian to have been seen by witnesses in Torez is the same Buk seen by journalist from the Associated Press is Synthesis. - Crosbie 12:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to the following lines in the lead "On the day of the incident witnesses in Torez reported sightings of what appeared to be a Buk missile launcher headed towards Snizhne,[11] where it was then sighted by AP journalists[12]"
You might be right there (it is very likely it is the same, but that would be synthesis unless we have a reliable source claiming that). How about "On the day of the incident witnesses in Torez reported sightings of what appeared to be a Buk missile launcher headed towards Snizhne,[11] where shortly after a Buk launcher was sighted by AP journalists[12]" (although that may still be pretty close to synthesis by implication) Arnoutf (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I think that's fine. Anyway, better synthesis by implication than outright synthesis. - Crosbie 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Every time you have one sentence follow another it's WP:SYNTH according to people who fail to understand that WP:SYNTH deals with claims that are not supported by the sources even though the individual components are. What is the claim here that is not supported? The Guardian says it was spotted en route to Snizhne. AP says it was spotted in Snizhne. That's called writing Wikipedia as editors with brains as opposed to simply concatenating copyright-violating quotes. Your contention is apparently that there are two different systems here in a colossal coincidence, a contention you only arrive at by means of WP:original research. The sources say what they say without playing detective.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you object to Arnoutf's proposed wording? - 13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't, but I object to Crosbie's implied claim about where the burden of proof lies because it'll be used to further create spurious doubt if the argument is accepted as is. To take a hypothetical, a reliable source refers to a "Malaysian Airlines jet that went down over eastern Ukraine" and someone complains that juxtaposing that with another report is SYNTH because it is theoretically possible TWO Malaysian Airlines jets went down in any given month and the second one just wasn't reported. The burden of coming up with some shred of evidence that there MIGHT be more than one in this sort of situation is on the party contending that there is more than one. As editors, we make common sense assumptions all the time about what sources refer to. More than once I've seen people cite SYNTH to say "you are making an unsupported claim by removing some ambiguity" when the ambiguity is totally implausible.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
In this case, all it would take to suggest possible ambiguity is for the timing to not line up, for the descriptions to not line up, for there to be a mention in a reliable source raising the possibility that there's more than one in the area, etc. The common sense assumption is that when some guy walks out the door and then walks in again 5 minutes later and looks the exact same, it's the same guy, not a body double who needs to be proven to be same guy. The party contending a body double should point to some reason for believing we are looking at someone else besides just theoretical possibility. For some people, there is never enough "proof" to write anything on Wikipedia they don't want written.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH"--Brian Dell (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

See Also section

The end of the article, just before the Notes, contains a Portal template and an in-line comment like this:

{{Portal|Aviation|Current events|Disasters}}
<!-- Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink -->

Unless someone objects, I will create a See Also section and replace that with this:

Any objections? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: I have no objections. However, per WP:MOSHEAD, the section should use a lowercase "a" in "also". Also, some user keeps on removing a link to List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities despite a discussion in opposition of removal, although it appears that the entire "See also" section has been removed at this point. Dustin (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
List of airliner shootdown incidents is already linked in the lead and so should not be linked again in a See also section. The four shootdown incidents are linked from that article and there is no need to link them either. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities would be a reasonable link. --John (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I actioned this. --John (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that three of the four shootdown incidents are pertinent. I chose them because they have at least one aspect similar to MA17 and therefore you don't have to plow through the entire List of airliner shootdown incidents.
I would add the first sentence above (e.g., Shot down in 1983 by Soviet fighter plane) to each item. What do you think? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Normally I would say yes, but in this case as the cause is still under investigation I would suggest just leaving it to the list article. --John (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Claim the ground support aircraft was able to fly at a higher altitude than it is capable of

The source for this is "Pressimus" http://pressimus.com/site/page/about. Surely this can't be considered a Reliable Source. Montenegroman (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

".. weave your own stories, pulling in the real-time snippets of content that you find, adding context, your own point of view, and any commentary you want to add, and ... " ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That's actually one of the Russian claims, propagated on other websites as well. It refers to the so-called dynamic ceiling, which is allegedly 10,000 metres (33,000 ft) for a Su-25 aircraft. Brandmeistertalk 18:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, according to STATE COMPANY "UKROBORONSERVICE" (3a, Rossoshanska str., Kyiv, Ukraine, 02093[3]), http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 says that the "Practical ceiling,m" is "7000-10000". Though maybe this is subject to change without notice. Maybe someone could archive this - I don't know how or I would (Saturday night and too lazy to Google?) Montenegroman (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Good call, I have removed that. It doesn't seem like a reliable source. --John (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
experts seem to find it all pretty implausible [4] - (the source is maybe biased but presumably the expert is reliable on what he says about the planes capabilities) Sayerslle (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless a clear cut quote from a reliable secondary source backs this up..I say leave it out.Juan Riley (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Juan Riley. Find even a half-credible source before re-submitting this Montenegroman (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
That looks a good source, Sayerslle. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
better than pressimus anyhow - if I introduced that source I'm sorry. Sayerslle (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Radio Free Europe? Surely we can do better than that. David Gleave [5] is wheeled out by so much of the media. "Specialties: Prevention or investigation of accidents associated with mid-air collision, loss of control after wake-vortex encounter, controlled flight into terrain, collisions on runways/taxiways, runway/taxiway excursions, windshear, pilot error, air traffic control error, procedure design mistakes, jet-blast and propwash, bird strikes."[6] OK, so maybe not so much experience with military aircraft but whatever. Montenegroman (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Getting back on topic, the sentence that John deleted was: After a Russian held press conference alleging a Ukrainian Su-25 flew close to flight MH17, a Russian government related IP edited the Su-25's Russian Wikipedia page to claim the ground support aircraft was able to fly at a higher altitude than it is capable of. Nice though the Radio Free Europe source is from Sayerslle, it doesn't make that deleted sentence any more valid: 'charges that a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet may have shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 are "fairly incredible." . . . conceivable, although extremely unlikely . . . the Su-25 -- "is a particularly bizarre choice of airplane because it's purposely designed to fly at very low levels and be agile down there," Gleave said.'
I agree with him actually - but it doesn't support the deleted sentence. Montenegroman (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
the sukhoi.org page for the plane , it says 'service ceiling 7km' [7] - (anyhow I see above you've cited something that says it can act at 10000 (does that supersede the companys own ideas)- so maybe that's what happened- it was just a coincidence the BUK going walkabout that day - who knows - Sayerslle (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle: the sukhoi.org page quotes the Service_ceiling#Service_ceiling Above that, it will struggle to climb at more than 500 feet per minute Montenegroman (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
oh - (the expert still said he found it all pretty unlikely whatever - I know nothing, as you can gather, about planes) - I read this on a blog by Bill Sweetman, Senior International Defense Editor , Aviation Week & Space Technology , ' - using a Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot carrying an R-60 Aphid air-to-air missile (the only AAM normally carried by the Su-25). This would require some remarkable timing and a pilot immune to nose-bleeds, because the Su-25 can manage Mach 0.82 flat out, on a good day, and a 777 can do 0.89, and furthermore the Su-25is unpressurized and has a normal service ceiling of 23,000 feet. No doubt coincidentally, on the day this claim was published, a Wikipedia editor with a Russian address was found trying to insert a 33,000-foot ceiling on the Su-25 page. As for the R-60, the 3 kg warhead's ability to assure a kill on a large aircraft with highly redundant systems is dubious at best.' [8] Sayerslle (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

anti-Russian bias

Wikipedia should be neutral, not puppets of the Ukrainian government. The neutral way is to call them Ukrainian separatists backed by Russia, not pro-Russia separatists. If you call them pro-Russian separatists, why not call them anti-leukemia separatists because I am sure they are not for leukemia.

