Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

European officials

The (current) last line of the Investigation section says: On 27 July, European officials stated that data retrieved from the flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion and that “massive explosive decompression” had occurred. It is sourced to The Age in Australia. Seen as The Age quotes its source as CBS, would it not be better to use CBS itself for the citation? It appears to be derived from here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-black-box-findings-consistent-with-blast/ - Montenegroman (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Black box: Regardless of which citation version, the data retrieved from the flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion part isn't obviously attributed to European official(s). Some tweaking needed? Montenegroman (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing - if the story originates with CBS, better to link CBS directly. The CBS source says the data was 'consistent' with shrapnel damage, not that it actually demonstrated shrapnel damage, so the text would have to change too. I don't mean to suggest doubt that there was no shrapnel damage - but it would surprise me if the aircraft instruments recorded that directly. It sounds to me like the age version is a garbled version of the CBS story. - Crosbie 12:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And there's enough evidence of shrapnel damage on the airframe anyway - why look for evidence in a Data Recorder? If CBS have managed to get a sneak-preview of Unreleased data from a black box, could they not have least found out something we don't already know? Isn't that part of what news is supposed to be? Montenegroman (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

CBS version (unknown journo): Unreleased data from a black box retrieved from the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in Ukraine show findings consistent with the plane's fuselage being hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion.

The Age version (Caroline Zielinski [1]): Data retrieved from the ill-fated MH17 flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion.

WP version: European officials stated that data retrieved from the flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion

Montenegroman (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How does one get hold of "unreleased data" from a Flight Data Recorder? of indeed any data, before it's officially published? Surely this is a leaked comment from an investigator? One that would never be corroborated. Even the CBS journalist here is anonymous. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm totally baffled by this, coming so soon after analysis has started, and from a US news source, written anonymously and with no official corroboration. Even a British or European news source would have been surprising. Why would CBS have any access to AAIB at this stage? All very odd. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that flight recorder data would take weeks to analyze? What is it written in, Klingon language? Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the FDR downloading might take 24 hours: "While downloading the information should be a speedy process, it is likely to take weeks for it to be analysed in tandem with examination of the remnants of the aircraft." The CVR might be transcribed in a matter of hours. But I'm suggesting that before any official comment was made, we'd see a press conference or an interim statement, maybe released via Dutch TV or BBC, after a few days. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The other baffling thing thing is why someone at AAIB would would risk their entire future to leak info to CBS that doesn't add any info what's not already known: shrapnel damage to the aircraft. Montenegroman (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Not even whistleblowing. Just jumping the official gun, as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• What the (single) Official said: Seems to me that all that can salvaged from this appalling piece of journalism is something along the lines of: a European air safety official told CBS News that being hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion caused "massive explosive decompression." (with a bit of OR leeway). Is that even worth saying? Montenegroman (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, IMO. Translation: "an anti-aircraft missile blew up its target in exactly the expected manner". We knew this already. (Well, maybe such missiles aren't ordinarily shot at a giant air bubble like an international commercial jetliner, but... /shrug...)

Can't we just say that black box data confirmed the jet was downed by the missile as previously thought? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it now so it's no longer an issue. Unless someone else wants to try to make some sense out of this source. Montenegroman (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "appalling" about this "piece of journalism." It's traditional journalism: reporting the inside story. At least in the West, the media does not just attend press conferences with official government spokesmen and repeat the talking points offered. They try to investigate and get the inside story. That's how the Wall St Journal first reported that U.S. officials believed MH370 had diverted west to fly over Malaysia again towards the Indian Ocean. It's called journalism and CBS News is a journalist organization. If you don't think so, take it to the RS noticeboard and try to generate a consensus view that CBS News is not such an organization. In the mean time, it's presumptively a reliable source, and under the way I added this back, I furthermore used attribution to CBS News.--Brian Dell (talk)

Um, did we all miss that press conference, then? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, where do you see in Wikipedia policy a requirement that anything that appears here first be announced at a "press conference"?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't. And I wasn't suggesting any such thing. I was expressing my surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian: creating one version that matches the citation then "moving" it whilst changing it to an OR version doesn't fool anyone Montenegroman (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Who "created" the first version? Me? Here? Such that, according to you, I then "chang[ed] it to an OR version"? My first edit is here:

On July 27 CBS News reported that according to a European safety official, unreleased black box data was consistent with shrapnel from a missile explosion bringing down the aircraft.

My second edit, when I indeed moved it, is here:

On July 27 CBS News reported that according to a European safety official, unreleased black box data was consistent with shrapnel from a missile explosion bringing down the aircraft.

You see a difference do you? A difference that proves that I am trying to "fool" people? Well, I don't see a difference. I suggest you ask others if they see a difference, never mind an effort on my part to mislead.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Aplogies they are the same - it was only when you moved it that I noticed how bad it was. It just doesn't match the citation. If you read from the start you'll see why. Montenegroman (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not see why you think I misrepresented the CBS Story. USA Today's editors read the CBS News story and lead their own story with "Data downloaded from a black box retrieved from the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 are consistent with a missile attack, national news media are reporting, citing an unidentified European air safety official." The Sydney Morning Herald's take on the CBS Story is "Data retrieved from the ill-fated MH17 flight black box shows the plane was hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion." What I wrote is so far off these formulations I'm trying to "fool" people?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• CBS version: Unreleased data from a black box retrieved from the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in Ukraine show findings consistent with the plane's fuselage being hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion
• Brian Dell version: On July 27 CBS News reported that according to a European safety official, unreleased black box data was consistent with shrapnel from a missile explosion bringing down the aircraft. That is why I deleted it Montenegroman (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian: you said: "the media does not just attend press conferences." And again, can you explain to me what "unreleased data" is? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You want an example? How about the Snowden documents? Or did the NSA "release" all of those documents? If you are worried about Wikipedia reporting on "unreleased" material, when are you going to get started on rolling back everything on Wikipedia that refers to what Snowden got a hold of?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I was asking for an explanation of ""unreleased data from a FDR". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No comment on whether to include the material. But is there some confusion here over what is meant by unreleased data from an FDR? All CBS is claiming is that someone who is at least partially aware of the data from the FDR, but hasn't been authorised to release it has told them what they are aware. (I'm lazy to check the CBS source but from what was said here, I'm not sure it's been revealed what sort of role this person has. It could be an investigator. It could be a politician or someone else who was informed. It could be someone else who isn't supposed to know but "found out" somehow like an intelligence services agent.) There's no suggestion the data hasn't been recovered, simply that it hasn't been official released. Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read the whole section - carefully. Then ask yourself why someone would go to the bother of cultivating a mole in the AAIB who could only tell you something you already know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 23:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian: how come you didn't include the other scoop from this masterpiece of investigative journalism: that being hit multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion can cause "massive explosive decompression." Some poor European air safety official has put his future at risk for this - isn't it worth a mention? Montenegroman (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You want to include more from CBS News? I have no objection to your including more. May we divert from what you are NOT edit warring over to what you ARE edit warring over, namely, ANY reference to this CBS News story?--Brian Dell (talk)

• Just rephrase the sentence staying as close to the source as possible.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Montenegroman (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're warranted to acknowledge agreement if you rephrase, Monty, not if you delete the whole thing. Anybody got any suggestions for a rephrase that would be closer to the source than what I wrote?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

When I started this it looked like a simple case of swapping the cite link. But when I looked into the CBS version it was not that simple as the statement didn't match the citation. I tried to produce something usable but the more I tried the less credible and relevant it seemed. So I gave up and deleted it. Then you joined the talk. Montenegroman (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think restoring this was a great edit either, Brian Dell. What does it really add? --John (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

More information. If you don't think it's notable why did CBS News take the time to run this story? May I remind you that we generally take the mainstream media to be our guide for what meets a notability threshold? Which is not to say that absolutely everything reported by CBS News is notable, but in this case USA Today called attention to this CBS story. And the Christian Science Monitor. And the Business Insider. And the Sydney Morning Herald. I'll add here that Bloomberg News thinks what's on these black boxes is notable. CBS News is reporting here what's on these black boxes, no? What WOULD meet your notability standard, John?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

