Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

The article seems to be one-sided

The article begins with the information (not confirmed by any documents or fixed facts) provided by USA/Ukrainian officials, still many facts indicate that pro-Russian rebels haven't got sufficient weapons/Radars to track & shot the plane on this high. Many facts indicate that the plane could be possibly shot by Ukrainian army to blame rebels and Russia (it is wide known that USA officially supports the regime in Ukraine and has its own motivation to blame Russia). Please make an article and its introduction more independent, covering all facts Ilya3L (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do not you look at this page and its archives first, where all these issues you mention have been discussed at length? Btw what you claim is "wide known" is in fact your private opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ilya3L - this article IS one-sided. Our systemic bias has allowed a core of anti-Putin and anti-Russian editors to dominate consensus, and include a mass of material that really has no place here. All it should contain on the cause front is what the official investigation has provided the world with so far. Unfortunately, right now it also contains an awful lot of speculation and propaganda driven bullshit, almost all of it anti-separatist and anti-Putin/Russia. It's one of our worst examples of non-neutral POV. One day we will have the full official report, and most of the crap will be removed. I wish someone with principles, guts and authority would remove it now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

RS are the 'guts and authority' of Wikipedia articles - you want to eviscerate the article for your own pov and not for some highfalutin notion of 'neutrality ' - ever thought of that? Sayerslle (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are millions of words on this topic in "reliable sources". The self-appointed owners of this article have chosen a particular subset. Having none of the politically motivated nonsense, and only the official report, would surely be the least POV form for the article. It would also obviously prevent further allegations of a lack of balance. Surely you would want that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What?! No it wouldn't! There are already efforts in certain circles to discredit the DSB report. The original post above wants more Russian POV in the article. Blanking everything but the DSB would generate more complaints of non-neutrality. Obviously! Pay attention. Geogene (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone likes the Dutch report. Examples of what I mean: [1], [2], [3]. You can imagine what the response would be if there's more certainty in the next one...or if the Dutch hand out some indictments. Your suggestion of sourcing the cause entirely to the accident report of a European nation (that is a charter member of NATO) will placate no one. Geogene (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's just silly to say it will placate no one. Firstly, It's not our job to placate anybody. Secondly, I, for one, would be much happier with it. (Not sure if I will feel placated.) And I am not "no one", thank you very much. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Blow by blow reporting of the daily allegations of people you want to report is not making this a better article. Have you read WP:10YT? I always find it valuable to think about what will be important in this article in 10 years time. I can guarantee that most of the current content won't be there. Why is it there now? HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not our job to placate anybody. Well, okay, I agree with that. So I'll continue to worry about the neutrality policy and completely disregard the ongoing complaints about bias then. Perhaps you should not use them as a pretense for blanking. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to respond to the rest of my post? HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. We're not adding every day accusations at this point, and the accusations that were added are remarkable (and were followed by sanctions in some cases). The blow-by-blow feel of the article is because much of it has been written as an ongoing current event, in time, it'll need to be revised to be fully encyclopedic. This mostly includes changing the sentence structures so they aren't so chronological, but may also include trimming some of the early statements that are no longer accurate. Already some of the stuff like early claims of undignified treatment of the human remains may need pruning if they've been made irrelevant by later information. I think that Abbott's remarks are likely to persist as notable, even if they're all proven wrong. What else will be important in 10 years time? Hard to say in this case. I wouldn't definitively say that the blame that's laid out now will be irrelevant then. I hope so because that would mean that progress was made, but it takes years and years for the courts to put evidence together to try anyone, until then, some of this that's in the article is actually the best information available, sadly, and will be for the forseeable future. Geogene (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We seem to be working with the same view of what's there now. It's mostly speculation and politics, and most of it will eventually disappear. We just have different views of whether it should be there now. I don't believe it should. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how Wikipedia continues to confidently and vigorously blame the rebels for the downing, while the Western press and Western politicians lost interest in MH17 a few weeks after the tragedy occurred. Now the only country that raises the matter of MH17 at the UNSC is Russia. From these developments, one can infer who the guilty party really is. Yet Wikipedia studiously avoids the question of cui bono. That involves the taboo area of conspiracy theorizing. That the current theory that the Wikipedia article puts forth is clearly a conspiracy theory – the Russian military conspired with the rebels by giving them a Buk launcher – doesn't phase any of the advocates here of the preferred Western narrative. If it's advocated by the US president, it's not a conspiracy theory.

You are one of the few editors who continues to point out the incredible bias of this article. However, I will take this opportunity to note that I disagree with the position you have consistently taken that all the article "should contain on the cause front is what the official investigation has provided". First, the DSB was explicitly directed not to assign blame. So even when the final report comes out, it is doubtful that it will contain much more information than the preliminary report does. There has been talk of criminal investigations to determine who the guilty party was, but Western leaders obviously already know who the guilty party was, so these investigations are unlikely to go anywhere. Second, it is natural for people to want to know who shot down MH17, so Wikipedia must address this issue. There are plenty of reports from reliable sources of who the two main candidates are. Unfortunately, the usual lawyering and civil POV pushing are being used to keep discussions of the guilt of the most likely perpetrator out of the article. – Herzen (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is the "You" at the beginning of your second paragraph? HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You. The indentation is correct. :-) I was basically siding with most editors here against you on this point.

To respond to the comment starting this thread/section, I agree that this article is one-sided, and wouldn't even qualify that with "seems to be". I have raised this point before in Talk, and pointed to the example of German and French Wikipedias, which consider both the case for the rebels being the perpetrators and the case for the Kiev government being responsible. However, all of my edits attempting to represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (to quote WP:NPOV) have, sadly, been reverted. The expert opinion of a senior Russian military officer on how Buk systems work is not considered to be worthy of consideration; the point made by Time magazine (can you get any more reliable and mainstream than Time?) that the DSB report is consistent with a jet having shot MH17 down is not worthy of consideration, since the Time article was written by a journalist, not an expert. Sigh. –Herzen (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you dont want an english version of the german article. Some of the headlines there seem to support your impression of a more neutral coverage at first glance (Shot down "by ukrainian army" / "by ukrainian warplanes") But it does not include the "BUK-from-above theory" you advocate for. Alexpl (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That comment would make sense if Herzen had asked that we have an English version of the German article, but he didn't, so it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm bored with this argument. There is only one credible side and only one credible explanation, and that is what the preponderance of WP:RS suggests: the attack is widely believed to have been carried out by Russian-backed forces, with no comment on their motives. If you don't like it, I'm sure you can find a Russian TV station or conspiracy blog somewhere that presents a more satisfying explanation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're lucky that the world is so simple for you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed hundreds of sources on this issue from all over the world. There is no complete and reliable explanation out there of what happend; all reasonable "Experts", from the USA, from Russia or from anywhere else are just building theories and talking of probabilities. Overall, looking at what the worldwide media say, my impression is that