This comment could result in both sides hating me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I think it would be reasonable to call them simply "Russian" rebels, rather than "pro-Russian", because they fight for Great Russia (including Novorossiya) and because at least 1/3 of them are allegedly Russian citizens, including almost all their leaders. Now, calling someone "Russian" does not mean anti-Russian bias. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is an established guideline on WP (too long to quote it, but if you look at the archives you surely find it) stating by consensus that they must be called either "Pro-Russian" or "Pro-Russia separatists". Not "terrorists", not "Ukrainian" anything (we already know they're Ukrainian, since they live there). "Rebels" and "insurgents" are also accepted, but must be specified in the article first. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
do we 'know they're Ukrainian, since they live there' - I thought it was known a lot of them were Russian. Sayerslle (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
"Russian, Ukrainian"... There you go, you break it down by national aspect. In fact, 90% of the rebel possess Ukrainian passports, so it's hard to tell what their real nationality is, and not something WP wants to do anyway. This is why the consensus goes to refer to them as "pro-Russian", neither "Russian" nor "Ukrainian". And, like I said, I think this is fair. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There must be something wrong here

Site: Near Hrabove, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine 48°8′17″N 38°38′20″E

by Flightradar24 was at 13:21 and placed it at WikiMiniAtlas 48°02′25″N 38°46′22″E / 48.0403°N 38.7728°E / 48.0403; 38.7728

The plane was already east to the crash area! Franz Scheerer (Software) (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussed before. May be due to many reasons, most likely lack of precision by Flightrader24. Arnoutf (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
For ref, prev discussed at Map and timeline for final minutes. Nurg (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Eradicate original sourcing...such as at Flightrader24. Only quote secondary RS...even tho these may change. Juan Riley (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Franz 'The plane was already east to the crash area!'. Correct. [9]. The Malaysia Airways statement said "Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint" [10]. This is even further to the East. ". . . Discussed before. May be due to many reasons, most likely . . . . . (Arnoutf: please complete this for me) Montenegroman (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2014

Please change "Unnamed US intelligence officials stated that sensors that traced the path of the missile, shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, and photos and other data from social media sites all indicated that Russian-backed separatists had fired the missile.[15]", as there's no real proof that it was actually shot down by a pro-russian separatist SAM, as all the information provided by the province of Donetsk and other countries show that the missile was shot somewhere in Kiev borders, while the manipulated-by-government West news channel blame Russia for "helping the separatists with advanced weaponry" when Donetsk hasn't got any SAM cappable of reaching such altitude, and neither any Aircraft other than the civilian ones, for the artillery from Kiev. www.infowars.com/u-s-admits-its-mh17-evidence-is-based-on-youtube-clips-social-media-posts/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used U.S. admits its MH17 ‘evidence’ is based on YouTube clips and social media posts.


FenixValor (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you actually verify that last part with multiple mainstream reliable sources? Wikipedia does not balance between things with little support and things with much support; it follows the sources. WP:FRINGE Dustin (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done. Feel free to come back when you have a source. When you do, you should propose a new wording along with the source that backs it up. --John (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Dutch military police

The Netherlands has sent 40 unarmed members of the Royal Marechaussee to Ukraine to aid with the investigation: [11][12] – Editør (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but I think we could better wait filling out the details of the investigation team until it is clear how it all goes. Otherwise we would have to create a long list with daily tallies. (originally X people from Y country, but after Z days the team consisted out of A people from B, C people from D, another W days later..... etc). If and when a police protection detail is sent (armed or not) I would definitely add something as that would be the next stage where the control over and arbitrary access of investigators to the site is taken away from the Ukranian separatists. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure the Dutch contingent will be the largest and most significant. So I'd agree to include this. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Arnoutf: that until or unless this becomes part of the story, it is a detail which will lead to more details. Note: no pun meant on "detail". Juan Riley (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott plans to send "190 armed Federal Police officers and an unknown contingent of Defence Force personnel" to aid in the humanitarian mission of recovering further remains, as reported by the largest print news paper in Australia: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbotts-mission-to-ukraine-branded-nuts-20140726-3cm8r.html - The plan has reportedly been viewed in a negative light by senior Defence personnel, so its unclear if the deployment will happen and wether or not they will be armed may change. 14.201.137.3 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The Anons response is one of the reasons why I would suggest to wait it out. The Netherlands have now sent 40 MP's but there is talk about sending in many more, and sending in armed protection detail (Air Mobile Brigade has been consigned to barracks). But until something happens the coming and going of people from different organisations/countries will go on for a while. Let's wait till the dust settles and write it in a more definitive version in one go. But that is my preference - if others want to keep it closer up to date, feel free. Arnoutf (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There is difference though, these unarmed military policemen are already in the Ukraine. Sending them is no longer just a plan or possibility such as the sending of Australian or Dutch armed forces is. – Editør (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

MH is now avoiding Ukranian airspace

MH made a point of stating that it's entirely avoiding Ukranian airspace:

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Relatives at crash site

First relatives arrive at crash site, in search for their daughter [13]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This might be notable, but the source is not a good one: [14]. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if it could be incorporated in article or not, but might be worth while on a temporary basis

http://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/flight-mh17.html#upload------------------

StuB63 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this a usual procedure as part of Dutch police investigation or major crimes? Or is it unprecedented? Either way, I guess we'd need a (possibly also Dutch) secondary source to tell us. Of course, if it did produce something solid, that would indeed be very notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Specifically searching for pictures/videos is not very common, from what I know. It seems important enough for several Dutch sources have made mention of the police seeking pictures/videos (nieuws.nl; nd.nl (Nederlands Dagblad, a Dutch nation-wide Christian newspaper); RTV Utrecht (Radio-television Utrecht, regional radio/tv-channel of the province Utrecht); metronieuws.nl (Metro, a free Dutch newspaper); nrc.nl liveblog about MH17 (mention in the MH17 liveblog by NRC, the shared site of NRC Handelsblad and NRC Next (two closely related nation-wide Dutch newspapers)); zakenreisnieuws.nl ("business travel news", part of internetpublisher Reismedia BV; serious mention in an article about NH17); I believe there is also a mention on the site of the Reformatorisch Dagblad, but that one's currently inaccessible to me (rather religious newspaper and they feel strong enough about Sunday being a day of rest and devotion to God that they make it impossible to access the articles on their website on Sunday); quite possibly more), but I believe none of them have specifically made mention of it being common or uncommon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