John is not saying anything about notability. He's questioning whether it adds anything. I don't think it adds anything. What do you think it adds - apart from another citation link? Montenegroman (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So what is it, Monty? Doesn't "add anything" or misrepresents the source? You seem to be cycling through your excuses here and I suggest you settle on one so we can pin it down for the purposes of addressing it properly. "I don't think it adds anything" is indistinct from Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT if it isn't a notability objection. I think it adds evidence from the black box to support the contention that this was a missile strike. That in turn explains why this CBS News story is getting international secondary coverage.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

'I think it adds evidence from the black box to support the contention that this was a missile strike'. You're losing me now. I wasn't aware that there was any contention that this was a missile strike. Why would we want to add evidence? Montenegroman (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In this piece appearing in the Global Times, an official Chinese government outlet, we find "Yet another possibility is that a bomb was placed on the aircraft where the flight originated in Amsterdam. Some experts say the airport security in Amsterdam is not optimal." Currently all we've got knocking that down in this "shrapnel" paragraph is "US and Ukrainian officials...", an expert in Australia, and an expert in London. Just because that's good enough for the two of us doesn't mean it's good enough for everyone. If you think the article is excessively long I would think you could remove stuff like 340 Boeing 777s being on order or a Singapore Airlines and an Air India jet being more than 20 km away from this aircraft before removing evidence as to cause.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So a kind of pre-emptive balance thing then. Just in case a WP editor quotes this from the Global Times. Montenegroman (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• An attempt to explain things to Brian Dell: If you write something that corresponds to the CBS citation you use then I don't really have a problem with it and I am sure if I deleted it then then I would be overruled. Personally, I don't think it would add anything but I would leave it to someone else to make the call on that. I will not be drawn into offering a suggsted use for this citation because I cannot think of one that does not smear the reputation of the AAIB (at least) whilst adding nothing else to the article. Why should I bother?

Good night Montenegroman (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So the CBS story "smears the reputation of the AAIB" then? If it isn't one complaint it's another! If CBS isn't smearing anybody, then there has to be a way to faithfully cite CBS and NOT smear reputations, no? If you truly don't "have a problem" with "something that corresponds to the CBS citation" then I'm putting it back because it DOES correspond. If it doesn't, you could explain just how it doesn't by responding to that comment of mine where I point out the similarity between my rendering of the story and that of USA Today and the Sydney Morning Herald.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

go right back to the start and look at my second comment in this section Montenegroman (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have read all your comments. I will now ask you a third time to reply to my observation about how the USA Today story has summarized this CBS News story and how similar my summary was to USA Today's. Are you going to address that or are you just going to continue to edit war? I note that not just USA Today but in fact ALL the secondary sources reporting on the CBS story that I called attention to at some point mention that this is coming from European official(s) as opposed to just CBS. Since this seems to be more about your pride than a real content issue, you can have your satisfaction here and exclude "according to a European safety official" if that's so important to you since content-wise it's not terribly material. We've at least got a reference to what the black box data says about the cause. What I object to is your contention that by including the six words you removed I have misrepresented the source or otherwise tried to "fool" people.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are those secondary sources, as you point out, and yes they all quote an un-named "European safety official". But there really are very few. Why has this not been given much wider coverage? There is not a single UK or European media outlet that reports this "CBS scoop". If any UK newspaper gave this any credence at all why has it not reported it too? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Yesterday it was in Russian, Swiss, and UK media. The examples I gave were EXAMPLES. Something does not have to be in every last newspaper in the world to be notable. I'm not about to act as your unpaid intern and generate research for you when you've not inclined to research the veracity of your own claims before you make them.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting you to be "my unpaid intern"?? I searched for those sources and failed to find them. Please show us some UK and European examples - surely they are still all there, and still dated 27 July. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I also asked Brian at his Talk Page to provide some examples, but he said didn't want to "waste the time of others by continuing this back-and-forth on the article Talk page." He did suggest, however, a Google search for "gegenüber dem Sender CBS-News". This should reveal links to the Swiss sources Tages-Anzeiger and 20 Minuten. I would not consider these to be "mainsteam sources", perhaps others would. I'm still unable to find anything that I would consider "mainstream" e.g. BBC, major UK newspaper, major Dutch newspaper, etc. Even when the Ukrainians made their announcement at an official press conference, Dutch officials were "shocked" by its prematurity and did not know how they had obtained the data. So the even-earlier CBS story, apparently from a leaked source, remains even more of a mystery. I stand by what I said, that it was not given "widespread coverage". I suppose many news channels across the world will simply relay CBS scoops, but I would not count that as corroboration. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a WSJ article on the subject [2]. Maybe that will help answer the question - though I'm not even really sure what the queston is anymore. Montenegroman (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happened after the Ukrainian press conference - still surprising as most people were expecting a UK or Dutch press-conference (and so were the Dutch, apparently). The original CBS story was prior to the Ukrainian announcement and was attributed to an unnamed "European safety official". So it's been overtaken by events, but I still wanted to see if we could get any nearer to the source or establish if it was pure speculation. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No-one seriously disputes that it was a missile strike. Having a claim (even from a reputable secondary source) that an unnamed official has leaked something from an ongoing investigation might be interesting, and we might have an interesting conversation about it, except that what is allegedly being leaked is something that no-one disputes. So why add it? What does it add? --John (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Go ahead and remove it, John. There will be no effort on my part to return it to the article if you delete it. I concede because quite frankly I think you are more interested in opposing this simply because it was my edit and you have some sort of personal issue with me than because you have a real content issue here. I'm not going to solve that grievance by continuing to go on about the content, am I? If you have a real content issue here then why aren't did you exhibit such insistent resistance to the inclusion of all the other stuff in this particular paragraph? What does all that other "shrapnel" evidence currently in the article "add" if it is related to something "no one disputes"?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Now "officially announced" by Ukrainian security official Andriy Lysenko: [3] etc etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Flight MH17 was brought down by shrapnel that caused 'massive explosive decompression'. Other breaking news: Pope still a Catholic, bears seen dumping in the woods. Montenegroman (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't suppose the data will show where the main impact was. Guess it doesn't really matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The final report will. It matters. --John (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Cause

It currently reads "On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference and said that just before the crash, a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft approached to within 3 to 5 kilometres (1.9 to 3.1 mi) of the Malaysian airliner. The Ministry also stated that satellite photographs showed that the Ukrainian army moved a Buk SAM battery to the area close to the territory controlled by the rebels on the morning of 17 July, hours before the crash. They said the installation was then moved away again by 18 July.". I think this is somewhat imprecise and partly misses the point. It should read: "On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference and showed radar images that showed that just before the crash, a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft approached to within 3 to 5 kilometres (1.9 to 3.1 mi) of the Malaysian airliner. The Ministry also released satellite photographs that showed that the Ukrainian army moved a Buk SAM battery to the area close to the territory controlled by the rebels on the morning of 17 July, hours before the crash. They said the installation was then moved away again by 18 July.". For me, the main point in the press conference was that Russian statements were backed up with some evidence. We should be cautious to derive causation from the correlation presented, but we should not neglect the fact that evidence was actually published. --85.176.254.153 (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How strong is the evidence? How did they decide the BUK was Ukranian? And the SU at 3-5 km would have been directly below the Boeing as the flight level of thar plane was about 3-5 km above the service ceiling of the SU. This has all been discussed before. Arnoutf (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal judgement of the strength of the evidence provided by the Russians is not important here and so isn't yours. We are not on a fact-finding mission here. We only report what happened. The Russian did present satelite photos to underline their claim. We may well not believe their story that are based on the photos, but so far I saw no source that actually claimed that the evidences were weak or even fabricated. And even if so, we should just report that fact along with the source, too. It would hint to a highly relevant cover-up action of the Russian government. --Sydal (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not "reporting what happened", we're just reporting what various sources claim happened. And how do the Russians prove that any photograph, or radar image, that they produce, was taken at any particular time? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"I saw no source that actually claimed that the evidences were weak or even fabricated." Well it has been challenged. From The Aviation Herald:

On Jul 21st 2014 Russia's Ministry of Defense claimed they have compelling evidence... that an Ukrainian Air Force SU-25 fighter aircraft was within 5km around flight MH-17 at the very same altitude at FL330 and shot down MH-17.... [However, the] SU-25 fighter jet aircraft have a service ceiling of 7000 meters (FL230) clean and 5000 meters (FL160) with maximum weapons. .... From an aerodynamics point of view it is impossible to reach 10,000 meters of altitude with a service ceiling at 7,000 meters unless energy of substantial excess speed is being converted into altitude. To have the SU-25 climb 3000 meters above its service ceiling would require supersonic speeds, that the SU-25 is not capable of"--Brian Dell (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, according to STATE COMPANY "UKROBORONSERVICE" (3a, Rossoshanska str., Kyiv, Ukraine, 02093[4]), http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 the "Practical ceiling,m" is "7000-10000". Though maybe this is subject to change without notice. Montenegroman (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The manufacturer on the other hand lists a service ceiling of 7 km (7000m) without any external ordnance (ie without the AAM missiles mounted). http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/ Arnoutf (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Russian government's own English translator says the Su-25 was flying at the "same level". Bill Sweetman says the idea that a Su-25 shot down this aircraft is implausible. A British aviation expert also finds it implausible. Any claim that is demonstrably false like this should not be included without also referring to the fact it's false. As alternative, remove the Russian allegation from the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think whatever story the Russians are trying to pass off, or the Ukranians or the Donetsk group, should be documented and attributed. At this moment in time, we are not the ultimate knowers of the truth. As this story continues to develop the credibility of any or all of the warring parties and their information system will then be exposed publicly as lies are debunked. Hiding the falsehoods of any party ultimately serves their efforts at disinformation both now and in the future Trackinfo (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC).

It's not been "proven false", it's been commented on, by experts, as being implausible. Even if it were proven false, that fact that it was made by the Russian Government seems rather notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is like deja vu - all over again [5] '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 statement that it's NOT possible Montenegroman (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, but even if a SU-25 cannot fly at FL330, a special missile perhaps might ? "A bizzare choice of aircraft" would hence be explained. Although I strongly doubt this. But regarding Ukraine there is though one thing that puzzles me. Some spokes person for the Ukrainian government declared just a week before this indeed very sad event, that they now had "full control of all its borders" - and if I have understood things correctly, the 777 was shot down close to the Russian border - i.o.w. at an area which Ukraine claimed to control. Perhaps the statement was a lie ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My point above is, we are writing what will become, ultimately, history. That means we are documenting facts. A fact is not whether a theory is true or not. That will be proven or disproven by experts over the course of time. However, factually, if someone, a specifically named person, named as representing a particular side in this issue, were to make a claim, or put forth a theory; we need to be sure that statement is not erased. When theories proposed for propaganda purposes are exposed, we will have retained that information. Knowing who is lying and who is telling the truth might serve future readers as much as the facts of the case, that we, I must assume, eventually will get right. Trackinfo (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

To anyone who currently continues to insist that a Ukrainian Su-25 shot this plane down, what's going to change that person's mind in the future? You've got editors on this page like Monty saying it's "possible," let's not presume to play gatekeeper about these claims, etc. What's going to make it "impossible"? It's also possible that 9/11 was an inside job. There's nothing in the realm of logic or physics that precludes the possibility of an inside job but that doesn't stop us from deeming the conspiracy theory false enough to not warrant a broadcast platform on Wikipedia. If Goebbells were alive today he wouldn't hesitate to exploit the fact that he could say pretty much anything and there'd always be editors of platforms like Wikipedia passing on the propaganda as desired saying "it MIGHT be true..."--Brian Dell (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right Brian and well said. We should never allow ourselves to be manipulated into repeating the claims of any modern-day Joseph Goebbels. The best way to insure this is to restrict all material in the article to that which has been independently vetted by proper third-party news sources, preferably multiple ones. The other thing to say is that the article will look very different in a year once all the facts are in. It isn't worth anybody getting unduly upset at any one thing that is happening here. That said, we should try to keep it as good as it can be, even at this very early stage. --John (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Did someone mention Hitler yet? Can I get my bid in early? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: '"On 21 July, the Russian Defence Ministry held a press conference and showed radar images that showed that just before the crash, a Ukrainian Su-25 ground-attack aircraft approached to within 3 to 5 kilometres (1.9 to 3.1 mi) of the Malaysian airliner. The Ministry also released satellite photographs that showed that the Ukrainian army moved a Buk SAM battery to the area close to the territory controlled by the rebels on the morning of 17 July, hours before the crash. They said the installation was then moved away again by 18 July.". For me, the main point in the press conference was that Russian statements were backed up with some evidence.'

I think those are good changes, and the text about the Russian Defense Ministry statement should be reinstated with those precisions.

As regards the flight ceiling of the Su-25, 7000m is the "service ceiling" not the maximum ceiling. The FAA defines service ceiling as the altitude a two engine aircraft can maintain on one engine. The Russian Defense Ministry ought to know their planes better than we web surfers do. If it were a Su-27 then the ceiling is something like 20,000 m. Indeed, the R-60 AA missile Kartopolov referred to as being carried by the Su-25 has a ceiling of 15,000m. So the dispute about the ceiling is a misunderstanding and a distraction.

The only current reference to the Russian standpoint, from RiaNovosti, is insubstantial, only saying the Russians don't agree it was a Buk fired by separatists, but without any of the reasoning mentioned in the text deleted from the Cause paragraph.

The Russian spokesman also pointed out that the US has failed to show satellite photos to buttress their case. To be fair, this should also be mentioned. The US still have not done so. They recently posted photos purporting to show Russian artillery shelling, and Kerry claimed to have photos of the Buk firing, so why can't he show them, since this seems to be such a major casus belli?JPLeonard (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the whole SU25 service/maximum ceiling is moot, as it is now clear that it was a much more massive missile (like the BUK) rather than an R-60AA. So the SU25 cannot have been the cause (and the Russians are not even claiming that it is).

Talking about casus belli seems a bit premature - are you actually claiming that the any of the involved countries want to start a war with each other? Arnoutf (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Start a war? Isn't it already a war?

Arnoutf, it may seem clear to you, but in fact, it is not clear at all that it was a Buk! It has been repeated everywhere that it was, but there is actually no evidence.

This is the actual status of evidence shown:

-Russia has shown radar images of a jetfighter approaching the airliner - the translation only says "presumably" a Su-25, so the Su-27 is not ruled out either.

-Russia has said it has no satellite images of a Buk being launched.

-Kerry has said the US has such images, but for some reason, they don't show them. Altho they are showing images allegedly of Russia firing artillery, they can't show the photo of the Buk.

So what do we have? A radar image of a jet fighter. That's it.

General agreement that the plane was damaged by shrapnel. That could be either an air to air missile or a SAM. In fact, it could even be cannon fire from the jet fighter. Even ground based anti aircraft or flak guns can reach 10000m. That could also be a possibility except that the holes in the fuselage appear to be on the sides, not the bottom.

Against the argument that it was a massive missile is the Russian data that the airplane lost airspeed and changed course before it disappeared from the radar.