• a vast majority of the "expertes" say that MH17 probably was shot down by a missile
  • most of them say it probably was a surface-to-air missile
    • a few of them say that it may have been launched by the resetos (RebelsSeparatistsTerrorists)
    • very few of them say it may have been launched by the Ukrainian forces
• and some say it probably was an Ukrainian air-to-air strike
  • some of whom say it probably was a combined missile and cannon air-to-air attack

That's the knowlege out there, which IMHO should be represented by the article. --PM3 (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have yet to see any reliable sources that suggest a Ukrainian jet shot down the airliner -- a theory that is mentioned in the article, I might add. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that when talking of sources, we generally talk of secondary sources. It's not really up to us to judge on primary sources (although I admit that I tend to do that myself), that's the job of secondary sources, which we consider as reliable and therefore generally use as source for Wikipedia content. One of those (very few) secondary sources which is used as reference in (hundreds of) WP articles and suggested that MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian jets is the New Straits Times. Another source which published multiple Ukrainian-jet-shootdown theories and is referenced as source in hundreds of articles is the Russian news agency RIA Novosti. --PM3 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Russian Engineers Report? If so, I'm curious what you think about it, since you say on your user page that you are interested in aviation disasters. I started looking through this report, to see if it mentions that Buk missiles detonate over their targeted aircraft, but it doesn't seem to. Also, I thought that that this point was raised at the Russian ministry of defense press briefing, but it appears that I was mistaken about that. So I think I am going to drop this point.

A blog post I gave the link to before has a photo from the report. The photo is of a flat surface from the plane with holes from "high-energy objects" all in a straight line. I don't see how a missile warhead could have produced that pattern of damage. What do you think?

On a side note, I don't see how some editors can be so confident that the people in power in Kiev could not possibly be behind the downing of MH17. After all, it is well known that the Estonian ambassador to Ukraine said in an intercepted telephone call that people in Kiev had come to the opinion that the snipers shooting both demonstrators and police in Maidan Square were following orders of the people who seized power in Kiev. If those people are capable of killing people fighting on their own side, they are certainly capable of ordering the downing of an airliner, in order to give them a chance to regroup once they have started losing a civil war. Also, if the Kiev government regularly shells peaceful Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure, actions which have no military purpose, it is certainly capable of murdering foreigners. But of course, Ukrainian mass media tell Ukrainians that the rebels keep on killing their own people, even though the locals believe that it is Kiev that is killing them. In the same way, the pro-federalism demonstrators in Odessa set themselves on fire. Wikipedia demurely calls that massacre "clashes". – Herzen (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What I find interesting to see when discussions flow on this topic is the growing number of mentions of the USA. This event had virtually nothing to do with the USA. (Yes, a couple of the victims, but there were victims from many countries.) The ONLY reason the USA becomes part of the discussion is because of the propaganda war that had already been going for months in respect of the region involved. Seeing the USA as one of the "sides" only makes sense if you see this article as an argument between Russia and the US. It's not. It's about a plane crash that didn't involve the USA. (Unless you believe the weirdest conspiracy theories.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The US has a history of supporting groups which engage in false flag operations. Do you believe that Seymour Hersh is a conspiracy theorist? Also, seeing the US as one of the "sides" is unavoidable, given that it is well known that the US State Department orchestrated the coup which put the current regime into power, as we know from the intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, in which she says that "our man Yats" should be made the new P.M., before the coup took place. It is practically the official position of the Russian government that the purpose of the overthrow of the legitimate, democratically elected government of Ukraine was to destroy Russia. So as far as the mainstream view in Russia is concerned, this is all about the US wanting to maintain its position of hegemon in a monopolar world. Russia and China want to move to a multipolar world. This is why the US has produced color revolutions and a coup in Kiev in an attempt to destabilize Russia. So this is all about the struggle between the US and Russia; the Ukraine only enters into consideration as a tool for the US to use against Russia. This is not an example of "the weirdest conspiracy theories"; this is looking at geopolitics. – Herzen (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Bored" is about right. Please keep in mind that the talk page of Wikipedia articles is NOT the place to speculate, opinonate, editorialize, propagate, give vent to, or let off steam. Getting a blog is free. Get one. Do it there. Maybe "the people" will listen. Here, you're just wasting editor time. Most of the recent discussion should actually be deleted/removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm tempted. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was implicitly responding to Kudzu1's highly biased observation that "the attack is widely believed to have been carried out by Russian-backed forces". So my comment was most definitely relevant to this Talk section, as opposed to being nothing more than "opinionating". Note that Kudzu1's comment totally depersonalizes Russians. It is as if the opinion of Russians doesn't matter, and Russians don't have a right to have opinions. How can you get more systematically biased than that? – Herzen (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can dispute the point. Aside from conspiracy-minded folks like Parry and Hersh, who have been carrying water for the Kremlin for some time now, and Russian sources with an implicit bias toward their country's government (note that Russia is frequently given very low marks for press freedom and human rights, so I question the idea that mainstream Russian sources are in any way reliable in a case where the Russian government has a very strong and very overt interest), and aside from that single Malaysian newspaper article that relies almost entirely on non-notable, non-reliable GlobalResearch or whatever it's called, pretty much everybody of any standing reports that the separatists are suspected of carrying out the attack, and there is scads of publicly available evidence to that effect. You might disagree with that conclusion, and that is your right. But when the preponderance of reliable sources present a narrative, I think it can rightly be considered "mainstream", and competing opinions pushed by an extreme minority of (mostly partisan) outlets can be considered fringe. And even still, as I said, the "Ukrainian jet shot down the airliner" conspiracy theory is already in the article. I think that's a very generous concession to the Kremlin and its backers as it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Too many editors here are expressing opinions on who did it. You, Kudzu1, are one of them. It doesn't matter how much you have convinced yourself you are right, it's still opinion. Nobody should be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm speaking of what reliable sources are saying, which is more than I can say for you. As I have said many, many times before, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy basis for excluding or contradicting the preponderance of reliable sources and disregarding WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:DUE. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. The point is that an editor's opinion on a controversial matter should not be as obvious as yours. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kudzu1: When you write, "I don't see how you can dispute the point", I respectfully suggest that you display your bias. To quote yet again from WP:systemic bias:

Wikipedia … is inhibited by systemic bias that perpetuates a bias against underrepresented cultures and topics. The systemic bias is created by the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors, and it results in an imbalanced coverage of subjects on Wikipedia.