It reads "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile, which Ukraine and Western governments believe to have been fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.". I suggest changing that to "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile, which Ukraine and Western governments claim to have been fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.". As we can't look into there brains guessing what they believe is only hypothetical and, indeed, there is some intel that suggest that they actually don't believe their claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydal (talk • contribs) 08:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is something about the word 'claim' which conveys the impression the writer doubts the claim that is being made. 'According to' avoids the need to impute belief, without that effect, I think. I note that I added the current wording, and am comfortable in implicitly suggesting Ukraine and Western governments are *not* lying, though I suppose I see your point. However, from a practical point of view see the discussion Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#WP:FRINGE. Even to impute this belief to anyone at all, rather than leave it as a statement of uncontroversial fact, is unpopular. By the way, it is usual to add new topics at the *end* of the page. - Crosbie 08:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I see your point on the word 'claim'. Unfortunately, I'm not native speaker to it is difficult for me to suggest better fitting words. What about 'blaim' which I figure sounds less biased? --85.176.254.153 (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Blaim sounds more biased as it suggests there is someone to blame; while claim relates to the statement of US/Ukrainian govt where it came from and not necessarily who is to blame. (as a non word blaim of course is not biased in itself, but I guess you mean blame). Arnoutf (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is a highly questionable "improvement", and it must be fixed or reverted (see my previous comment above). My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It was only a suggestion that never made it even to the article. --Sydal (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion, if English isn't your first language and you can't even spell the words you're advocating we use, perhaps you are not well-qualified to comment on subtleties of the English language on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Going from the citations we have we have:
KIEV (Reuters) - Pro-Russian rebels shot down two Ukrainian fighter jets on Wednesday, not far from where a Malaysian airliner was brought down last week in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers on board.
+ BBC: Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was travelling over the conflict-hit region when it disappeared from radar. A total of 283 passengers and 15 crew members were on board.
+ AP: Ukraine says a passenger plane carrying 295 people was shot down Thursday as it flew over the country, and both the government and the pro-Russia separatists who have been fighting in the region denied any responsibility for downing the plane.
= Wikipedia: The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists. Montenegroman (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and I believe that our current formulation works. Should a rewording be considered necessary, though, a more neutral alternative for saying "the USA (and others) claim something" would be "the USA (and others) state something". AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The text need to be revised! Wrong statements and conclusions.

Just take this paragraph for example:

Shortly after the crash, Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, was reported to have posted on social media network VKontakte, taking credit for downing a Ukrainian military aircraft. The separatists later denied involvement after learning that a civilian airliner had been destroyed, saying they did not have the equipment or training to hit a target at that altitude.[112][113][114] On 22 July a soldier revealed to an Italian reporter that fellow separatists had told his unit the plane had been shot down under the assumption that it was Ukrainian.[115]

US officially declares no involvement of Russia on 22.7.14 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-22/u-dot-s-dot-no-direct-russian-involvement-in-mh17-crash

Also the article of the Italian reporter has been proofed to be not correct.

So please if Wikipedia want to be serious change the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.145.94 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"US officially declares no involvement of Russia" isn't an accurate summarization of what appears in content of that BusinessWeek (Bloomberg) link. What, exactly, is the problem with what was reported by Corriere della Sera?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, where exactly is that report "proofed to be not correct" or any similar such thing? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that you should find a direct government source for any "official" government claims. Also, Wikipedia isnt here to make conclusions. 14.201.137.3 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2014


Table says that 1 Australia died on board the MH17, where as there were actually 38 on board at the time of the crash. Not sure how this has been overlooked! Here is the reference: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/grieving-australian-couple-visit-ukraine-crash-site/5626738


124.168.245.58 (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done It wasn't exactly overlooked. I fixed it; the official airline listed the number at 27 going on boarding passport. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2014

Passenger counts do not match. See the passenger manifest 95.172.68.149 (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In which way(s) do you think they differ? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian state/territory

Is there any sense in mentioning Australian passengers by state and territory in the note C? IMO, all of them are Australian citizens anyway and the flight manifest doesn't indicate such info. Brandmeistertalk 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't be upset if it goes. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Australian sources made a point of breaking it down by state, and therefore Wikipedia should too. If the source was simply an after-the-fact "oh by the way here are the states" I would take the opinion of WWGB. But in this case Australian newspapers published articles explicitly centered on the breakdown of Australian passengers. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Australian media would break it down for a local audience but it is not notable or encyclopedic in this article so agree it can go. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
A list of victims in de Volkskrant mentions all kind of detail, including provenance and residency. I see no reason to include that here. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This article does not need semi-protection

Other recent event articles such as Air Algérie Flight 5017 and TransAsia Airways Flight 222 (or any other aviation disaster articles) are not semi-protected and all the edits are constructive. Therefore, I propose that the semi-protection be lifted and see how it does. It's also no longer a recent aviation disaster, which is what it was originally protected for. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. Those other two are indeed major aviation disasters. But, to my mind, the similarity stops there. This one is still incredibly politically charged and much farther from being resolved. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is also politically charged and it's also still more recent/ongoing. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Like you, I hope the protection here is not needed. I'm just more sceptical. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protection (at a minimum) should be applied at this time. Anything worthwhile can be brought up on the talk page. Maybe bringing something up on the talk page first should be obligatory. Montenegroman (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think this article should be protected completely as it illustrates one huge political struggle via information sources. Anything related to the current Russia-Ukraine relationships on WP should be protected (not just semi-protected). Why? Look what happened in Russian WP when administrators came in and edited the page. These admins are also users here, and can come in and do the same thing. Instead of blocking-disciplining each and every one on the coup, why not just protect the page and have a bunch of trusted users add info from this Talk? We'd avoid much "leftist" sourcing, unreliable info and speculation there that way. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Leftist"? Well, who is trusted? Are leftist editors trusted? No, semi-protection (instead of full protection) seems to work fine, so that's all we need. If a Russian editor comes in here, they'll be treated like any other editor, leftist or rightist, as long as they are not disruptive. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
By "leftist" I meant people coming with media sources like Bloomberg, where there is clear non-neutrality in the POVs. A day or so ago users tried to adapt the information now located in the article header to read as neutral as possible, because multiple leftist sources, instead of saying "US officials state" or "According to X" just go ahead and interpret this information as mainstream, all while treating Russian media sources (which are media sources and clearly say both of the above) like disinformation. All this happening on WP, not on some forum. And like I said, it's just part of the deal because nothing restraints Russian editors who removed chunks of same information from their article, come and do so here. Of course, there would be blocks and such, but isn't it better to assume total control than just partially discipline people one by one? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The relatively recent episode of "total control" proved to be both unpopular and controversial. Non-disruptive editors felt as if they were being unfairly penalised for the misdeeds of others. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti reportings

There's something fishy about that bit at the end of "Crash" section. Both news sources have reported that pro-Russian rebels have shot down an Ukrainian AN-26 around the same time at the same location. There there was a phrase "Only the Malaysian plane went down at that time" which had no source, and I replaced it with something more relevant to the stated sources. However, I still don't think it fits there. These reports were the only ones stating that an Ukrainian plane has been shot, because right afterwards news of Flight 17 started coming in on the international level. And these two remained, but never elaborated on. Ukrainian Army never confirmed that they haven't lost a plane, it was never even speculated. All the attention went right for Flight 17. So I think adding anything after this is irrelevant, and even both these sources should rather be moved to "Russian media coverage" instead. I'll give some time to see if we agree, and then if no reply is given to myself, I'll proceed as explained. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When you say "Both news reports stopped shortly" do you mean "There were no further updates from these two sources"? But I'm not sure how you support such a statement with any sources. It looks a bit like WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk)
Yeah, I know. I really think it belongs in the last section of the article, and that last phrase must go. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The functional burden of proof here is on the party contending that two planes were shot down at the same time, when one is editing in such a way as to try and introduce that theory to the reader. You can try and pin the burden of proof on the editor who notes the fact that ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti were isolated here knowing he can't prove a negative but you can often use Wikipedia rules to serve purposes contrary to the spirit of those rules if one's creative enough. That's why Wikipedia is edited by editors instead of robots, editors who can see that the ITAR-TASS and RIA Novosti evidence that sources friendly to them THOUGHT they shot down a Ukrainian plane is only undermined by the entirely unsupported speculation that two planes were shot down at about the same time. If the consensus here is to greenlight the removal that Spaceinvaders wants, then remove the rest as well, because Spaceinvaders has successfully undermined the relevance of referring to ITAR-TASS and Ria Novosti's reports here with his argument. The reports are false, and it only makes sense to refer to them because these false reports imply something about the cause of the crash. Present them to the reader without the observation that they're false and are you simply presenting reports that easily fail a reliability test.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