Thus it could have been hit twice, the first time maybe not a direct hit, maybe a hit by an AA missile or cannon fire. Second time the coup de grace. JPLeonard (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian reports that 82% of Russians think Ukraine shot down MH17. "46% said they believed a Ukrainian surface-to-air missile was responsible, and 36% said a Ukrainian warplane had shot it down. Only 3% believe the rebels in eastern Ukraine were responsible." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/30/mh17-vast-majority-russians-believe-ukraine-downed-plane-poll JPLeonard (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

'there is actually no evidence.' - ? - don't forget the day of the shooting down a buk was seen in Donetsk in the morning (paris match) then as it went east it was observed (torez the guardian report - and then later in lugansk, minus missile - headed for Russia - (in the town the Russians and RT their propaganda outlet tried to make out was a different town, and were caught lying - that Russians overwhelmingly believe Russia is in no way to blame is not exactly surprising - how long did it take for Katyn massacre to be acknowledged (oh, 50 years , I just looked at the wp article ) Sayerslle (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

JPLeonard: "- Russia has said it has no satellite images of a Buk being launched." Really? How would one go about proving such a claim? Is there any one at all who is suggesting it was shot twice, apart from your good self? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Media coverage" section

I think this section is not neutral. You need to add another point of view from here [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. --213.87.137.20 (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not RS, except possibly the last one, which is in Russian. Geogene (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Without this information the section will be presented one-sided. Try this [12]. 213.87.137.20 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's an editorial/opinion piece, not coverage of the disaster.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to cover significant points of view in proportion to the amount of coverage those views receive in reliable sources (which here means basically "the world's media"). A lot has been written on that at WP:NPOV. The result is that sometimes they can appear to be one-sided, because we don't include every viewpoint on an issue. If we did find minority viewpoints and write on them, ironically that would violate neutrality because then we'd be giving them more coverage than was warranted. Geogene (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be made clearer if the title was changed to something like Main Stream Media Coverage Montenegroman (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. And then we can have another section entitled Crazy Conspiracy Theories Coverage. The proposed title is redundant with the encyclopedic purpose of this website.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm really not interested in making a big thing of this - so I'll just make a comment and leave it for others to consider (or ignore). Bearing in mind everything preceding this section is derived from reliable sources (much of it from media coverage) is there really any need for this section at all? Does the readership have such a short attention span that some things need repeating? Just wanted to get that thought out there before it slips my mind. Montenegroman (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• I for one think that the Media Coverage section should be completely deleted. It's not needed, and just makes the article look sloppy and unprofessional. All the media coverage section seems designed to do is to single out the references we find unreliable for castigation and mocking. Reporting about reporting is lazy journalism, in my opinion. If the references are solid they should be incorporated into the article, if not they should be removed. Discussion about media coverage itself should be in the talk page, not in the main article. --DigitalRevolution (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The tiny flags are back

I thought we had agreed not to have tiny flags on the victims' list? They seem to have come back. Perhaps yet another invisible note is in order. --John (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Per that and Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 8#Flags again, I think there is consensus against including flags. An edit notice seems appropriate since those discussions are pretty buried. 9kat (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was talking about the dual nationality, not flags. All the other articles with this table has the flags next to the country. I think you should start a discussion for specifically about consensus for the flags. 172.56.6.168 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Six editors provided input on passenger-box flags despite that, which seems sufficient when added to the general arguments in the "Flags again" section. The arguments against flags rely on policy such as MOS:FLAG and WP:ICONDECORATION, and seem more compelling than the arguments for flags, which were mostly that they looked better to some editors. (Please note that I didn't participate in the previous flag discussions.) You're of course welcome to open a specific discussion yourself if you don't agree that there's rough consensus. 9kat (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

...ah-ha, "cunning use of flags", eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Crash section

• Regarding the Crash section, to me, as a pilot it is not totally accurate. Eurocontrol would have been the assigned controller for the flight, but the routing came from Malaysia Airlines briefers. The original route was, from what I remember in the media, north of the final route flown and modified (in-route or just prior to departure) due to bad weather. Malaysia Airlines briefers would have filed a flight plan with Eurocontrol & the pilots, upon departure would have been cleared for the route filed by the Malaysia Airlines briefers and reaffirmed by the Pilot in Command prior to take off. Other airlines briefing operations had already taken notice of the issue and had modified flight routes for them, but that was discretionary to each airline and not based upon a notice to airmen issued by Eurocontrol. talk→ WPPilot  17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So maybe change....

Eurocontrol, which is responsible for the routing of all flights in this region ...

...to something like...

Eurocontrol, who oversee the filing of all IFR flight plans in this region ...

93.109.21.53 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

WPPilot: According to cafe.worldairops [13], back in April the airspace was disputed and they recommended using two VHF sets (to keep in touch with both Ukrainian and Russian ATC). Now I know that this is a pilot's chat-room (so not an RS) but this seems good advice back then. Would there have been Notams to this effect? Montenegroman (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this on his talk page? 93.109.21.53 (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Just directing the question mainly at someone I believe probably knows a lot more about this than I do. But it doesn't mean that someone else can't answer the question, or join in if they have something constructive to contribute. Montenegroman (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what it's got to do with the article. Can we talk about correcting that line? 93.109.21.53 (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

[That article's about Simferopol FIR. EASA and Eurocontrol recommend airlines avoid it entirely. This accident happened within Dnipropetrovsk FIR, which is solely under Ukrainian control. 93.109.21.53 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)]

Thanks for the clarification. In that case your suggestion may well be reasonable. Unfortunateky I'm only a (long-time) ex-avionics engineer and so wouldn't offer opinion on it. Maybe WPPilot or yourself could add some idea for an RS?Montenegroman (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, contributing to this article is a bigger bother than I'm willing to suffer. A minor correction to one line has already taken well over 12 hours. 93.109.21.53 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay but I seem to have got distracted by other things like sleeping, having breakfast, watering the veggies, having a shower and such. Time just seems to fly by! Don't forget that you could always sign up and be able to make changes yourself.

A map here [14] shows what you were explaining to me (though it's a bit out of date as it seems: Due to AIRAC 1003 old Kharkiv FIR (UKHV) became new Dnipropetrovs'k FIR). Montenegroman (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Tut-tut, Montenegroman, sleeping? Breakfast! Whatever next?! Anyone would think this site was open 24 hours a day with users contributing in different time zones all across the world! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny, but I wasn't blaming Montenegroman (or anyone). 93.109.21.53 (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor note to WPPilot - as the footnote in the article says, the flight typically flew further south, south of the exclusion zone. But on 17th it flew further north, to avoid bad weather it has been suggested. Maybe the analysis of the CVR will make the reason for this decision clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• OK: http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/how-we-handle-your-flight says:

In practice, the Network Manager Operations Centre knows air traffic needs by centrally collecting all IFR* flight plans (i.e. intentions to fly) in Europe. We build a pan-European network view in conjunction with the local units responsible for air traffic control and we come up with solutions that optimise the handling of traffic flows according to the available capacity. So I think that the version by 93.109.21.53 is fine (certainly shorter than quoting Eurocontrol!) Montenegroman (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed it Montenegroman (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my delay in reply. Any issue regarding airspace is dealt with by Notams. I am not familiar with the procedure by Eurocontrol on issuing them but I have not seen any reference that would lead me to believe that a formal Notice to Airman was ever issued regarding airspace over the crash site. The prior "warnings" were suggested route mods, designed to allow flight planners to route traffic for company in a cost effective manner. Any one of the global agencies could have issued a formal NOTAM, but the airspace was still at the time of the incident, open airspace, with no restrictions in place. talk→ WPPilot  15:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a NOTAM extending to FL320 (MH17 was cruising at FL330). Unfortunately, historical NOTAMs are behind a paywall. 93.109.21.53 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2014

Add the following to section "See also":

Iran Air Flight 655 - An iranian passenger jet shot down by US Navy in 1988. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

91.153.192.118 (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about this - see "See also consensus" section above. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Photographs of Crash Site

The OSCE webpage [15] has a gallery of crash site photographs. These should be assumed to be copyrighted by OSCE. However, since they're not a commercial agency, we could use one of these under a Fair Use license if such a photograph cannot be replaced by a free equivalent, and if we think that no free images of the site are likely to become available. Geogene (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No. They would clearly fail criteria 8 of WP:NFCCP. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Criterion 8, I'm not sure that a photo of the crash site wouldn't increase the readers' comprehension of what happened, or that the absence of one in the article doesn't cause a deficit of their understanding. I know of non-free crash site images being used elsewhere on WP--the Pan Am 103 is a Crown copyright image that went up right after I nommed the previous one for deletion (as being an agency photo). Geogene (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Pan Am 103 image is not non-free, Crown copyright is licenced under the free Open Government Licence. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OGL applies to Crown copyrighted materials that are "expressly released" by the owning government authority. Okay, granted I hadn't visited the file page for that image in a while. Geogene (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