To explain to you how I "can dispute the point", I will just mention that because, just an hour or two after the crash of MH17 hit the news, both Kiev and Washington accused the rebels of shooting it down, when there had not even been enough time to establish that it had been shot down, and because just a few hours after the downing, alleged conversations between rebels and a GRU officer were posted on YouTube with the rebels saying they had shot down MH17 by mistake (which conversations are now contradicted by the current Kiev story about why the rebels allegedly downed the plane), it was obvious to me from the very start that this was a false flag op run by Kiev to discredit the rebels. I didn't need to read the Russian press or left-wing blogs to realize that. It was totally obvious. So I have to turn your comment around: I don't see how you can honestly believe that the rebels and not Kiev shot down MH17. You are apparently completely unfazed by the Western press totally losing interest in MH17. Do you really think the US and the EU would stop bashing Russia and the rebels with MH17 if the West had any evidence that the rebels shot it down?

That was a personal note. I am not going to say anything about the reliability of the Russian media because I am tired of writing about that. I'll just note that I don't see how anyone can take the New York Times to be more reliable than Russian sources like RT when the Times has a consistent track record of publishing stories that implicate a country that the US is currently hostile to in some nefarious activity (Saddam has weapons of mass destruction; Assad ordered a chemical weapons attack; there are photographs of a Russian speznaz soldier now operating in the Ukraine) which it later had to retract. Remember Judith Miller?

I'm sorry; this really does sound like editorializing now, I guess. But I am just responding to your implicit question. And if you honestly wonder how Westerners can relate to a Russian point of view: I just learned about this Web site, which was started by an American expat living in Moscow who is apparently an investment banker: Russia Insider. – Herzen (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you offer something independent, like Novaya Gazeta. Sure go ahead. But I see absolutely no movement in your position - it was a case of something you keep calling "the west" fighting with the Russian Federation from the first post and it still is. No differentiation whatsoever. So, to get some kind of result for the article: do you want a list of different causes which have been discussed for the crash in the article, something like user:PM3 has shown above, yes or no? If you answer yourself, that would be great. Alexpl (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta is hardly "independent". It is controlled by an oligarch, who ironically also owns the English Independent. It's funny how English Wikipedia gives so much attention to Novaya Gazeta, when it is not representative of mainstream Russian opinion in the least. – Herzen (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Clearly, you are utterly convinced that you have struck upon the correct theory, best explained as a variation on the underpants gnomes plan -- step 1: Ukraine shoots down the plane, step 2: ????, step 3: profit! And as I said, you are abundantly welcome to your own beliefs. You can believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, dinosaur bones are a hoax, and Ringo Starr was the most talented Beatle. Believe whatever you want. But your position simply has no basis in reliable sources (the preponderance of which say something completely different), unless the meaning of that term is redefined. And that's not going to happen on this Talk page. I suggest you take your complaints to the appropriate noticeboard and see if they're more receptive to the idea of Russian state media being more reliable than The New York Times. Good luck. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, English Wikipedia editors blocking consideration of the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, when French and German Wikipedias consider that possibility, is a textbook case of IDONTLIKEIT. Why does English Wikipedia fail when French and German Wikipedias succeed? – Herzen (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom. But I don't try to censor that idea out of Wikipedia. I just want Wikipedia readers to be able to read about the other possibility, that Kiev did it. I want both theories to be covered by English Wikipedia, even though I don't like one of them. Thus IDONTLIKEIT applies not to those editors who believe that English Wikipedia should consider the possibility that Kiev shot down MH17, but to those editors who believe that only one of the two main possibilities should be covered, thus producing a catastrophic violation of NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom" -- the same can be said of the members of Islamic State. In other words let's not go to these kind of highly non neutral statements. Arnoutf (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To make this crystal clear: it matters not one bit what other language encyclopedias say. Zero. Nada. Who cares. It's not an argument. We have this Wikipedia, it has its own policies, and we follow those. "But other Wikipedias say something else!" is a lame and invalid argument. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a tendency to make dogmatic assertions without providing any sort of argument to back them up. The reason I brought up French and German Wikipedias was that the claim is repeatedly made by editors who take a hard pro-current Kiev government line that nobody but Russians and conspiracy theorists takes the idea that Kiev might have downed MH17 seriously. Do you mean to suggest that the French and German Wikipedias are infested with conspiracy theorists? If not, then the conclusion that English Wikipedia's failure to give due attention to the possibility that Kiev downed the plane is a grave case of systemic bias is inescapable. The NPOV guideline is very clear, yet some editors persist in brazenly disregarding it. – Herzen (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

UH... pointing out that what other Wikipedias do has no bearing on what we do is a "dogmatic assertion"? Huh? Sorry, that's just policy, since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Yes, NPOV guideline is crystal clear: no FRINGE crap. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek - calling the opinions of those with whom you disagree "lame and invalid" is a pretty lame and invalid argument. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

But calling opinions which are contrary to, or are pretending to be, in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy, is not. It's an accurate description. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. It's actually just bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What's bad manners is wasting loads of other people's time with tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It just keeps going and going and going and going... enough already. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Expect to have lots more of your time wasted for as long as the article contains so much political and propaganda driven bullshit. I won't change my view for that idiotic reason. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

From Obama's remarks at the UN General Assembly today:

Recently, Russia's actions in Ukraine challenge this post-war order. Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kyiv, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.