At this rate, I prefer to remove or not include anything about the Ukrainian AN-26 report in order to not fall for the speculation trap set up by the news media. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Crash vs. Shootdown

To Martinevens' point above, that this is not really a regular "aviation disaster", I had suggested a while ago (and was mostly shot down by editors who don't seem to grasp my point) to change the name of the article, given the fact that this is NOT a run-of-the-mill "plane crash". But was a SHOOT-DOWN. And I had suggested a modification of the article name to show clearly that (yes the airline etc also) it was a shoot-down in a military conflict context. The article name does not show that at all. And arguably (given the details of the how and why the "crash" happened in the first place) the wording in the article name should show that point and fact clearly. This was NOT just a regular plane crash. Hence the need or desire also for "semi-protection". Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would not rule out a change of article name, if and when the investigation is concluded. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What I don't agree with is the header infobox saying "Shootdown summary". When you write a word in "occurrence type", it goes there. But then, you look at "Summary" and see again "Shot down, most likely by..." I think it's a bit redundant, don't you find? Maybe remove the last part if you're still for "Shootdown" rather than "Crash"? Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that info box summary can yet be improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
How about "Crashed due to surface-to-air missile interference. The missile most likely came from BUK launcher operated by pro-Russian separatists"? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite a bit of "interference", wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What proof do we have that the missile was really aimed at the MH17? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that really affects the outcome. But I'm 99.9% sure we'll never have that that particular proof. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Iran Air Flight 655 and Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 are random examples for similar shoot-downs of civilian planes and just like here the article name is just airline and flight number. That looks reasonable, and unless the US shoots down flight 655 again (Iran Air didn't retire the flight number) this established naming scheme looks good. Malaysia Airlines did retire the flight number, so no problem here. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make it right or reasonable necessarily. Just because "others" have had vague unclear names in their articles. What's to say that they were correct, and not incorrect ALSO for doing that? It's not a valid argument, appeal to others. The actual point of the situation is what should be considered. My position is that arguably those other articles that you cited were wrong or too ambiguous in their articles names also. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, two of the three references by you use the word "Shootdown" in the summary. I rest my case. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in Crash section

Someone inserted this text into the Crash section of the article: "Both news reports stopped shortly thereafter, once news of the Malaysian Airliner crash started to appear, yet it remains unclear whether another aircraft was also hit and had also crashed." Eleven days have passed and there's been no announcement or discovery of another plane being shot down at the same time. Nomination to delete the second part of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.187.26 (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I did that just today, and just above I explained everything. This whole phrase is to be deleted completely, and the last paragraph moved to Russian Media Coverage section. I'm just waiting to see for other suggestions before doing so. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You have my approval. Go ahead. United States Man (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't have my approval, including with respect to your edits to this paragraph prior to the one at issue here. See my observations in the immediately preceding thread. This IP's recommendation should be followed OR this should be rolled back to what it was before "unclear" was inserted because the reality is that it is quite clear only one aircraft crashed at this time.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved that last paragraph to the end of Russian Media Coverage section. And also added that last phrase about the lack of updates from these sources, a/p discussed above. Please feel free to revert or to alter it the way you want, I've waited some time before doing so and consider that the consensus as such was reached. Thanks, Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