YouTube ref

What do we think of the YouTube reference? Inserted here by User:Bdell555. I think it may be a little premature and would rather see proper secondary sources. What do others think? --John (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "Youtube reference" any more that referring to a New York Times article online is an "Internet reference." It's a reference to the Security Service of Ukraine. If the Security Service of Ukraine uploads something it's got whatever credibility the uploader has (unless it can be seriously contended that the account is bogus). Would it make any difference it the citation were to sbu.gov.ua? It shouldn't.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it must be eliminated per WP:SELFSOURCED. We don't use primary sources, we use secondary sources, especially when a primary source is making a claim about a third party that advances its interests. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So, according to you, we can never introduce "a State Department spokesman said..." into any article if it is cited to state.gov, like the Daily Press Briefings, because it's "self-published" by the U.S. State Department? If you want to apply this principle, then apply it consistently, and start removing everything claimed by RT, Ria Novosti, etc because those organizations are effectively the Kremlin's own publication house.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If it is reported in secondary sources, we can also provide a link to primary source. If it isn't, it falls other under WP:SELFSOURCED. It is quite clear that such a statement by the SBU could "advance their interest", and involves a "third party". I didn't write WP:SELFSOURCED. Are you going to deny that these are contentious claims? All you need to do is find that this appears in a secondary source. That is not that difficult. If it doesn't, there is probably a reason. RGloucester — ☎ 00:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You indeed did not write WP:SELFSOURCED because if you had, you wouldn't be referring readers to Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business and writing "Anyone can create a personal web page..." and then coming over here to contend that that's the situation with gov.ua. And, yes, I'm going to deny that "On 25 July, the SBU released another recording..." is a contentious claim. Are you denying that the SBU did indeed release another recording? If not, why are you objecting to Wikipedia noting that fact?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm objecting to including a potentially spurious claim that does not appear in reliable secondary sources. If it does, you can include it. At present, it doesn't. The same principles apply. RGloucester — ☎ 01:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• If secondary reliable published source do not mention the information that is found only at one place that has a vested interest in said topic, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include, because it may be a minority fringe POV that the world (media -historians) at large have ignored. -- Moxy (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This WAS actually covered in reliable secondary sources. It shouldn't be hard to find. Then, problem solved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For example, it's mentioned here, but I also recall it being discussed in other sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. If it is agreed here that there is a better source, we could restore it. --John (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added it back per Marek. Nobody has contended that Ukrainian officials have not claimed this and neither has anyone claimed that it is not notable. Yes, some have misconstrued policy to say there is a RS or a notability issue. However policy is in fact quite clear and I furthermore raised the issue of policy interpretation on the relevant policy Talk page. If you want to argue the policy at hand then see the conversation over there. If you want to argue this particular case, then explain just exactly why it is believed that Ukraine did not say this and/or why it is not notable. As a direct party to the background conflict, it is presumptively non-neutral to declare official statements by one of those parties "minority fringe POV", particularly when there's no evidence that contradicts what the party is claiming.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It was unwise to restore the claim with the same source while consensus here seems to be against it. Please provide a better source, or undo your edit. --John (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe consensus is, in fact, with you given that I have yet to see someone reject "There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted." as a guide. Is there a reason why you decline to answer my question above, which is just why you believe Ukraine did not say this and/or why it is not notable? If you concede that a Ukrainian agency or ministry did say this and that it's notable then just what is the point of this back and forth?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Very well, let's continue the discussion. We are talking about this edit, which restores: "On 25 July, the SBU released another recording, said to be of insurgents referring to the aircraft just minutes before it was shot down." The source is [16] which claims to be the Security Service of Ukraine. I would rather see a better source used. At best it's a primary source. I don't think that anyone is disputing that this material is genuine, but in writing Wikipedia articles we have to be discriminating. Not every government press release needs to be put into the article, especially if secondary sources have not discussed. it. Several other editors appear to agree with me. It has been suggested that better sources exist. We request that you bring them here and discuss them before adding this material or material like it. Can you do that? --John (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you read what other editors wrote in this thread? Like "This WAS actually covered in reliable secondary sources"? We, and by this I mean Volunteer Marek and I, request that you read what Volunteer Marek has to say and if you dispute his claim then dispute it instead of ignoring it. I'll also note here that you seem to be offside consensus in this related discussion. I'll also add here that the best sourcing for something approaching a quote is straight from the horse's mouth, if the horse is who the horse claims to be. If we are interpreting, analyzing, or commenting on what the horse said that's different, but there's no analysis going on here.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not especially looking for "something approaching a quote"; we're an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and we mainly work by summarising (not quoting) secondary sources. --John (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your sweeping generalizations are not advancing this discussion anywhere except into the weeds. At the top of this Talk page it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article." If you have an objection here then spell it out plainly and specifically instead of hand waving about what strikes you as "a little premature", "[not] a great edit", what you think Wikipedia is "mainly" about, etc. I agree with you that Wikipedia should not be a quote farm. But I then ask, so what? Do you go around WIkipedia deleting not just all quotes but all near-quotes as well because "we're not especially looking for something approaching a quote"? You know what else we "mainly" do? We "mainly" source to sources other than The New York Times. Yes, less than half of Wikipedia citations are to the NYT. Much less than half, in fact. Is it therefore prohibited to cite to the NYT? Allow me to quote from policy here: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense..." Applying your editorial judgment here means generating an argument for why this material is either not reliable or not notable if you don't like it. Reliably-sourced, notable material is, in fact, what we are actually looking for and what we ALWAYS, not "mainly", ALWAYS look for.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Please bring valid secondary sources for this; otherwise there is no consensus for its inclusion. --John (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So your answer is not to reply to my comment, or even acknowledge that you read it, but to just declare that you are resolved to edit war? I'm adding it back, and unlike you'd I'm providing REASONS for doing so, namely, because your opinion does not outweigh that of Volunteer Marek and mine. Gloucester is offside consensus in his SELFPUB construal as per this discussion (a discussion I initiated because I am more interested in DISCUSSING this than in "I've reverted you again" announcements), and "minority FRINGE POV" is simply not applicable to an official Ukrainian agency. You can either acknowledge the fact that Marek has already pointed to secondary sources, or you can continue to falsely insinuate that he did not.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Youtube sources are generally seen as acceptable if they come from an official source that is reliable (Ex: CNN and BBC has their own youtube channels) and are not editorial opinions. I am unsure of the uploader of this video as I can not read Ukrainian but the fact remains that the SBU did release the video, now if it is truthful or not is another story hence why the sentence should mention that it is unverified and reported by Ukraine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in here to help stop an edit war. Yes, it is attributed to Ukraine. I don't think a reasonable person can contend this Youtube account is not authentic when the official website explicitly links to it. I'll make another request here of John, and that's to recall my edit summary from last night: "lots of material in this Telegraph piece. Worth calling attn to". May I hereby now invite you, a second time, to take a look at that "Telegraph piece", John? I think you if you can find the time to edit war, you can find a few minutes to take a look at what you find there.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree here with Knowledgekid87 - just need to say where the info comes from (hosted on youtube is not relevant in this case - no copyright concerns). That said to establish its notability (a concern also raised) a secondary source would be best....lack there of is not a reason for removal in this case - as its an official position from some of those involved an can be found reported on. What should be done because there is a dispute is addition of a secondary source that links the videos in-question like www.huffingtonpost.ca or http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ -- Moxy (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Moxy: I saw that source as well, is it the same recording though as the one released on the 25th of July? Or are they two separate recordings? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The embedded link there in HuffPo is to the "Youtube video" at issue here. The edit at issue acknowledges where this comes from with "the SBU released another recording." Moxy, it is not necessary to double cite on Wikipedia, with one cite for the material and another cite for notability. Notability just needs to be demonstrated on a Talk page if its notability is disputed. It's not entirely clear that notability IS, indeed, disputed here since I've asked John that specific question and instead of a straight answer I got a revert with an edit summary that referred to "Youtube" instead of notability. --Brian Dell (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You are corect but we should link the best source....not just the main source. The problem is linking to youtube directly to many people off the bat... because it does not establish notability of said statements. Referencing a news article that talks about the subject and also has the video is clearly best. Why...because it establishes notability and in many cases will give context (its why there is a story in the news to begin with). This approach can only make the encyclopaedia look more reliable. Its about perceptions....got to give the best secondary source when possible over primary source. As has been explained by a few now ... linking to the you-tube page may give the impression of bias sourcing. Best we present the info as detailed from a non bias source even if its the same info, especially when the topic itself or the comments are bias by nature.--Moxy (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You earlier said whether "hosted on youtube is not relevant in this case." You've now changed your mind and am taking that back? I wouldn't call the Huffington Post "a non bias source" because it's well known for being biased against the U.S. Republican Party. I would think clarity is relevant here and giving the title of the clip in the citation and "Security Service of Ukraine" as the source is quite clear. When you called attention to that HuffPo article that "also has the video" Knowledgekid87 replied to express some confusion over which recording the source was referring to, no? And didn't you suggest earlier that "an official position from some of those involved" provides notability right there? We may have to get more technical here about how "notability" is a requirement, as it actually isn't a requirement per se: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". When I say this is notable I'm using the term as a common sense shorthand for it not being WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to include. As for "context," an intermediary adding "context" could be adding a "bias", no? It seems to me that if the same article content here were cited to Huffington Post instead of the Ukrainian authority, we risk misleading the reader into thinking the article content is a reliable as the HuffPo it's cited to. That might just generate a different argument about the reliability of the Huffington Post (HuffPo typically looks more like the Daily Mail than the New York Times). In fact this recording is no more nor no less reliable than the Ukrainian authority that produced it. There's value in being transparent about its origins by not trying to launder it through an intermediary, is there not?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your missing the point here - its an example - yes someone should find the video at a reliable secondary source. If they cant this leads most to believe not notable to begin with - notability is not inherent or to be avoid in article content. Its all about perception - the way we are presenting facts and statements. Much better to say the "post" reported that so and so said whatever - over saying look at this long video that I as a Wikipedia editors think says so and so. All we can do here is regurgitate what reliable sources say. If there are two sides to the event or statement represented in the press as you say..then we mention both. Yes because its Official it has credence - but as seen above there is a problem not giving a source with context. As for notability not being about adding content to articles..this is way off in my opinion - common sense tells us that notability is tied up with verifiability. -- Moxy (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that User:Bdell555 has added this poor source for the third time. Rather than edit-warring on this, it ought to be very easy to find secondary sources which back this up, as Volunteer Marek suggested. Again, rather than hand-waving about the existence of other sources, bring them here so we can discuss them. Otherwise this material will need to be removed. --John (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is a "poor source" then you can raise it on the RS noticeboard. Are you going to discuss it there before you edit war over this (again)? No one else here has agreed with you that this is a "poor source" simply because it is hosted on Youtube. As for you and your demands, Wikipedians are not to here to sastisfy your demands. They are here to satisfy the demands of POLICY. See the difference? There's no reason to believe that satisfying your demands is going to make a difference anyway, because THREE different editors have ALREADY pointed to THREE different sources that have called attention to this recording IN THIS THREAD but despite the fact they have been brought "here so [you] can discuss them" you continue to pretend that this hasn't happened. It's pretty obvious you have little respect for me, or for the facts like the fact that I referred you to the London Telegraph, but how about showing a little respect to Volunteer Mark and Moxy by acknowledging that not only did they call attention to Buzzfeed and the Huffington Post, respectively, but they provided direct links for you right here in this discussion.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If we have a three-way choice between YouTube, the Huffington post and Buzzfeed, that's easy. We leave it out. When the BBC, the Guardian, or the New York Times picks it up we can discuss it again. If you wish to go to a noticeboard, you are heading the right way, but it may not be the one you mention. --John (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sniffing at the Telegraph, John? Not up there with the Guardian? You're a hard man to please! Did you know that the BBC says there are two "papers of record" in the UK, one of which is the Telegraph, and neither of which is the Guardian! Anyway, this recording is in the Guardian too, so you can "discuss it again" right there, by which I mean, of course, you'll want to move the goalposts again!--Brian Dell (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I would accept the Telegraph as a decent source. It makes it harder to work with you when you continually assume bad faith like this, you know. I have no intention of moving the goalposts; I just want to ensure this article has proper sources on it. --John (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If the Telegraph is "a decent source" then why did you declare "this material will need to be removed" AFTER I wrote "May I hereby now invite you, a second time, to take a look at that 'Telegraph piece', John?" There was no ambiguity in my instructions as to where to find it and you never indicated that you had any trouble following those instructions. I then reminded you that I had called attention to the Telegraph, and you again ignored that in favour of calling for a cite to the Guardian. Why did you not ask for the BBC, the Guardian, or the NYT back when you were simply asking for "secondary sources" if you were not going to subsequently move the goal posts? I might add that your fellow Wikipedians do not need to satisfy your particular demands anyway if they have satisfied Wikipedia's demands.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Help me out here Dingly, your eyes are obviously sharper than mine. Where in the Guardian does it mention YouTube, or give a link to it? Is it the . . .If the Ukrainian security services, the SBU, are to be believed . . . plus . . . According to the recording of a phone call allegedly made . . . that are the clues we are to follow here? Montenegroman (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In an effort to get you out of this apparent impasse, Brian, why not simply get the story planted in the MSM? Just use a freelancer. Maybe have a word with Natasha Culzac (freelance news, travel and lifestyle journalist with a love for photography, the saxophone, and edamame beans). It's a win-win because she'll get a few quid for selling it to the Independent/DailyMail/Express/Metro or whatever and you get your RS. It's how journalism works. Her email address is: natashazac@gmail.com (publicly available from http://blogs.independent.co.uk/author/natasha-culzac/). Happy to help, as always: Montenegroman (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm surprised to see a link to loose tubes on such a high profile article, even if it is entirely convincing and easily the most damning evidence against the separatists. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