Note that Obama doesn't say that the rebels shot MH17 down. Thus, the English Wikipedia article being written as if the rebels shooting down MH17 is an open and shut case is completely unacceptable. – Herzen (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The misinterpretation of the Obama remarks above is the most patently ridiculous argument that I have seen advanced by an established Wikipedia editor in months. It is typical of the content that this user continues to post in this Talk page. The arguments have been heard and found wanting. That it continues without end in sight constitutes disruption. Geogene (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

'I don't like the claim that the rebels downed MH17, because that is a calumny against people who are doing nothing more nor less than fighting for their freedom.' But I don't try to censor that idea out of Wikipedia' - your saying about you don't like calumnies against your people is nothing but a confession of purblind nationalist bias - in 1945 you'd have no doubt given grief to wp editors if they relayed RS on this story -red army and rape 1945 - and said it was a calumny against soldiers who were liberating europe - - anyhow the Russian stories are not censored from this article so I don't see what you are complaining about - they said it was an attempt to take down putins plane?, it was Ukrainian jets , it was Ukrainian Buks - all the stories - all the freedom loving stories - to take credit for saying you wont try and censor the article! I should hope not. this isn't Moscow. Sayerslle (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't know anything about me. Any relatives of mine who fought in World War II fought on the side of the Germans, so I certainly wouldn't have objected to atrocities that the Red Army commited against the German people being included in a Wikipedia article. In my family, the Soviets were the enemy. But I guess you haven't heard that Russia isn't communist anymore. Incidentally, your crack about "your people" is indicative of a battleground attitude. I suggest you make more of an effort to maintain civility in the future.

Since you suggest that censorship is not being applied to this article, I have restored the subsection headings delineating accounts of Ukrainian and of rebel responsibility with this edit. – Herzen (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I rather think you brought the battleground mentality with your 'people freedom fighting' rhetoric whom you don't like seeing calumnied -well, if RS are at the root of it that's just too bad, but whatever, - you've made it clear you have a 'side' and that dictates your editing - now you are dead set it seems to me to make out there are two views, each alike in weight of RS reportage of credibility - etc - pure pov crap. undue. but then to create a kind of miasma , to confound RS with fringe , and RS with RT - that's your way. Sayerslle (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed one of the disputed subheadings to "Russian claims", as it cannot be denied that, aside from conspiracy theorists, this viewpoint is peculiar to Russia, Russian sources, and the parallel reality that seems to exist there of late. It should not be mistaken for my endorsement of these subtitles. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Geogene: Thank you for coming up with that compromise solution. I hope no one will delete the subheadings as they currently stand. But you are mistaken when you say that "this viewpoint is peculiar to Russia". It has also been reported by the Malaysian press:

Emerging Theory: Probe now into the possibility that plane was shot down using two different weapons.

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

The New Straits Times coverage of the MH17 disaster has come up before in the "NPOV edit" section of this Talk page. – Herzen (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

They've gone again since they're very similar in nature to pro and con like sections, with WP:GEVAL issues as well. They have been brought up before in archive 12 in which they were removed. Stickee (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, POV isn't supposed to be split even inside articles. Geogene (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The only reason that POV is involved here is that some editors refuse to abide by the American principle of innocent until proven guilty. Thinking that there are two different parties that might have been responsible for the downing of MH17 is not having two different points of view: it is simply being able to understand reality in a minimally non-biased fashion. – Herzen (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROCON does not apply because none of the points in the "So what's wrong with pro & con lists?" section are applicable to these section headings. The idea that more than one party may be responsible for a given crime is a commonplace in legal practice. This is really a no-braner. WP:GEVAL does not apply because the only reliable evidence we have to go on, that provided by the DSB preliminary report, gives absolutely no basis for preferring one possible scenario over the other. The article already raises the possibility that Kiev might have done this, although somebody has added the "conspiracy theory" smear to that passage. So I really don't understand why anyone would object to subsection headings for the two main possibilities here. It is as if Wikipedia editors believe that Kiev shooting down the plane is a logical, metaphysical impossibility. Is that encyclopedic? – Herzen (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

On NST: Indeed it has come up continually in this talk page and on the talk pages of many other language variants of WP. This is far out of proportion to the relative influence the NST usually has, it's not that widely read outside of Malaysia. This naturally raises the question: why so much discussion of this single source? It's exactly the kind of thing you see when you have a sizeable minority of editors that would like to get a particular viewpoint into the article, but don't have another source to choose from, because out of the thousands of potential candidates, this is the only one that they can find for it that isn't suspected of being under Kremlin influence (or control). But the NPOV policy says that viewpoints in articles should be in proportion to their coverage in RS. That this one article keeps coming up repeatedly shows that this is a tiny viewpoint, and its relative coverage in the article should be scaled appropriately. And in this case I think NST is non-RS because it cites Global Research--which seems to be the primary purveyor of MH17 conspiracy theories in the West. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Der Spiegel not a major reliable source? Here is what it reported on 8 August:

It is becoming apparent that the question of guilt is hardly going to be conclusively clarified. Too confusing are the conditions in the area around the crash; too unprofessional was evidence on the ground was handled - and large are the political interests of the parties.

Enlightenment is not expected in this question also from the Dutch Security. You conduct the investigation according to international rules, says van der Weegen. "This is not about who is to blame or the responsibility. The aim of the investigation is to clarify the cause of the crash.