I see Crosbiesmith wants to edit war over whether the aircraft was "likely" downed by a surface-to-air missile as Crosbie wants this attributed to the U.S. government. This is like attributing to the U.S. government that hijackers brought down the Twin Towers. Of course it is entirely true that the U.S. government "assessed" that aircraft hijackers did it. But it is not just the U.S. government that believes that "theory" as opposed to, say, internal demolition, meaning that it's misleading to insinuate that the U.S. government is out on its own limb here. It's a WP:FRINGE theory to contend that this aircraft was downed by something other than a surface-to-air missile like an air-to-air attack or an on-board bomb, at least with the evidence we have at this stage. Do the Guardian, the New York Times, AP, and Reuters attribute to the U.S. government when making a statement like "likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile"? If not, then we shouldn't be adding additional language that creates the misleading impression that this is just a "he said, she said" between the White House and the Kremlin and nobody can make any sense at all of what might be more likely.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to edit war. I am not contending that this aircraft was downed by something other than a surface-to-air missile. I want to attribute the statement that MH17 was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists attributed to somebody, ideally to the most credible possible source. What is the change you wish to see made? - 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You know what the change wished for is because you reverted it, Crosbie. Without first coming here first to discuss or addressing in your edit summary the rationale I gave in my edit summary for not attributing to the U.S. govt. If the U.S. government is the most credible source out there then you should not be attributing because we do not require in-line attribution to highly credible sources (we simply use citations to those RS). What does the New York Times say here: "Buk SA-11, the weapon that was most likely used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17". Does we routinely need to attribute to the New York Times? If not, then why attribute? Why pick another source? I'll add that citations are not routinely required in an article lede as per WP:LEADCITE: lede material clearly supported by citations in the body of the article does not need redundant citations.-Brian Dell (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the youtube video you link to also mention that the missile likely came from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists? I would prefer a written source; these are quicker and easier to verify. - Crosbie 14:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Just be clear, the part I believe requires attribution is the claim that the missile came from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists, as this is implicitly denied by the separatists' claims that they did not shoot down MH17. The separatists' claims, however improbable you may find them, are not WP:FRINGE because they are prominent. We have them right here in the lead. The claim the aircraft was downed by a Buk I find entirely uncontroversial, and not to require attribution. - Crosbie 14:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Well your edit attributed more than that. At issue here is the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT given to the various theories advanced by the separatists or the Kremlin by having Wikipedia insinuate that the U.S. government is out on its own here. "Britain accused Russia on Saturday of making false claims about the Malaysian airliner that crashed in eastern Ukraine and said it was "highly likely" it was brought down by a Russian-supplied missile fired from a Russian-backed separatist area." So right there we see that this is NOT just a U.S. position. The text at issue here does not go nearly as far as the British do, as the British furthermore say the missile was Russian-supplied. More importantly, the fact is that investigative journalists have exhibited far more skepticism with respect to one side than the other here, and that "balance" ought to be reflected in the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If it is according to multiple sources let's say multiple sources, provided we cite those sources. If we have only the US as a source, then I guess we can only say the US. There are other sources, just quote them. Eventually the air accident investigation team, which is not US, will determine the matter. Ex nihil (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference if the source is NYT and if the source is government participating in the conflict. I wouldn't assume any statement by US, UK, Ukrainian, Russian government as unbiased. The rebels certainly are not unbiased either. So, if the statement comes from an acting party, it needs to have attribution in the text. NYT is not an acting party, so it doesn't need attribution unless it acts only as secondary source for one of the parties before mentioned.--85.176.254.153 (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I fixed this a little. Introduction only summarizes content of the page. According to the text (see "Cause" section), this is not just an opinion of US government, but something supported by multiple evidence as described in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind stating exactly who claims the missile came from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists? I will examine the cause section as you suggest, but if you could also state which parts of the section you were relying on that would help to avoid your point being missed. - Crosbie 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As I noted above, it's based on the totality of reliable sources, i.e. not just Western governments (let alone just the U.S. government) but Western media as well. An article lede should summarize the totality of the evidence delineated in the body of the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Crosbie. *Who claims? Even rebels themselves, as described in Russian state-controlled media (see "On the evening of 17 July, the lifenews.ru portal released a statement saying that a "Ukrainian Air Force An-26 transport plane" had been shot down by a missile and crashed"). My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And here is the actual problem in Introduction. It tells: "The two sides in Ukraine's ongoing conflict (the Ukrainian government and the pro-Russian separatists) accused each other of shooting down the plane while denying their own responsibility". No, according to intercepted phone calls, claims about "AN airplane" they hit and the admisson by Khodakovsky, rebels actually admitted (but then denied) their own complicity. Simply telling "they denied" in Intro is misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The rebels have never admitted they shot down the MH17. This is what their leader was talking about - media misinterpretation. They only admitted to have shot down "a plane", so the question remains as to whether or not another plane went down the same day. And if it did, maybe it was a small Ukrainian military aircraft that was flying higher than the MH17 and simply crashed on top of it, causing the MH17 itself to crash. 24.201.226.168 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell - after your last edit, the text reads "The aircraft crashed over territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists and was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile." That seems entirely unobjectionable to me. - Crosbie 15:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it a little. The Buk story is actually controversial and now described entirely in 2nd paragraph, whereas 1st paragraph now includes only noncontroversial information. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You didn't 'fix' it - you restored the claim that the missile was fired from separatist-controlled territory *without* attributing the claim to the US government - attribution of this claim to the U.S. government was the reason I undid Brian Dell's change, which led to this whole discussion in the first place. As it stands, we've effectively pre-judged the separatists' claims that they did not shoot down the plane before we even state them. - Crosbie 17:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Based on the need to mention the 'from separatist-controlled territory' claim, and taking into account a comment from Brian Dell above, how about we *don't* explicitly attribute the Buk, but *do* explicitly attribute the separatist-controlled territory claim? "The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. [Basing its claim on intelligence sources,] the US government believes a missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists." The part in square brackets I include to suggest the US is not in the habit of making baseless claims. I don't care if that bit gets included or not. - Crosbie 17:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Either what you posit in square brackets should be included OR "U.S. government" should be replaced with "Western governments". The reason being that the "U.S. government" view here is more consistent with the available evidence or, if one wants to drop some "perceptions vary" cloud over the evidence, nonetheless closer to consensus than the Kremlin view.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Once again, this is not just a claim by US, Ukrainian, UK, etc. governments, although they indeed claim it. Shooting by the Buk from the rebel-held territory has been described in vast majority of sources and supported by multiple evidence, as described in body of article. Claims about shooting from another plane (for example) are indeed "fringe". My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems initial black box data shows evidence of massive explosive decompression possibly caused by multiple hull ruptures. This is according to the experts indicative of the damage of SA11 missile hit. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-black-box-findings-consistent-with-blast/ http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/31522/Vliegtuigcrash-in-Oekraine/article/detail/3701161/2014/07/26/Zwarte-doos-bevestigt-raketinslag-MH17.dhtmlArnoutf (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not denying that MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. The thrust of the discussion between myself and Brian Dell above is that the use of a missile is *not* controversial. The controversial claim, at least based on the claims of the Ukrainian separatists, is that the missile was fired from separatist-controlled territory. I have already proposed wording above which would state the SA11 hit is likely without providing attribution. The evidence of an SA11 hit is now irrelevant to the discussion. I can understand why Brian Dell thought I was pushing some novel shoot-down method as I reverted his change without explanation, but I have explained in several ways above that I do *not* think the flight was destroyed by anything other than a missile, but User:My very best wishes and now Arnoutf keep on discussing the missile hit as if I sugested there were any doubt. I do not doubt it. I do not wish to imply any doubt in the article. To keep on telling me there is evidence of a missile strike is to suggest I wish to introduce doubt. I do not doubt MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. The article should state MH17 was hit by an SA11 missile. The crux of my point is that we are stating without attribution that the missile was launched from separatist-controlled territory, thus implicitly pre-judging that the separatist claims that they did not shoot down the aircraft are incorrect before we even state them. I know I am repeating myself, but that would appear to be necessary. Brian Dell suggests above we use the form 'Western governments believe'. Yes, that would be be great, at this point, and as Brian Dell points out, to say 'The US government believes' might imply the US government is out on a limb itself. So I propose "The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. Ukraine and Western governments believe the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists". Or something. *Anything* to avoid pre-judging the separatist case before we state it. Otherwise we might as well write in the second paragraph, 'Ukrainian separatists deny shooting down the aircraft, though this is unlikely'. - Crosbie 04:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I made my proposed change. I was wrong here and in my summary when I stated that the lead includes separatist denials of responsibility. It does not. - Crosbie 04:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Crosbie: I back your points. The hit by SA11 is so likely that we can consider it to be uncontroversal. The controversal part is the location of the BUK system. Hence, I fully support your edit. --Sydal (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, there is no any doubts that missile was fired from the rebel-controlled territory. Please provide any WP:RS (other than claims by Russian government and Russian state-controlled news organizations) which claim that missile was fired from another position, and what exactly alternative position that would be? My very best wishes (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a "What have the Romans ever done for us?" type of argumentation. It is enough that two parties disagree to call it controversal. Excluding the parties that disagree and then say "who else disagrees?" sounds strange. Anyway, this CIA agent says that it was shot from Ukrainian-controlled territory. --Sydal (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.

The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.

You strangely ignore evidence and even posts contradicting to your prior believes. Once more I point you to this reference http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukraine/ that clearly references American intel suggesting that it might have been Ukrainian soldiers that shot the plane. --Sydal (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