[17][18][19] - interpretrmag discussing it , the first link dsicusses the SBU audioSayerslle (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

. . . Powered by Pressimus Montenegroman (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

- 'In a leaked audio tape released on July 25th, Bezler is heard talking about a “birdie” that’s “really high.” The tape was reportedly taken just two minutes before MH17 was shot down. The voice is the same as the previous releases, and as stated before Bezler admits that this is his voice.' - james miller interpretermag - I don't think james miller would publish any old rubbish at interpretermag , powered by pressimus or not. serious journalists at interpretermag. Sayerslle (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Interpreter: A special project of the Institute of Modern Russia (a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy organization—a think tank—with offices in New York and Washington DC.). Also publishers of Ukraine Liveblogs using Pressimus, tagline: Find useful snippets of content. Weave them into your stories. ((Press)) to share with the world. [20]. Well I suppose that's good enough for some people. Montenegroman (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

whats wrong with 'useful content' and 'weaving [that] into stories ' - better than useless lies and planting them everywhere. but, well I suppose useless planted lies are good enough for some people Sayerslle (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Go on then, I'll play your silly game: what is wrong with finding useful snippets of content and weaving them into your stories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 17:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really get your point here -anyhow I didn't add the interpretermag articles as a ref for this Bezler on audio tape 2 mins beforeSayerslle (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This link was discussed before, kept for a long while, and I do not see consensus to remove it right now. Restored. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Where was it discussed before? --John (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Why the hell are people still fighting over the link ..why hasn't the secondary source been add yet over the primary source or in addition to the primary source? What is the problem? Please do what is best for our readers- Moxy (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