This is completely consistent with the DSB preliminary report. That report tells us nothing about who the guilty party might be, and Der Spiegel observes that who the guilty party is will never be officially revealed. Thus, the Wikipedia article, by creating the impression that everybody knows that the rebels did it, is doing a grave disservice to its readers. – Herzen (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If anything beyond the official report is to be included when this article finally settles down, that reads like some of the best and most objective content I've seen yet. And the expression "large are the political interests of the parties" is an accurate description of a lot of what's gone on here so far. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, the article is to reflect what the bulk of the sources are saying on the matter. As Geogene and many others in this thread said, the preponderance of the sources are presenting the narrative of a likely rebel shootdown, and the article should reflect that. Splitting the cause section into 2 subsections would mean the article won't reflect what they're saying. Furthermore you've again mischaracterized a source. That spiegel article you mention even says "many indications suggest that separatists flight accidentally shot down in the embattled eastern Ukraine MH17" (sorry for the bad google translate). Stickee (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all of us agree that your interpretation of "the article is to reflect what the bulk of the sources are saying on the matter" is a valid one. The sources you insist on using simply reflect the pre-existing systemic bias of Wikipedia, of which you are clearly a part. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article naturally prefers the mainstream POV of the public opinion of English speakers. Other language regions have other mainstream POVs, therefore different articles have different perspectives on the same topic. That's how Wikipedia works, it's always that way (even with scientific articels, e.g. there are significant differences in the stance of English and German articles on modern physics). There is no "truth" in Wikipedia. It is made by human beings who have beliefs, and these beliefs influence their selection of sources and contents, knowingly or unknowingly. You should accept this reality, because you can't change it. --PM3 (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is biased, but editors can work harder to override their beliefs when editing here. During the last US Presidential election, and my own country's most recent national election, I patrolled high profile articles and their Talk pages for vandalism and POV pushing. I was accused by supporters of both sides in both countries of supporting the other side. They were all wrong. Several here could try so much harder to keep their own beliefs out of their editing, and to make those beliefs far less obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And @Herzen [4]: I think that Der Spiegel is an inferior source, the content quality has gone near tabloid journalism level during the past years, especially in the online section and since they hired their new chief editor from Bild. This really is no source I am proud of as an WP author, I try to avoid it whenever possible or use it for the trivial things only. --PM3 (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. What a surprise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Your point that English Wikipedia "prefers the mainstream POV of the public opinion of English speakers. Other language regions have other mainstream POVs" is interesting and suggestive. But although there may be no "truth" in Wikipedia, Wikipedia officially aims for WP:NPOV, which is something different from truth. And many editors, many of whom seem to be primarily Anglophone, continually complain that the articles in English Wikipedia on Ukrainian subjects are biased towards the current Kiev regime, which seized power illegally and hence is not legitimate by any reasonable legal standard. Therefore, I am not as defeatist about the possibility of Wikipedia avoiding systemic bias as you are. I would say that the reason that the Ukraine related articles are so absurdly biased is not that different Wikipedias are doomed to represent different "mainstream POVs", but that the majority of editors do not appear to understand what avoiding systemic bias entails. Yes, I am a throwback. I still believe in Enlightenment values.

I agree with you about Der Spiegel. But there seems to have been a general decline in European journalism since about 2000. European journalists used to delight in mocking their governments, but now they pretty much serve as stenographers for government officials, the same as American journalists do. And since somehow the view has become entrenched among Wikipedia editors that no blogs are reliable sources (whereas blogs now play the role that the free press played earlier in Western societies), Wikipedia articles on political matters tend to end up being (poorly written) government propaganda. – Herzen (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is not more biased than your statements here. "Absurdly biased" is just a measure of the distance beween your own bias and the article's opposite bias, which you will not be able to change. --PM3 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If an article is biased, I see it as my job to point it out, even more so if the owners won't countenance change. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that a paid job?--Galassi (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

With subsidies for dental treatment. Since user:Herzen now seems to have gone lost because of all the wrongddoings of "the West", maybe HiLo487 could propose some actual changes to the article to make it less biased. Alexpl (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove all comment on the cause apart from what the official report says. (Now I sit back and watch the Putin/Russia haters all foam at the mouth and say "You can't do that. Look how many people just like me agree with me!") HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nadezhda_Tolokonnikova is as russian as the KGB bloke putin - just because one doesn't foam at the mouth with admiration for putin doesn't mean one is anti-Russian - banal to say so - Sayerslle (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. That's why I didn't say it. Unfortunately, hate is an irrational emotion. The irrationality impacts more than the haters think. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only time people use the word "haters" is when they're losing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please lose the battleground attitude. – Herzen (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am aiming for a consensus. With a consensus we all win. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe consider not reducing those who disagree with you to "haters". I can't speak for anyone else here, but I know I have raised specific policy objections to your proposals that you have never made even a perfunctory effort to address. Dismissing "haters" is weak, and it's not constructive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The simple policy objection to your position is that it requires a massive dependence on or lack of awareness of our systemic bias. You may not be a hater, but it's obvious from some of the anti-Russian and anti-Putin comments that have been made here that some are. It's a valid description of the emotion being shown. This discussion should avoid emotional influences. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to get into any trouble, like the editors of the RU Crimea article are about to be in. [5]. Geogene (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Funny how that story gets published in the "government controlled" Russian press. By the way, when I looked at a few Ukraine-related articles in Russian Wikipedia, I was surprised to find that the line that they take is pretty much identical to the line that English Wikipedia takes, and has virtually nothing to do with how the Ukraine crisis is presented in the Russian media. For example, in the article on MH17, Russian Wikipedia does have a subsection on the scenario that Kiev shot down the plane, but it devotes more space to denials that Kiev could have done that than it does to consideration of various theories which have been put forth about how Kiev might have done that. German Wikipedia considers those; Russian Wikipedia doesn't even mention the possibility that a fighter jet might have used machine gun/cannon fire against MH17, even though that is the scenario most Russians believe. – Herzen (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I find nothing funny about it. Geogene (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova is as russian as the KGB bloke putin. How do you know that? It appears that you know very little about Russia. Pussy Riot hate Russia. Since at least Peter the Great, there have been some Russians who hate Russia, taking the West as their admired model. Here is a recent essay that explains the Russian model, something that people like Tolokonnikova have no understanding of. And this piece explains why a leader of contemporary Russia who acts in the interests of the Russian people could only have come from the KGB. Your comment is exactly what HiLo48 was expecting. – Herzen (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@ herzen/hilo - oh I see , thanks for educating me on who the true Russians are - you two do seem a bit biased to me to be crusaders for npov but there we are - 'I don't mind most Russians - but I don't like Putin - 'oh gawd, don't say that hilo and herzen will hear you' - funny Sayerslle (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to allege that I was displaying bias. Precisely what is my bias? HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And the conspired anyway [6]--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WTF? Assuming that's an accusation that I am involved in some sort of conspiracy, what bullshit. You linked to a post from Herzen on my Talk page, to which I didn't even respond. Conspired? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, you have expressed your own bias here and it is pro-Western. Your viewpoint seems to be that the DSB report is the final word, and that's a "Western" POV, as Russia has been completely excluded from that investigation and Ambassador Churkin has made it clear that they're not happy about it. This is not intended to insult you, as I don't believe in unbiased editors, but it is worth pointing out in this case because of the self-righteous attitudes you've been expressing about the biases you perceive in everyone else. Your remarks imply you see your role in the dynamic here as that of a Socratic gadfly, but the truths are that (1) you've really just complained a lot by making assertions about these failings you find in the rest of us, (2) this is both annoying and insulting, (3) this sort of behavior takes the fun out of editing this article for people that disagree with you, and (4) it is possible that you are doing this on purpose. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, your bias is clearly on display in that you even see this as a "Western" vs something else issue. I am always working to draw peoples' attention to our systemic bias, then trying to to do something about it. The official report is the closest thing we have to an independent look at this matter. To be accused of being biased for supporting that is ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that, in the moment that your proposal to limit this to the official DSB findings is accepted, you would have to work against Herzen and his wish to interpret or even comment those findings? In the current situation he will immediately start to hammer us with sources that the DSB finding could never match to a BUK missile and only a ukrainian fighter jet could have done it. Will you be here to prevent that, or is your mission accomplished and you just pullout? Alexpl (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pointless post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:personal attacks and projecting on to me. I would find restricting this article to the findings of the DSB to be an excellent compromise solution, and would not work against that in any way. As for "interpreting" those findings, I think the German satire I copy pasted here which Volunteer Marek hatted, even though it is absolutely relevant to this talk section, because he doesn't like it (behavior which precisely exemplifies what that TV segment satirized), shows very well who is doing the "interpreting" here. It is not the people who want to bring some semblance of NPOV to Ukraine-related articles. – Herzen (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I hatted your comment below because it was simply inappropriate and disruptive. I probably should've just removed it outright. Are we gonna use that youtube video as a source? No. Does it add anything to the discussion? No. You're just posting it as a means of indirectly insulting others. Also, while we're on the subject, I see no personal attacks by Alexpl, or anyone else, against you. All I see is obstinate WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