'User:My very best wishes' - you ask above 'Please provide any WP:RS (other than claims by Russian government and Russian state-controlled news organizations) which claim that missile was fired from another position'. For future reference I provide the following RIA Novosti link MH17 Flight Crashed Within Ukrainian Missile Systems Firing Range - Russian Military "The Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed within the operating zone of the Ukrainian army’s self-propelled, medium-range surface-to-air Buk missile systems, the Russian military said Monday." This is a Russian state-controlled news organization reporting on the claims of the Russian military so it doesn't fit your criteria. However, the views of the Russian military are not WP:FRINGE. If we write the article to deliberately exclude the views of pro-Russia sources then I agree, there is no controversy. However, there is controversy and we can only avoid acknowledging this by deliberately excluding the views of pro-Russia sources. - Crosbie 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The claims by Russian ministry of defense are now essentially dismissed as fringe by vast majority of WP:RS. Yes, they are properly mentioned in the body of text. But I do not think they should appear in intro/summary. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The views of the Russian ministry are not WP:FRINGE. I do not care if the views of the Russian government appear in the lead. I am not asking for the views of the Russian government to appear in the lead. What I am asking is that the claim that the Buk which destroyed MH17 was launched from rebel-controlled territory is attributed in such a way that the impression is not given that there are no prominent sources which do *not* believe that the Buk which destroyed MH17 was launched from rebel-controlled territory. The views of the Russian government are prominent. The Russian government is accused of supplying a missile which was used to destroy MH17 from rebel-controlled territory. For that reason alone, the views of the Russian government on where the missile was launched from are prominent. As it stands, the article states that the location of the launch in rebel-controlled territory is something which is believed, without making it clear who holds this belief. As I understand it, you are not prepared to accept that the article should include *any* attribution of the belief that the missile was launched from rebel-controlled territory, and you insist that this claim should appear in the lead. Is that correct? It is difficult for me to see how we can reach a mutually agreed form of words at this point. - Crosbie 16:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
are you arguing about this sentence in the lead? 'The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.' - certainly the three refs that follow don't seem to me to be reflected exactly by that sentence. the first ref isn't even about the same incident I don't think. the others talk about differing beliefs about what caused the downing of the plane Sayerslle (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think FRINGE really applies, but per policy we don't give anything more weight than it is given by RS's. There are some exceptions — e.g., in certain contexts we allow people or organizations to make unfiltered views/claims about themselves via SPS — but even then we don't give those views/claims as much weight as what appears in RS's. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the sentence I prose changing is "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists." I propose changing this to "The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. Ukraine and Western governments believe the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists" There are several national governments with an interest in the shoot-down, including Russia, Ukraine, The Netherlands, The United States, and Malaysia. Of these, I am only aware that Russia as yet does not believe the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists. I do not propose giving Russia's views equal weight. I do not propose stating Russia's views in the lead. I am asking that when the non-Russian views are presented, they are not presented in a such a way as to suggest there is no dissenting or undecided viewpoint on the question of where the missile was fired from. - Crosbie 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The third RS (AP)says "Ukraine says a passenger plane carrying 295 people was shot down Thursday as it flew over the country, and both the government and the pro-Russia separatists who have been fighting in the region denied any responsibility for downing the plane." Montenegroman (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
personally I would just axe the problematic 'The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists.', and , start the paragraph straight out with the Ukrainian view - then have about the Buk sightings in Torez etc- and end up the paragraph with separatist and Russian beliefs that Su-25s or whatever , might have brought the plane down. or is that too biased. Sayerslle (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The body of this page includes already the attribution of the belief that the missile was launched from the rebel-controlled territory. The summary/introduction should only briefly summarize this. Ideally, this should be simply a summary without any additional in-line references. I do not see anything problematic with statement "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists." since this is something described in practically any current WP:RS on the subject.My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The body states and attributes the belief of Ukraine and Western governments that the missile was launched from rebel-controlled territory. The body also notes the Russian claim that Ukrainian army launchers were close to the territory controlled by the rebels on the day of the crash. The current lead selectively summarizes the view of Ukraine and Western governments in a way such as to appear that no other view exists. Therefore it does not summarize the body effectively. - Crosbie 18:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So we have:

KIEV (Reuters) - Pro-Russian rebels shot down two Ukrainian fighter jets on Wednesday, not far from where a Malaysian airliner was brought down last week in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers on board.
+ BBC: Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was travelling over the conflict-hit region when it disappeared from radar. A total of 283 passengers and 15 crew members were on board.
+ AP: Ukraine says a passenger plane carrying 295 people was shot down Thursday as it flew over the country, and both the government and the pro-Russia separatists who have been fighting in the region denied any responsibility for downing the plane.
= Wikipedia: The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists. Montenegroman (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • These three refs are irrelevant and can be simply removed from introduction. The phrase simply summarizes part of content from "Cause" section. As I said, no need to provide refs in intro if they are provided in body of article. This is per WP:MOS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
consortium news, like globalresearch isn't an RS I shouldn't imagine - wp would do well to steer clear of these pro-Kremlin propaganda journalists- Robert parrys folly Sayerslle (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm open for arguments for and against consortium news, but citing a cite called the "The Unrepentant Marxist" I refuse to take as indication for either side. --Sydal (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@ sydal - if parry's story is not pursued by RS then wp should leave it where it is. in the ideological putin loving ghettoes that are consortiumnews, globalresearch , mintpress ad nauseam Sayerslle (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Parry/consortiumnews is a dubious or at least fringe source, per discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Robert_Parry_again--Brian Dell (talk)
As the discussion was started just after my comment, I suggest we wait until it is concluded before deciding the matter. --Sydal (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The article you linked is essentially an opinion piece on a blog by biased author without refrences. Surely Wikipedia would define such a source as unreliable? 14.201.137.3 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The current wording (as I write this) is fine and accurately reflects reliable sources. Leave it alone, unless some new information comes to light.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As I state above, I don't accept the current wording, "The aircraft is believed to have been downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile from the territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists". As I state above, I don't accept it because it states the disputed belief that the missile was launched from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists without attribution. Russia does not accept US evidence that the missile was launched from separatist-controlled territory. As I state above, I propose the following alternative wording, "The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. Ukraine and Western governments believe the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists". ' Volunteer Marek' - would you accept my proposed wording? I added my proposed wording to the article, but it was reverted by 'User: My very best wishes'. I have asked 'User: My very best wishes' if would accept *any* wording which provides attribution for this claim. His view is that the body already includes the attribution. My view is that as the lead omits the attribution, it fails to correctly summarize the positions of the relevant parties, and misleadingly suggests there is no dissent to the claim the missile was launched from separatist-controlled territory. Therefore, I ask 'User: My very best wishes' if he will accept any wording *in the lead* which provides attribution for this claim? - Crosbie 18:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Its not 'US evidence' that the Russians don't accept really is it. its all the evidence that implicates them, from wherever. the trouble with your wording as I see it is that it attempts to 'geo-politicize' opinions - if the guardian spoke to witnesses who saw the missiles in torez the day of the shooting down and the guardian journalist says the evidence points to a refutation of pro-Russian denials that they had access to the means to shoot down the plane - that is not the US and western govts belief, - id favour something like 'it is widely believed the aircraft was downed by a BUk surface to air missile launched from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists -' - because it is widely believed. and add somewhere that the Russians 'dissent' from this widely held view. well they would, wouldn't they. ( and add that that means not all Russians but the regime and its supporters - not all russians 'dissent' from the evidence implicating the pro-rusian separatists - like Novaya GazetaRussian newspaper apology Sayerslle (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle - do you reject any form of attribution in the lead for the claim the missile was launched from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists? - Crosbie 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
no, but I just think it has to be carefully worded and not geo-politicised in too crude a fashion. Sayerslle (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you propose a form of attribution that excludes the Russian government? Do you reject any form of attribution in the lead for the claim the missile was launched from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists which mentions any specific persons or organizations? - Crosbie 19:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
what about, something like this based on the Associated Press journalists account what happened the day flight 17 was downed- 'The aircraft was likely downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile. The Ukraine government believes the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists - The rebel leadership in Donetsk has denied any responsibility for the downing of Flight 17 and maintained that no rebel units had weapons capable of shooting that high. Moscow has denied any involvement. Accounts of residents, the observations of journalists - have challenged these denials.' - and then have the Paris match story with the photo of the Buk in Donetsk in the morning , then moving east to torez, observed by citizens etc, Sayerslle (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Sayerslle - from my point of view, this is completely fine. With reference to the point I have been pushing in this thread, this version attributes the belief that the missile was fired from territory controlled by pro-Russia separatists specifically to the Ukraine government, which entirely satisfies my objection to the current text. I can anticipate an objection that this version attributes this belief *only* to Ukraine. Does anyone feel this is a problem? I don't. It seems reasonable to focus on the Ukraine government position as the shoot-down happened over Ukrainian territory - therefore, attributing it in this way does not 'geo-politicize' the claim, as you put it. Thank-you for this proposed wording. - Crosbie 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Fully endorse Crosbie's views. The aircraft is believed to have been downed - believed by whom needs to be stated. Ukraine, US, UK... but not every country. That sentence implicates the pro-Russia separatists. Let's not forget that Ukraine itself owns the Buk system as well. We should not pre-judge until the results of an official international investigation. BBC says Western nations have said there is growing evidence that the plane was hit by a Russian-supplied missile fired by rebels. Russia has blamed Ukrainian government forces. starship.paint ~ regal 02:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

meters ?