How does it serve our readers to obscure the fact that the very first appearance of this recording anywhere was on Youtube? Some readers reserve the right to disbelieve anything that originates on Youtube (like some involved in this very thread, apparently). Why deny them that right? It's like the "I don't believe anything I read on the Internet" types back in the 90s. If the first appearance of a news story was in the New York Times online edition as opposed to its print edition, for those people who insist on believing that the medium matters as opposed to the messenger, why obscure the info about the medium that they believe to be relevant? Eventually these types will come around to realizing that one SOMETIMES can cite to "Youtube" just like one SOMETIMES can cite to "the Internet" (because not everything on either Youtube or the Internet is equal), but they may not realize that today.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you show readers that it was the "very first appearance"? That would be original research, and just linking the video doesn't show that anyways. (Readers don't need to know it was the very first appearance, anyways, and if they do, then find sources that say that.) We need a secondary source. The current text also says "... said to be of insurgents", which should really have a secondary source backing up that Ukraine said that (rather than using a primary source and performing more original research.) 9kat (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed ref had some useful info (you know, the kind you get from a secondary source), so I added that info along with the reference. I think we should only keep the YouTube ref if another secondary source can't be found. (Couldn't readily find one myself.) 9kat (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD: "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source"--Brian Dell (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not one of those instances. If you'd read the full essay, you'd see why. Do you see the Ukrainian government as a "third party" to this situation? RGloucester — ☎ 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Off on your SELFPUB notion again, I see. That idiosyncratic notion of yours was debunked in this discussion, particularly by editor WhatamIdoing.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "self-pub", whatever that is. I said that secondary sources are used to determine the importance of what primary sources say. That's in the essay you cited, so you should've read it. If it doesn't appear in reliable secondary sources, then it is most likely either not important, not notable, not factual, or otherwise flawed. If it does appear in these sources, then cite those sources. It isn't our job to decide whether this video is relevant. Secondary sources do that for us. Taking primary sources at face value is foolish at best, dangerous at worst. The same principles apply. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You never said "it must be eliminated per WP:SELFSOURCED"? Yes, it is our job to decide what's goes into an article and what doesn't. Trivial material stays out. This isn't trivial. Your contention that primary sources are not allowed on Wikipedia is just plain wrong. If something is "not factual" that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. You are overgeneralizing. in this case, the primary source is unfettered by any accompanying third party editorializing (like Mashable's "He is a fearsome man with a persona as dark as his actions, ruling Horlivka with an iron fist" line) or doubt about its origin and is accordingly best. That said, I'll grant that reasonable people can disagree over which citation is best. What I was strongly protesting in this thread was John's deletions of any mention in the article of this recording.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"Unfettered by any accompanying ... doubt about its origin". What? If there's doubt about its origin in RSes, then we should use those RSes. Mashable, while editorializing some, does note they couldn't authenticate the call. Why wouldn't we provide the reader with a ref that has appropriately, well, done reporting on that? Also, they provide their own translation (they note a small difference, but it's important since the average en.wiki reader doesn't speak Ukrainian thus has to rely on the Ukrainian government translation otherwise). They also point out that the SBU's text intro suggests the new evidence shows Bezler "coordinated" the attack, but that isn't supported by the rest of the recording. The primary source is absolutely not usable here; it needs interpretation, analysis, and independent translation, as these RSes have done. 9kat (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, 9kat. This is an information war going on. We are not here to do original research, deciding for ourselves whether a video is worthy of inclusion in this article. No. We rely on secondary sources to establish notability of the video, do the research as to whether it has any authenticity, do analysis as to what it means in context. Presenting every statement by the Ukrainian and Russian governments without any context (which must be provided by secondary sources) in this situation would be pure madness, and totally useless if one is writing an encyclopaedia. "Unfettered by any third party editorialising" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. We want to report what could potentially be propaganda at face value, with no analysis, no verification? Idiocy, pure and simple. When I cited WP:SELFSOURCED, I was citing it in principle, rather than practice. That is to say, I was saying that for the same reasons why self-published sources must be taken with caution, government-issued videos must be taken with caution. That is all. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There's two different issues here: what the article should say and which citation to use. What Ukraine said should be cited to Ukraine, at least in my opinion. In-the-article analysis of what Ukraine said, on the other hand, of course requires a secondary source.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need the primary source at all now that we have two RSes, which properly discuss the video? (I would like to see better RSes than Buzzfeed and Mashable, but those are good-quality articles for those outlets.) 9kat (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't, and I'd like to thank you for adding secondary sources. I was merely trying to explain to Mr Dell that primary sources are to be used sparingly. RGloucester — ☎ 03:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• @John. It was discussed here and later (I do not have time to check right now). The source is BBC - qualifies as WP:RS see here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see, thank you. That is actually a different YouTube source from the one we were discussing above. --John (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just so I can get this clear in my head: is the conclusion to this discussion that a link from Buzzfeed and (or?) Mashable is all that is required to insert a YouTube video into this article? Montenegroman (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe it is and it's just me that doesn't think it's a very clever idea. So, moving on: if both these sources link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emfVpkBKoow is it OK to use a link to a different source such https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnuHxAR01Jo (an upload to an anonymous YouTube account)? Montenegroman (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Does it make no difference that the BBC webpage, noted by My very best wishes above, links to the Служба безпеки України source? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Only in that it ref's to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyZYgSXdyw (ie: not the same as the Article ref for the External Audio). At the moment, the BBC is not used as a citation for the statement On 25 July, the SBU released another recording, which they said was of pro-Russian-separatist leader Igor Bezler being told of an approaching plane two minutes before MH17 was shot down. - Buzzfeed -Mashable - Guardian Montenegroman (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The BBC said The veracity of the recordings cannot be confirmed - hardly a glowing endorsement. To any outside observer, this talk page might look as though we are trying to fit the facts around the narrative here. Montenegroman (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The second para now looks so much like a cite-farm (maybe not helped by this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17&diff=619339961&oldid=619299734 ) that the YouTube references are neither here-nor-there anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montenegroman (talk • contribs) 21:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• As far as this Youtube record was mentioned in BBC and other secondary WP:RS, we can use it here with appropriate attribution, i.e. without claiming it to be "the truth" but merely a conversation of rebels intercepted by Ukrainian security services. Making one link to external source does not make anything "quotation farm".My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are prepared to go back and read what I actually said and amend the comment accordingly then I will respond. Just in case you still miss it I'll say it again in a different way:

The BBC is not currently used as a citation for the statement: On 25 July, the SBU released another recording, which they said was of pro-Russian-separatist leader Igor Bezler being told of an approaching plane two minutes before MH17 was shot down.

Even if if was, the ref for the External Audio refers to a different video. Don't take my word for it - check it out.

The cite-farm reference is to the entire para - not this single statement (though this particular sentence/statement (backed up by two citations that are worthless and one that doesn't really match what is said here) doesn't help the para a whole lot. This stuff wouldn't get past a sub on the Hicksville Weekly Advertiser, even if it were minutes before going to press. Montenegroman (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 10

Where's Archive 10? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. It (the Cause section) vanished while I was working on replies to you and Sayerslle. I'm taking the liberty of reposting the first part and the last part here (Cause section). Sure hope that's all right with the rules and all! Thanks to everyone.JPLeonard (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the archive rate should be reduced a bit. Otherwise we are likely to get dicussions duplicated?! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, might also increase the chances of a question being answered before it gets buried away. Montenegroman (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• The bot currently archives threads "with no replies in 24 hours." That parameter (24h) can be changed if you think it would benefit the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest 2 or 3 days at least. But where is Archive 10? Ah, it's now appearred where I was expecting it. Not sure why that happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been changed to 2 days now, that should help a little bit. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of Children