And no, we are not going to limit the article to the DSB report. That would be ridiculous. And against policy. There is simply no reason to do that. What we ARE going to limit the article to is reliable sources. Which means conspiracy junk and fringe stuff stays out. Volunteer Marek  07:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

And our systemic bias lives on. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

To repeat ad nauseum. No original research. No synethesis. No fringe. No WP:OTHERSTUFF, including what some other Wikis might do. If you must get something off your chest there's better places for that. If you want to spin and speculate, there's better places for that. And none of this is going into this article as that would be a flagrant violation of the encyclopedia's policies. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You are always talking of the official report and want to discard all other sources. However, the official report is not of that good quality. For example:

• Flight SU2074 is missing on the map on page 12.
• AI113 on the same map is probably errounously labeled as A330, all other reputable sources I could find say 787, including Flightradar24, the Russian radar records and the newspapers.
• Data of last A check on page 16 contradicts Malaysia Airlines press release of July 18, 1:30 PM, which is more plausible when considering the check interval given in the DSB report.
• The ATC protocol on page 15 consistently calls the airline MALASIAN. Do you really want to write MALASIAN in the "Crash" section where this information is included?? MALASIAN (mal-Asian? someone bad from Asia?) is the official word per DSB report here.
• Ruler is missing on the weather map on page 18.
• There are lots of mismatches in detail wording, which is unprofessional for such a report.

So I don't think relying on this report as the only source would be a good idea (besides from that it would mean withholding lots of relevant information from the readers). Also, the DSB report is not ony a technical but also a diplomatic paper - the wishes of all countries involved in creating it had to be respected, including e.g. Russia and Australia. What can we expect from a report on the reason of MH17 crash which approved by both Russia and Australia? Not much. I don't think that relying solely on such diplomatic paper would yield an informative flight accident article. --PM3 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention Russia but not the Ukraine. Russia had absolutely no influence over the report, but Ukraine did:

On 7 August 2014, following the coordination meeting held at Eurojust on 28 July, authorities from the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine signed an agreement to set up a joint investigation team (JIT) to investigate the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, with the participation of Malaysia and Eurojust. …

A week ago Mark Sleboda reported about the existence of an agreement between exactly these four countries, adding that a non-disclosure agreement was part of the deal.

So don't try to blame Russia for the low quality of the report. Russia is, as far as I know, the only country which has complained about the deficiencies of the report. Herzen (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Who cares, Herzen? The point PM3 was making is just as valid. Geogene (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen: You confuse criminal and accident investigation. The JIT does criminal investigation. The DSB does flight accident investigation, which is a separate job, and Russia is one of countries who are part of the investigation team (the others are the Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, France, Germany, the USA and Great Britain). See [7], and also [8] on page 4 ("Russia did not want to take part in the first instance, but has now joined"). Russia is complaining about an investigation in which they are engaged themselves (or more precise: investigators of the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency are involved, see page 8 of the DSB report). --PM3 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The negative obsession of some here here with Russia is far too obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:POT Arnoutf (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just done a complete quick-review of the article, and besides of some missing information - e.g. the debris distribution, and the international police deployment and intended/aborted international military deployment - I think there is one big issue left: This article is very biased by the view of US authorities resp. members of US autorities, which are quoted in an unappropriate amount (and of course have an one-sided POV which undermines the article's neutrality). I do not intend to change that, I even assume that it is unevitable because it just reprents what is written in the English language sources, which are the prefered sources here. Just wanted to note it so that I am done. --PM3 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigation timeline

The second paragraph of the "investigation" section is somewhat confused. What really happend after the Crash:

• The NBAAI started an investigation on July 18. [9]
• The NBAAI invited international accident investigation organziations to participate, among other the DSB (see lat but one sentence of the paragraph) and the ICAO [10].
• The international team started on- and offsite investigation. [11]
• The NBAAI delegated the investigation to the DSB (last sentence of the paragraph), which heads an international team of 24 persons of seven countries (second sentence).

--PM3 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Does it necessarily need to be chronological? As it stands, the paragraph opens by saying the most important thing (ie: that it's be investigated by the countries), then it goes on to explain how that happened (ie: that the NBAAI asked the DSB). Is it factually inaccurate at the moment? Stickee (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm ... it is not directly inaccurate, but I think it's misleading. I will try to do a little clarificatin to fix this, without changing the order. --PM3 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added some information to the "Investigation" section, so that it is clear to the reader what happend when. Now I suggest to move the two blackbox paragraphs up to become the second and third paragraph of the section, then things will be much better ordered. --PM3 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The changes look good. Although is there an equivalent English language source for the Die Zeit article? English sources are preferred when they're available, and I'm pretty sure there would be plenty. For the black boxes re-ordering: sounds good to me. Could they perhaps be merged into a single paragraph even, since the first paragraph is quite short? Stickee (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed that.

