Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

NPOV edit

This [1] edit is problematic for a whole host of reasons.

Adding in headings "Speculation about Ukrainian anti-government forces and/or Russia being responsible" and "Speculation about Ukraine being responsible" is pretty obvious original research. And it is also POV pushing as it tries to reflect the Russian government line that "we don't really know what happened, it's all just speculation, so it just as likely that the Ukrainians did it as the rebels, in fact, probably the Ukrainians did it". Which is nonsense, and it is not based at all on reliable sources. Undoing it. If you're gonna go that way, raise it on talk first.

Adding the opinion of Maj. Gen. Mikhail Krush violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. This one particular opinion is not noteworthy (wp:undue) and it is contradicted by the opinion of pretty much everyone else who's not a conspiracy wing nut or who doesn't have some political agenda at play (wp:fringe). It should not be included. Removing it. If you're gonna try to cram this into the article, raise it on talk first. Volunteer Marek 19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure how the Russian propaganda version is compatible with the report if the source which is supposed to confirm this says it is not.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the article is propaganda and speculation. It's one of our worst. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of DONTLIKE. Buk missile systems were designed and built by Russians. Thus, to say that the opinion of Russian experts should not be given – apparently all Russians are "conspiracy wing nuts", no matter what their level of professional expertise, whereas the opinions of alleged experts from Five Eyes countries, who are obviously going to be inclined to back the Ukrainian story, should be cited – is to engage in obvious point of view pushing and exhibit systemic bias. To say that mentioning Krush's opinion is UNDUE is absurd, given that Russians know more about Buk missiles than anyone else, and that Krush says pretty much the same thing as was said at the Russian defense ministry's press briefing on MH17. Russia has been accused of supplying a Buk launcher to the rebels (something which it would make no sense for Russia to do incidentally, since the rebels were doing fine destroying the Ukrainian air force with MANDPADS and anti-aircraft cannons), and the rebels have been accused by Kiev and Washington of shooting down MH17. Thus, according to Kiev and Washington, Russia is indirectly responsible for the MH17 tragedy. Unsurprisingly, Russia has defended itself against these accusations. But Volunteer Marek wants to keep what Russia has to say in its defense from Wikipedia's readers, in effect turning Wikipedia into an outlet for anti-Russian propaganda. (This is pretty obvious from his characterization in an edit summary of a military expert's opinion on his own weapons system as FRINGE, so please don't anyone accuse me of being uncivil. I am still learning how to deal with WP:Civil POV pushing.) Wikipedia readers deserve to know both sides of the story. This is precisely what Volunteer Marek wants to prevent, so it is he who is engaged in obvious POV pushing, not I. Several editors pointed out Volunteer Marek's pattern of behavior in this regard in Volunteer Marek's (rejected) Request for Enforcement against Haberstr.

As for the subsection headings, I was just following the practice of German Wikipedia. It has three subsections of this kind: "Suspected missile launch by separatists", "Suspected missile launch by the Ukrainian military", and "Suspected downing by Ukrainian fighter jets". Note that there are more sections considering Ukrainian responsibility than there are considering rebel responsibility. French Wikipedia also has three subsections in this regard: "Ground to air missile", "Air to air missile", and "Mutual accusations". Since both the German and French Wikipedias thus take the possibility that Ukraine was responsible for the downing of MH17 seriously, I think it is clear that this is not a fringe theory, so, that English Wikipedia not giving considerable attention to this possibility would be a grave case of systemic bias. And as I said earlier, having a subheading for each possibility of who the guilty party may be aids the reader in understanding the issues involved.

As for Volunteer Marek's suggestion that I am pushing "the Russian government line that 'we don't really know what happened, it's all just speculation…'": sorry, but that is not just the Russian government "line", but also the position of the DSB and the German government. And to engage in a little original research for a moment (which is not forbidden in Talk), Kiev had a clear motive to shoot down MH17, whereas the rebels most certainly did not. And Kiev has now resorted to a "crazy conspiracy theory" that the rebels shot down MH17 by mistake. Their intended target was a Russian airliner, which they wanted to shoot down to give Russia a pretext to invade Ukraine. The reason they shot down the wrong airliner was that they shot the Buk missile from the wrong location, having confused two different villages that have the same name. Crazy doesn't get any crazier than that. – Herzen (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of DONTLIKE. - No, it's actually a case of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. It doesn't matter whether Russians build the Buk system or not. What matters is if this person's opinion received wide coverage in reliable sources. It hasn't. Rest of your comment is just original research. Volunteer Marek 00:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop lawyering. Your comment that "What matters is if this person's opinion received wide coverage in reliable sources" is a transparent attempt to maintain systemic bias in the article. Russia is the second largest arms exporter after the US, and Russia is the only nuclear superpower other than the US, so to claim that what a Russian officer says in an interview by a Russian defense industry trade publication is WP:fringe is just bizarre. – Herzen (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment ... is a transparent attempt to maintain systemic bias in the article. No. It is an attempt to follow Wikipedia policy in regard to reliable sources and neutral point of view. You keep dropping this phrase "systemic bias" all over place. Not sure you actually understand what it means; you seem to think "systemic bias" means "reliable sources don't agree with me but I don't care". In fact your repeated comments about "systemic bias" pretty clearly indicate that you want to insert WP:FRINGE material into the article (to fight this supposed "systemic bias"). That's not how it works in a mainstream encyclopedia which relies on reliable sources. There's other websites for that kind of thing. Here, if reliable sources are not giving this particular Russian officer's opinion credence or coverage, then yes, it is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Volunteer Marek 01:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You absolutely refuse to desist from WP:lawyering. You keep on mechanically throwing out legalistic Wikipedia terms, instead of making some kind of effort to engage me on matters of substance. You don't even bother to give any arguments at all for why the Russian military trade publication in question is not a reliable source. The Russian military is successful, which suggests, unless one can produce reasons to the contrary, that publications associated with it are reliable. Please explain to me how, by any stretch of the imagination, the professional opinion of a major general in the military of one of the world's two nuclear superpowers can be construed to be WP:fringe. To quote from fringe theory: "Examples include pseudoscience (ideas that purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support), conspiracy theories, unproven claims about alternative medicine, pseudohistory and so forth." How can a senior officer from one of the world's two nuclear superpowers explaining how one of his weapons systems works be equated with any of those examples of fringe theories??? – Herzen (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are misusing words. What you call "lawyering" is just pointing out that we need to follow Wikipedia policies. What you call "Idontlikeit" is actually me pointing out what these policies are. What you call "systemic bias" is just the fact that we rely on mainstream reliable sources, not fringe ones.