In my opinion the SI-system's units are prefred to be used in articles, but there are exceptions. Flight altitude is always meassured in feet (or "flight level" which indicates hundreds of feet). Boeing720 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

But meters are the unit of measurement used in the former Soviet Union. This has been discussed previously. Mjroots (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It's also used in a wide majority of nations. However not within aviation. Sorry that I have missed the discussion earlier. Boeing720 (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with use of metres for this article. See archive #8 for previous discussion. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what's being proposed here. That all mention of feet is removed and replaced with metres? Not quite sure what's wrong with leaving both as they stand. Ukraine and Russia use metres, all the other countries crossed by MH17 use feet. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree there should be a conversion to feet, but the headline number should be in metres. Was that not the consensus reached in archive #8? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
As Boeing720 mentions, that altitude of an aircraft, (Flight Level) globally with regard to Aviation is feet. Commercial aircraft upon receipt of its assignments from dispatch are assigned a "Flight Level" for its route, and the routing that the crew received, from dispatch also would have been in feet, and lastly the crews conversation with any flight control regardless of the country, would have been making its reports, in terms of Flight Level, something that has no ready conversion to meters and I doubt any pilot would be required to do the conversion, en route. talk→ WPPilot  15:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Except that Ukraine, like China and a few other countries, use metres when setting out their flight levels. It's not clear to me if Ukraine follows the Russian model, where the flight levels are in metres but closely matching those in feet elsewhere, or the Chinese model, where the flight level in metres necessitates a descent or climb when entering their airspace since the flight levels don't match those in feet.--DigitalRevolution (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
try Flight_level as a starting point. Maybe this should be discussed on the talk for that page rather than taking up space here? Montenegroman (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This source says that, as from one minute past midnight, UTC, on the 17 November, 2011, Russia has been using "the standard ICAO Flight Levels in feet, that we are used to in the rest of the world – which is happening everywhere except Mongolia." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Spot on. Meters-conversion is just to make it easier for people who use meters to read the article. As discussed before, even quoting feet is a bit of a fudge, but I think that the consensus was that using Flight Levels would just make it too complicated. Montenegroman (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I prefer using SI units over Imperial, but in some cases - like this one - we use feet (at least in common parlance) rather than metres. When the aviation world changes, we will change too. --Pete (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In the aviation world the change is going the other way, i.e. from metres to feet (see above). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
When metrication was introduced into the UK I remember the saying we're going metric, inch by inch. I can't imagine the aviation world going metric in my lifetime. Montenegroman (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

More sanctions against Russia

There is currently lot of talk on possible third sanctions package coming from US and EU this week, but I can't seem to find any reliable source. Could we just leave this section open here until a source is found? 24.201.226.168 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls Montenegroman (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, acccording to Kerry, it's more a case of "Don't feed the Russians": [15]. But whether or not the step-up is relevant to this article is another question. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath

Should in the aftermath section mention be made of airliners giving greater scrutiny of overflights over conflict zones? The recent Emirates decision to stop flying over Iraq, or the FAA prohibition of US airlines to fly to Tel Aviv, for example, are all a direct results of concerns that have arisen from this crash. I believe a re-evaluation of flights over conflict zones will be the more immediate and long lasting impact from this crash - shouldn't a greater mention of the renewed scrutiny on flight routing be made in the aftermath section? --DigitalRevolution (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, they did have a rocket explode "quite near" Tel Aviv airport, but in general I think you're probably right. We'd still need a good secondary source though.Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
As an example, ICAO is meeting today to discuss flights over war zones. The focus of the discussion in this article so far appear to be on who fired the missile. However, aviation safety professionals are less interested in the "who", then in establishing how this can be avoided in the future. As such, the main safety concern that appears to be coming out of this is flight routing over conflict zones. I believe that this impact may even merit a section of its own. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a very important point and I hope it can be included. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Just be careful about OR here please. Airlines have always made decisions about where it is safe or unsafe. The "Aftermath", if there is any, may just be the more obvious reporting of these decisions, not the decisions themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like some of those decisions were bad ones, doesn't it? But of course we can't say that (ourselves). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to lighten the mood a wee bit

Please don't take this as serious. 'Tis related to that US vs British spelling thing again. And I know some consensus somewhere is reputed to have decided Standard British is to be used in this article--for whatever reasons. However (he goes on digging himself a hole)in the Cause section we have the use of the word aluminium though the reference given (NYT) clearly states "aluminum". Should we not replace aluminium by "aluminum [sic]"? There is also User:Geogene's recent correction of "British" to "UK" as "more correct" in the article. Well I am not sure that comes under the spelling rubric. My checks (only on headlines mind you) on notable media seems to indicate that US papers tend to use "Britain" while British papers use "UK". Some non-US papers also seem to use Britain. As each of these papers typically have style guides I expect it comes under those. I am not even sure what word we would use as an adjective in the UK case? UKer? Oh my what an invitation for vandalism that would be. Keep smiling. Juan Riley (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm from Canada, but "aluminum" just sounds wrong. It's like it was invented by some lazy redneck unable to spell "aluminium". Not taking this seriously at all btw. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm English, British and a UK citizen and I just got word today that my renewed passport has been dispatched - after a 3 month wait. So soon I will be able to prove that. The person who dispatched it from Belfast is probably Northern Irish but not British (although a fellow UKanian). Just for an extra bit of clarification: this person is probably a resident in what is often referred to geographically as the British Isles even though not a British citizen. Hope this helps :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 08:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
As a Welshman, I think all spellings should be in British not English, of course. But "UKanian" looks just a bit too close for comfort to "Ukranian" here! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
And if the Scots vote for independence that's going to make it even more complicated as it was them that put the United into United Kingdom. I can foresee some massive re-editing needed then. Just to add a further note: A Kingdom doesn't mean there's a King in charge - the Monarchy being equal-oppurtunity employer and all that. Montenegroman (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
... any Manx editors fancy organising a quick ballot? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
... just so there's no confusion here: Because the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom, its passports do not carry the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" on the front cover. In their place, they have the words BRITISH ISLANDS — ISLE OF MAN. [16] Montenegroman (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
...and we all thought you were from somewhere else... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
...or we might be even neighbours if I live somewhere elser... Montenegroman (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel we may be straying just very slightly off topic here! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
As a UKainer I object to being demonised. Montenegroman (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This Yank had previously noticed (that is, likely had at some time in the past been corrected by others) that United Kingdom/UK seemed to be preferred over "British" to qualify a department of the government of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland: "UK Ministry of Defence" over "British Ministry of Defence". Admittedly, it's not something I'm knowledgeable about. Geogene (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a rule or policy in Wikipedia that all articles or articles of this nature have to be in "British English"? Or is that just an unwritten dogmatically imposed taste of many Wikipedians and editors? Just curious. I'm not against articles being in "British English" (as the variations and differences between "American English" and "British English" are OVERALL fairly miniscule anyway, same thing for "Canadian English" and "Australian English" or "South African English".) I was just wondering if it's some kind of actual rule or policy or standard on WP. Also, I will say that there's an argument to be made that if a reference uses the form "aluminum" rather than "aliminium", then probably the sentence in the WP article should read it with the "num" spelling. Though it doesn't really matter much either way. English is English overall. The variances are VERY MINOR, when honestly analyzed. English has dialects too, even within the same country. But everyone still understands everyone else. And harping over trifles like this I feel is a bit of a waste of time. My only question (again) is is this a WP rule? the "UK English" preference in English-language WP articles? Gabby Merger (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No real preference for British English, Rules and guidelines roughly say if the subject has a strong national tie then that form of English should be used, if like this article it has no strong ties to an English speaking area then we use whatever the first author of the article used. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Let us not get serious about this and ruin the humor [sic]. I did so much enjoy the UKainian line. (Now who would the western Ukanian separatists be?) To support Gabby I would note that there are several uncrossed t's and undotted Ize in this article and nobody really seems to care. If we start caring about hard and fast rules for English spelling and pronunciation, we might as well be speaking French. On the aluminum etc. thing that John brings up, well there might be a difference betwixt physics and chemistry but I have never had an editor correct my spelling in physics journal articles for aluminum and cesium etc....Juan Riley (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
In high school nearly 50 years ago in Australia "sulphur" was correct. I lost marks once for writing "sulfur", which I had picked up from American books and Scientific American.
On the language choice front, the country most affected by this event is the Netherlands. Just about everybody there speaks English remarkably well (much better than I have ever learnt any foreign language), but I have no idea which way their English spelling leans. Does anybody here know? The country that suffered the second biggest impact in deaths is Australia, an English speaking country with its own dialect, but much closer to UK English than US English. (It's "aluminium" there.) Malaysia is obviously heavily involved as well. Their English too is much closer to UK English than US English. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not making an argument to change anything. Juan Riley (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) PS Lost similar marks in Belfast many years ago for color etc.... Then lost them again in Brooklyn for colour etc.... Juan Riley (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite edit protection