There is one sentence left which does not fit: A senior US administration official reported to ABC News that FBI and NTSB officials were poised to head to Ukraine to advise the investigation.[110] This is a very vague information, someone unnamed said that someone else intends to join the investigators in Ukraine somewhen. I propose to remove this, it's a pointless newsticker snippet. --PM3 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on removal. Geogene (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The air-to-air missile version

As was already pointed out, some of the independent experts, including a retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko and Robert Parry, support the version of an air-to-air missile, thus contradicting the claims of Russian or separatist involvement. As of now, the article looks pretty unbalanced, making it seem like there are no hypotheses other than "the Russians/separatists did it". Buzz105 (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

what is anderweltonline and nst.com - are they reliable sources? unless their views are considered noteworthy and picked up by RS I think they are fringe. certainly Robert parry is not any kind of 'independent expert' is he? - he is just the contemporary version of the journalists who propagandized for stalin in the 1930s, if its Syria or Ukraine he takes up Putins cause - - Robert parrys folly - his views are fringe on this for sure I reckon- wp doesn't have to reflect the whole range of pro-putin stories - just reflect the reportage in RS. - that's my understanding anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sayerslle, you're correct in your judgement that it's fringe. Both of those links provide are based upon the website GlobalResearch (Peter Haisenko, Robert Parry), a conspiracy website (eg 9/11 Truth in 2014: Is a Breakthrough Possible?). Stickee (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

oh , global research is Michel Chossudovsky isn't it - a favourite of RussiaToday for all too apparent reasons - this is Robert Parry - 'According to a source briefed on the tentative findings, the soldiers manning the battery appeared to be wearing Ukrainian uniforms and may have been drinking, since what looked like beer bottles were scattered around the site.But the source added that the information was still incomplete and the analysts did not rule out the possibility of rebel responsibility.' - this is Parry and not onion.comSayerslle (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Haisenko's doesn't originally come from GlobalResearch, GlobalResearch just reposted it later (which isn't indicative of anything, since GR collects all sorts of "alternative theories" - both credible and incredible ones). There's also this interview by Stephen Cohen, who also disagrees with the mainstream version of events. By the way, I wonder why the allegation of the source being pro-Russian automatically makes it unreliable, and the Ukrainian/pro-Ukrainian sources are treated as genuine. In this conflict, Ukraine is as much a biased side as Kremlin is (perhaps even more so, since the crash happened on its territory, and Putin is only indirectly connected to this - through his alleged support of separatists). Buzz105 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a question, why would a retired (=out of date) civilian (=no professional relation to any kind of weapons or their impact) pilot be an expert on this? Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Forget it. Haisenko is an expert on everything, and has written a lot on that platform about the negative effects of globalization and the numerous wrongdoings of the US in the past. Recently he defended the russian seizure of crimea as be beeing legal - at least compared to what the US and UK have done in the past. And the preliminary report of the DSB on the crash is, naturally, concealing something...... [12] And it is possible that the evil henchman of the "Kiev Maidan government" & "the West" have something to do with it. Shivering. Alexpl (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No they are not reliable. We already turned that first special link down on the german wp few weeks ago, as representing a private blog. It actually supports an early version of the air-to-air gunfire theory, having no real idea how a radar guided SAM really works. The impact of early speculations on the corresponding articles of the Wikipedia (SU25, BUK M1, a.o.) may be interesting for researchers, but I see no use for us. Alexpl (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Buzz105 the newsweek piece starts with - Cohen 'who is a longtime defender of Russia and Putin' - and then he says putin lacked a motive - but I think the gist of most reportage is that it was a mistake anyhow, so that's irrelevant point - and then he says 'it isn't clear the rebels had the means ' - so, you know, what is his opinion worth? - its from July 18 so has been well superseded anyhow by RS reportage that followed in the weeks afterwards - Cohens knee-jerk 'Putin is innocent of everything' is not very interesting - maybe you just think it is important opinion because it tells you what you want to hearSayerslle (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There are enough of secondary sources for Haisenko and Parry - [13] (Mladina), [14] (Radiotelevizija Slovenija), [15] (Press TV), [16] (New Straits Times) - but this is not about an air-to-air missile but a shootdown by fighter plane cannons. --PM3 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

For an air-to-air missile shootdown theory, see Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 16#Report by Russian Engineers Union, full version. Technical point of view.. It's crap, but there are sufficient secondary sources for that, too. --PM3 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alexpl: I agree to your judgement on Haisenko. However, when it comes to decribing theories and opinions in the article, our judgements are irrelevant. We have to stick to secondary sources and reproduce what they say. The only point here is if a theory got enough coverage to be included in the article or not. --PM3 (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Webspace for some 2 € a month and an opinion on everything dont make the "source" in "secondary source". It´s just useless per WP:RS#Questionable and self-published sources. Of course you can write in the article, that some publications, primarily with extreme political positions (afaik), picked up a theory, published by an individual in his conspiracist web blog - but these publication can never be the base for some generalisation like "it was speculated that...". Be precise. Alexpl (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal opinions "extreme political position" and "conspiracist" cannot be included into the article. Valid sources are needed for such assessments, and they need to be marked as opinions.

Actually, some of the links above are tertiary sources or even quarternary. Here is the flow of information in this theory:

• Mladina [17], Radiotelevizija Slovenija [18], Press TV [19], RIA Novosti [20] ...
  • New Straits Times [21]
    • Russian military, already included in the article ("Su-25") [22]
    • Robert Parry (journalist) [23]
      • Peter Haisenko [24]
    • Michael Bociurkiw [25]