As to the particular source in question, that was already addressed by Alexpl below. And if it is such a reputable authoritative source, then why hasn't it been mentioned or taken seriously by ... any actually reliable sources? Volunteer Marek 02:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Lawyering:

Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;

Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;

Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

I should think that the "underlying principles" of Wikipedia would enable Wikipedia to explain both sides of a story, in this case, deal with the mutual accusations of Ukraine and Novorossians/Russia regarding the downing of MH17 in a NPOV manner. Yet you are using a "technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines" to prevent that from happening. – Herzen (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, except I'm not violating the spirit. I am arguing that the spirit needs to be followed. I am not arguing technicalities. I am arguing it's pretty straight forward and common sense - what you are trying to cram into article is neither NPOV nor based on reliable sources. There's no "technicalities" involved here. It's just inappropriate, period. And I am not misinterpeting policy as its pretty damn clear that your edits are POV.

And you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of "underlying principles" of Wikipedia (or Encyclopedias in general for that matter) and of NPOV in particular. Perhaps because in this case misunderstanding it justifies trying to insert non-neutral text into the article. NPOV DOES NOT mean "explain(ing) both sides of a story". On the article Earth we don't "explain" that some people think the Earth is round, while others believe it's flat. NPOV DOES NOT mean that every cranky theory gets put in the article and is given the same weight. That's what WP:UNDUE is all about. And no, that is not "lawyering". That's just simply pointing out what the policy says. You don't like the policy because it says you shouldn't be doing what it is you're doing? Fine. Don't edit the article. Edit some other webpage. But don't harangue others just because they do think policy should be followed. Volunteer Marek 04:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is a perfect example of our systemic bias at play. Editors who support the western world's political view can use the western media's content with gay abandon, but will jump on anything that doesn't follow the same conventions. I really don't know what it is you're afraid of. One day we will have the full official report, and all the propaganda driven crap from all sources should disappear. (It shouldn't be here now. It serves no purpose, except for that of the propaganda machines.) Why don't we remove ALL the content that adds no certainty to what happened? Don't tell me it's been reported. We are not a newspapaer and don't have daily column inches to fill. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. In this particular case what all this crying about "systemic bias" (an essay, pretty decent, but not even relevant to this dispute) amounts to is: "Reliable sources don't say what I want them to say. But I still want my POV in the article! Therefore... systemic bias!".

You're actually doing disservice to the actual, real, and important problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia by hitching this little slogan to your the pursuit of your "cause". Volunteer Marek 04:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Aye, what HiLo's saying sounds like an "I don't like it" argument. We're a tertiary source and cover what the secondary sources are saying. Stickee (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you make absolutely no effort to substantively engage my arguments. All you can do is put forth solipsistic claims – "I am not arguing technicalities. I am arguing it's pretty straight forward and common sense". Yes, everyone likes to think that he is just following common sense. But how is it common sense that a senior officer in the military of a major power expressing his professional opinion on one of his weapons systems is formulating a fringe theory? That is not common sense: that is being in denial of reliable information which undermines your worldview. All you can come up with to reply to the points I have made is that a Russian general explaining how his weapons system works is a flat earther. Resorting to name calling instead of making a valid argument is a sign that your position is not rationally defensible. – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you are just not listening. If this guy's theory is "reliable" then there should be reliable sources which report on it. You ain't got those. Anyway, this discussion is becoming pointless and we're well past the point of diminishing returns. Volunteer Marek 05:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

People who are part of the systemic bias quite often don't recognise it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So... we're gonna have you as an arbiter of who's guilty of systemic bias and who's not? See, that's why we got policies, such as NPOV, FRINGE, UNDUE and all that. But pointing that out is somehow "lawyering". Can't win I guess. Volunteer Marek 06:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You are making a circular argument. There is no reason to consider a Russian military industry trade publication not to be a reliable source, unless one can produce arguments for why it is unreliable. So yes, I have a reliable source; you are just gaming Wikipedia policy to suppress information which undermines your world view. – Herzen (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No I am not. A circular argument is one which assumes its conclusion. I am not doing that. I am saying that you don't have a reliable source. You don't. A reliable source is one which has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Your source doesn't. And actually, the burden of proof is not on me - I don't have to prove that this source is unreliable, you need to prove that it's reliable.