Can there be independent confirmation of the number of children on the plane. Logically 80 seems too many. Given 298 deaths and 15 crew makes 283 people. 283 divided by 80 makes 3.53, which makes every third and a half person a child. This is too many statistically unless there was a class flying. Can an independent link be produced citing the number as credible, preferably not a newspaper article but an actual source as there has been too many mistakes in the media recently?203.219.152.104 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The flight manifest doesn't specify which passengers were children and it seems that neither does Malaysia Airlines statement, but ZN.ua cites Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights Valeriya Lutkovskaya who said there 80 children aboard. Dutch Prime Minister reportedly mentioned the same number. Brandmeister^talk 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Julie Bishop said "“Seeing these flowers and tributes and toys reminds us that there were 80 children aboard that flight... ”: [21] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would that be too many statistically? In a family with 2 children every second person is a child. At the beginning of the Dutch school summer vacation many families were going to holidays in Asia. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As to why, the reason for me quite simple. Given that I fly relatively often there tends to be less children on international flights. I guess what can be done is to check the newspapers for the ages of passengers. I know that Australian media has already published the ages of Australian passengers, the only problem with Australian media is that everyone seems to be saying that there were 37 Australians onboard not 27.203.219.152.104 (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Australians, the Australian media is counting all citizens and residents. Everyone else is counting only Australian citizens who boarded with their Australian passport. There seem to have been 28 Australian citizens on board. 27 boarded with an Australian passport (one dual citizen with a Malaysian passport). And 9 non-citizens residing in Australia. Courts in the European Union are more protective of privacy, so a complete detailed list of all Dutch passengers might never exist. What you want to do is anyway wrong in WP since that would be WP:OR. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Children and Dual-nationals

If all under 18 are considered children then its likely there were that number aboard, its also mentioned somewhere almost 20 were under the age of 12, by the way Dutch authorities chose to acknowledge all dual citizens even if they were not legal as in the case of Malaysia and Vietnam which dont allow such an arrangement, with respective flags flying at half mast at Eindhoven base, heres a photo of it http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140727134818-02-mh17-netherlands-horizontal-gallery.jpg not that the deleted column should be restored but maybe they can me mentioned in prose. 64.40.147.101 (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what I had assumed. But maybe it needs to be made explicit in the text? For most airlines the definition of a "child" for ticketing purposes (i.e. price of seat) is often much lower at 12 or 13 years. The youngest travellers are usually classed by airlines as "infants" and these are usually under two years of age. But airlines, and ticketing agencies, seem to vary. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I never thought anyone would quote politicians talking about children and then assume ticketing rules for the definition of children - all under 18 was obvious to me. If someone finds a source saying "80 under 18" that should be clarified in the article. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are thoe flags intended for dual citizens only? I would have thought they'd be intended for all countries with victims rather than only those dual citizens. Remember all the remains are going there for now. I don't know about Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure some of the Malaysians were not dual citizens. Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No all respective country flags are represented in the photo including Dual national ones, three Vietnamese had Dutch passports as did one Malaysian, these were counted amongst the 193 Dutch citizens, none of the other Malaysians were dual citizens. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

um, flags? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

he is referring to the flags in the photo link in my post. 175.110.222.144 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox - reliable sources.

I don't want to get into edit-warring. According to these headlines neither Fox News nor NYT are stating how the plane was brought down, just reporting Obama's views on the matter. If you can find a source which says that most authorities in the West believe it was brought down by a missile that would be far better. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

How was the plane brought down? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we find sources that say that the plane was not brought down by a missile? Are they reliable in this context? Geogene (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is this [22] which appears to be a deleted report from the BBC Russian service. I have enquired of the BBC if it is genuine and if the translation is accurate. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A little history, last time this came up was right after the crash. An early version was "shot down by a Buk operated by Russian separatists" per Obama. At that time Russia was alleging that it might have been a Buk operated by the Ukrainian government. So we agreed to delete "Russian separatists" and kept the Buk part. It was later on when Russian sources started talking about a fighter jet, I presume this is why the Buk is now potentially controversial. The Western theory hasn't changed. Geogene (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you stick with the 'Western Theory' I think better sources are required than just 'Obama says' The corrected link should take you to what is apparently a BBC link giving credence to the fighter jet theory. That's why I think it might be better to give just 'shot down' in the info box. This can be amplified in the main section. Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of the video link, but if the BBC retracted it, it's probably not RS. I think it has probably been discussed already. As for the western theory, a search of "Buk" on Google News pulls up a long list of reliable sources implying that a Buk shot down MH17 and that the separatists had them. Given that we are saying that it was "probably" "most likely" shot down by a Buk, that we are not saying whose Buk it was, and that it's still under investigation, I think that's more than enough. With this many source, we might actually be too soft as it is. Geogene (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

'Deletion' isn't the same as 'retraction' at all. If they retract it they say it's not accurate, if they delete it they simply decide they don't want you to see it. Please put up some of these sources, not just 'Obama says' it makes the article seem like U.S. propoganda.Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There's already sources that say that in the article, aside from the two in the infobox that attribute it to Obama. If those aren't enough, here's another one: [23] that attributes it as a general belief, but I don't want the article to become cluttered with more sources than is necessary, it just makes it harder to read. Geogene (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Sceptic1954 on this. The incident happened well into (not at the beginning) of a propaganda war, where for months the west had been telling the world that the Russians are evil and entirely at fault for all problems in that region. Given that situation, proclamations of western political leaders should count for very little. Use independent sources. Drop the political ones. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Drop the political ones? Which are political...the ones that are funded by the Russian government? Geogene (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing the propaganda game. You know what I meant. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I take you to mean that we should ignore the opinions of prominent Western politicians. I take issue with that on a couple of grounds. First because these peoples' opinions are notable. These are people that can impose sanctions with the stroke of a pen, or if for some bizarre reason they wanted to, destroy the world with the push of a button. In this major international incident, I think that qualifies as notability. If that isn't enough, the usual places we look for reliable sources, like most of the media outside of Russia, seems to be treating them as such. The second issue I have here, is that this identification of their views as propaganda, while it may or may not be true, is editorializing on a personal opinion. I don't understand why that keeps finding its way into the article. If the sources we generally have considered reliable decide they're all going to start writing propaganda one day--then we will be writing propaganda too and we won't be able to avoid it. Wikipedia is not in a position to try to correct social wrongs. Geogene (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The source from Time isn't very good either, it's mainly what a rebel commander says. I rather suspect most other rebel commanders would deny it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably. But the story is that a rebel commander admitted to it, and Time is usually RS. Geogene (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

and here's a story from Time that a rebel commander says it wasn't the separatists [24] so as Time is RS wen have to accept this too. I'm asking for an RS which says that most people in the West believe it was shot down, not one which says that Obama says it was shot down or that one rebel commander says it was shot down. Can Geogene not see the difference?Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I already gave you one. It's the Time article, that said that a Buk launcher is "believed" to have shot down MH17. You responded by changing the subject by asserting that the "rebel commander" is contradicted by his fellow combatants. I did not call you out for it at the time, but if you're going to taunt me you should know that I find rhetorical games like strawmen and evasion tiresome. But if you would like a re-wording of the infobox statement that attributes this belief it was a Buk to Obama or Western governments, I think that would be fine, you can suggest one you like. In that case, I would like that attributed assertion to explicitly state that it was fired by separatists. Since we'll be attributing the claim there is no reason at all to be soft about it. Geogene (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

you are right but it's rather tucked away in the story, obscured by the headline and doesn't say believed by who and how many. It could be just one person. Personally I think we should keep beliefs out of the info box, it makes it too unwieldy. Sceptic1954 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid something like another editor a while back warned against: "Something happened. People died." These beliefs are widely held by enough people, and repeated in enough reliable sources, that there's no reason to leave them out. We shouldn't be shy about saying the same things the sources are. If we are, then I think we're missing the point. Geogene (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox wording to: "According to US sources, shot down by a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from rebel territory." Geogene (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

True that it's still under investigation, I agree that it's bulky, I hope that other users will also add opinions on the infobox. Geogene (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• We should probably go with the reliable sources on this. --John (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are you looking for reliable sources for the infobox? The infobox should summarise what's already in the text; it needn't even have any references. Do you see that there's now a discrepancy between the text and the infobox? Do you not even bother to read the second paragraph of the lead? 62.228.126.211 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Good points Montenegroman (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)