Haisenko is 1. the least notable of all and 2. the best secured source, as he is quoted through a secondary (Parry), tertiary (NST) and several quarternary sources. --PM3 (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You speak german, so you can read all his articles on that platform. There is really nothing more to say. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources does rule out amateurish bloggers as base for such claims. And since the grumpy eastgerman WP editors (with a solid problem with "the West"), who would have popped up by now to support the Haiseko theory, are unfortunately not so much into english, I would recommend to stick to something like the Russian Federation State media RIA as a source for such claims. At least they dont pretend to be experts in anything. Or you go with Bociurkiw: "almost looked like machinegunfire" "we dont have (...) trained eyes"... Alexpl (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RIA Novosti, the New Straits Times and Robert Parry are all sources which are referenced in many WP articles. This OR blog entry of the unknown Igor Ostanin immediately made it into this article, so referring to Parry should not be a problem. --PM3 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bellingcat is only in the article because it was referenced by The Guardian and the Independent. I objected to it initially, but Guardian's opinion on credibility trumps my own. Geogene (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the Guardian knows better. But that Iggy Ostanin (aka Magnitsky), "Russian freelance journalist", is a quite suspicious character. A quick Google search shows that his name never showed up before the Ukrainian conflict (which is unusual for a journalist; most of them have at least some publications), and his Twitter and Bellingcat profiles were created in August and September 2014 respectively, which may arise suspicion of a hoax (just for comparison: Haisenko did have a web presence before 2014 and even authored one book, though he became widely known after his article on Boeing crash). Buzz105 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I used Ria Novosti myself alot, but it has deteriorated to beeing almost completly useless during the last year or so, that should be common knowledge. Just restrict the use of all russian state media to quotations only. Alexpl (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• It is interesting to note that the Dutch report doesn't explicitly state that the plane was hit from the surface, and according to one of the experts, this shrapnel cloud could have been produced by either a surface-to-air or an air-to-air missile. Yes, this seems to be a fringe point of view, but I believe it's still worth being mentioned in the article (given the coverage in mainstream media). Buzz105 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be undue weight. One remark by an expert in one NYT article that the report "doesn't rule out" some of the alternative theories (when the expert does not appear to even adhere to those alternative theories) doesn't justify writing that into the article. In fact, I think that would be advocacy. Geogene (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added this, I think that's the maximum what can be drawn from the available DSB statements. --PM3 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Off-Wiki "Fan Page"

If anybody's interested, I've discovered that an obscure wiki has an "article" devoted to us, the editors of this page, complete with a ranking system in which we're assigned scores. For the record, I do know who is responsible and it will inevitably make me much less tolerant of his arguments here. Geogene (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How intriguing. By all means send me a link. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Emailed you. Stickee (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Awww, I only scored a 1. But great to see Brian scoring a 5. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. ok, found it. You know the existence of that page might actually explain why we're getting a lot of crazy users coming over from the war-in-Syria articles. One sketchy account after another. Apparently these two topics, MAF17 and the Syrian war are the hot button issues with the conspiracy folks right now. Volunteer Marek  00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

not just conspiracy theorists, but users paid by the Russian government to spread disinformation. http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america#1w83kfm

... that's just a conspiracy theory! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fascinating, but let's remember that all are obligated to assume good faith on behalf of other users, at least until it becomes absolutely impossible to do so. Conflict-of-interest editing is destructive, and so are ad hoc COI witch hunts, so let's not start any here. Of course, I'm confident that COI, sock puppetry, or other serious transgressions will be punished through the legitimate channels, if they are found. Geogene (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kangaroo Route and connecting destinations

I would like to have a source that says explicitly that MH17 is on the Kangaroo route, which would explain the presence of so many Australians. Plus a source stating all of the connecting destinations of MH17 passengers may be useful in regards to discussing the Kangaroo route. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know the precise answer to that question (it's almost certainly true), but I can hopefully help a bit. Australia is a big country geographically. People like to get international flights from as close to home as possible. Within Australia, the state of Victoria was the one most heavily impacted by the crash. One of the limited number of international airlines servicing Victoria's international airport is Malaysia Airlines. The crash was also close to the end of a school holiday period, so people were returning from international holidays. That's a reason for the higher proportion of children, and the fact that a teacher I knew was one of the victims. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. One thing I'd like to do is build a background for the route, such as that of American Airlines Flight 587 (I added info about the cultural background related to the Dominican community in New York City and its use of the flight) and China Airlines Flight 611 (the Taipei to Hong Kong route is the "Golden Route"). WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

German families of MH17 victims suing Ukraine for negligence

An edit about this story keeps on getting reverted, with claims that this was discussed before, with consensus being reached that this is undue. But for the life of me, I can't find the discussion. There is no Talk section heading for this subject; I looked through Talk archives through when this story came out, on 21 September. Also, I searched for the string "sue", and nothing came up. Finally, I looked through the Talk page history, and didn't see any edit summaries which appeared to relate to this story.

Could someone please find the previous discussion and post a link to it? I want to see how a consensus was reached that a story which received wide coverage in reliable English language sources is not notable. Thanks in advance, and my apologies for my ineptness at finding this discussion myself. – Herzen (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has now been protected because of edit warring. – Herzen (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure we should add every speculative legal case they are not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree here. There hasn't been mention in the article of a potential lawsuit/legal action against Malaysia Airlines ("Malaysia Airlines could face a costly negligence lawsuit on top of a US$54.5 million compensation bill for the loss of 298 lives on MH17"), or a lawsuit against Russia/Putin ("British lawyers preparing multi-million pound suit against Putin for MH17 crash"). Stickee (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I didn't know about those. As for that English lawsuit, given how disinterested Western media have become in MH17, I really don't think that's going anywhere. – Herzen (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Herzen. Others acted by the rules. You need consensus to include any new information that causes objections for whatever reason. Offending another contributor, as you just did and providing link to stolen and possibly manufactured private correspondence of another person (in the diff) does not really help your cause. My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this private lawsuit is not important enough to be mentioned here. --PM3 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. But it's interesting that nobody has shown when this was discussed before, in response to my request. The stories about this private lawsuit suggested it would be filed this month. If it does get filed, I think it would become noteworthy. For now, I take the discussion to be closed. – Herzen (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If a lawsuit is filed and reported on by reliable secondary sources, I think it's potentially noteworthy. What I don't want to see is it being used in a WP:SYNTH fashion to help construct a political argument supporting the Kremlin's finger-pointing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that there was any SYNTH going on. That edit just reported the argument made by the lawyer of the families, as reported in the cited source. That edit wasn't made by me btw, but by an editor who, as far as I know, has not made any other edits to this article. Then Volunteer Marek started an edit war, by falsely stating in his edit summary that this story had been discussed before and consensus was reached not to include it. (To repeat, I looked for a prior discussion and could not find it.) Discussion has now taken place and consensus reached. (To engage in a bit of OR, I would be surprised if this suit ever gets filed. If it were, that could lead to a public relations disaster.) – Herzen (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that was legitimate revert per WP:BRD. Then you started edit war without proper discussion. And we still do not have consensus to include this info right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)