So why is this page indefinitely edit protected? 93.109.21.53 (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

To prevent new accounts from adding unencyclopedic material. Did you have something you disliked about the article? --John (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought it could do with some rearranging. The 'Cause' section has little to do with the investigation, for example. 93.109.21.53 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you propose an alternative structure here in talk? I don't disagree that the article could use some reorganisation. As you can imagine it has evolved in a somewhat ad hoc manner since the 17th. --John (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I do agree that the cause section is talking about a lot of speculations (implied or not). I suggest we should structure the investigation as follows: Steps taking to start the larger section with investigation / composition of the investigation team / steps taken during the investigation / problems during investigation ---- Then recovery of casualties, which is largely there --- Then cause - where we limit ourselves to explicit suggestions for cause and evidence thereof. If people think it is needed we can then always add other hypotheses about the cause. (PS anon 93. If you make an account and make some edits elsewhere you will be able to edit this article in a few days time - the indefinite semiprotect is to keep out people who come by only once and make edit because they think their favourite conspiracy theory is not sufficiently supported, the statement of their own head of state should get a place of prominence etc). Arnoutf (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See also consensus

@John: and I are having a disagreement about whether or not to include the following three specific incidents in the See Also section:

Our discussion about the changes was archived; here is the entire text:

The end of the article, just before the Notes, contains a Portal template and an in-line comment like this:

{{Portal|Aviation|Current events|Disasters}}
<!-- Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink -->

Unless someone objects, I will create a See Also section and replace that with this:

Any objections? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@RoyGoldsmith: I have no objections. However, per WP:MOSHEAD, the section should use a lowercase "a" in "also". Also, some user keeps on removing a link to List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities despite a discussion in opposition of removal, although it appears that the entire "See also" section has been removed at this point. Dustin (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
List of airliner shootdown incidents is already linked in the lead and so should not be linked again in a See also section. The four shootdown incidents are linked from that article and there is no need to link them either. List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities would be a reasonable link. --John (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I actioned this. --John (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that three of the four shootdown incidents are pertinent. I chose them because they have at least one aspect similar to MA17 and therefore you don't have to plow through the entire List of airliner shootdown incidents.
I would add the first sentence above (e.g., Shot down in 1983 by Soviet fighter plane) to each item. What do you think? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Normally I would say yes, but in this case as the cause is still under investigation I would suggest just leaving it to the list article. --John (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

John reverted my change [17] in less than 15 minutes with the edit summary "as it says in the hidden note, consensus is against this". I was wondering, what consensus?

Do you believe that we have a consensus to exclude specific incidents in the see also section, at least for the present? (Please place your comments in the appropriate sections below.)

Perhaps it might be more productive to explain why you think we should include this material rather than conducting a straw poll. In the absence of a strong consensus to include them we should leave them off. --John (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that these three incidents are the closest ones to MH17. All of these incidents occurred in the past 50 years. They all have more than 50 dead. They all occurred in developed countries. They all were shot down while cruising above 10,000 meters while squawking that they were civilian air-traffic.
Rather than adding a "context" paragraph in Background, explaining the frequency, or lack thereof, of civilian airline shoot downs (for WP:Notability, if nothing else), I preferred to list the major incidents in the past like MH17 as See Alsos. This context sentence could have be as simple as "In the past 50 years, there have only been three shoot-down incidents in developed countries of airlines flying above 10,000 meters involving substantial casualties." (I do not recommend the insertion of this sentence in the article.)
Counter-argument: I was thinking that one of the most important criteria I used was that the incidents I selected were all shot down by an internationally-recognized country, not guerrillas or non-state actors. Upon further reflection, I can see that, if you assume that the BUK launcher was captured from the Ukrainians by the separatists, with no involvement by Russia, then the perpetrators were non-state actors, i.e., the separatists. However, the tone of the article (considering WP:WEIGHT) implies that the launcher was supplied by Russia.
Because of all this, I'm going to leave the decision to you guys. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not see why all these incidents should be in the seealso section if we have already several lists containing them. Everybody can go to the lists and find sufficient information.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
the Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 is perhaps especially relevant - (from Louis Proyects blog)[18] - "Both Ukrainian and Russian officials insisted for days after the crash that a Ukrainian missile could not possibly have been involved. Ukrainian military experts said a re-examination of data from the launchings for that day showed that all missiles had been accounted for and that none had flown more than 25 miles off the Crimean coast before plummeting into the sea. Kuchma called an accidental aircraft strike impossible. Mr. Tkachyov said all Ukrainian data showed that a missile could not have struck the plane. Relying on these assurances, Russia’s defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, dismissed speculation about a missile strike as a ”so-called” theory. I think the facts will bear out that not much has changed when it comes to the Kremlin and its stooge’s tendency to dig in their heels when involved with such gross displays of incompetence.It was the same sort of negligence that led to Chernobyl, after all. I don’t think that the downing of MH-17 was intentional. Who in their right mind would? But the bullshit that has come from the Kremlin’s paid and unpaid apologists is truly shocking," - so this event is perhaps particularly instructive as it shows the kremlin-ological way of dealing with things - (apparently Kuchma, the Ukrainian leader at the time , was very much a creature of the Kremlin ) so, plus ça change - and all that. Sayerslle (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17/Archive_9&oldid=1136983579"