Couple things.

First, is this a "military industry trade publication"? It looks more like a Russian version of Soldier of Fortune (magazine). You know, scantily clad women holding big guns and all that.

Second, any source which praises the neo-fascist Aleksander Dugin (and which appears to be really into this "war is a natural state of mankind" and "Russia in a permanent conflict against the West" thing, just isn't going to be reliable.

Third, even putting all that aside, the article doesn't even say what you pretend it says! Even that general says that "this is just hypothesis" or "this is just speculation" or even "I don't have the competence to comment". Etc.

So yes, it's an unreliable source. Yes, you are misrepresenting it. Yes, you are POV pushing and violating Wikipedia policies and using this whole "systemic bias" as a cover. Volunteer Marek 06:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Alexander Dugin is not a neo-fascist: he is a neo-Slavophile. Only Russophobes consider neo-Slavophiles, and hence Dugin, to be (neo-)fascists.

2. Where does this publication say "war is a natural state of mankind"? That is the position of the US government. You are engaging in projection: the US starts one war after another; Russia does everything in its power to avoid getting into a war. And evidently you have not heard of this book by Robert Kagan, about which Wikipedia says:

Kagan's book, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, published on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, created something of a sensation through its assertions that Europeans tended to favor peaceful resolutions of international disputes while the United States takes a more "Hobbesian" view in which some kinds of disagreement can only be settled by force, or, as he put it: "Americans are from Mars and Europe is from Venus."

As for the "Russia in a permanent conflict against the West" thing: it is the US which has never ended its aggression against Russia. George Bush the Elder promised Gorbachev that if Soviet troops left East Germany, NATO would not expand eastward, but later administrations broke that promise. If Russia had not respected the right of Crimeans to self-determination, Sevastopol would now be a NATO naval base. So yes, Russia believes that it is in a conflict with the West, but that is only because the the US and UK are trying to destroy it. One reads endless opinion pieces in the US about how Putin must be removed from power through a coup or assassinated.

3. Instead of employing crude smear tactics, please show me where the Military-Industrial Courier shows itself to be "a Russian version of Soldier of Fortune (magazine)", with "scantily clad women holding big guns". Here is an example of writing from this periodical which may be considered to be nationalistic:

Literary works, affirming patriotism, national pride, military honor, and selfless service to the motherland, will be received with a resonance from the public and be read and discussed by a broad audience. This is what the founders of the new national literary prize "The sword and Shield of the Fatherland" – the newspaper Military-Industrial Courier and the Union of writers of Russia – see as its aim.

See? Union of Writers. Not scantily clad women. If there was a similar American initiative, most Americans would view it as nothing more than encouragement of a healthy patriotism.

To conclude, your claim that the Military-Industrial Courier is not a reliable source amounts to nothing more than your usual civil POV pushing and DONTLIKE when it comes to all things Russian. – Herzen (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

<-- I read "1. Alexander Dugin is not a neo-fascist: he is a neo-Slavophile. Only Russophobes consider neo-Slavophiles, and hence Dugin, to be (neo-)fascists." and was gonna give up. But then I read the last sentence "nothing more than your usual civil POV pushing and DONTLIKE when it comes to all things Russian". Yep, not gonna bother reading what's in between. Not gonna argue with someone who defends people like Dugin. Not gonna argue with someone who accuses anyone who disagrees with them of "Russophobia" (apparently calling a fascist a fascist now makes one "Russophobic" if that fascist happens to be a Russian and a Putin supporter/consultant). I don't like being insulted and I don't take people who insult others simply because they don't agree with their narrow world view seriously. Conversation over. Volunteer Marek 22:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted Volunteer Marek's reversion of my edits. For the sake of civility, Volunteer Marek should have started a discussion in Talk before reverting my additions to the article. I have also adopted the names used by the German Wikipedia article for the two subheadings. German Wikipedia has a third subsection, "Suspected missile launch by the Ukrainian military", but I think that that possibility can be dismissed, since Russian sources tend to dismiss the possibility that a Buk missile was fired by anyone. – Herzen (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your actions are out of scope. The "vpk-news.ru" source for example, you did put in, is obviously a heavly patriotic, pro russ gov and certainly a violation of WP:RS. It offers strange info fragments - like a BUK missile striking the target "from above" - so should we add that information to the Buk M1 article? I dont think so, but that should be discussed there.

Next: That Link to the german "spiegel magazine" "Keine gesicherten Erkenntnisse" you posted, is totally useless for this arcticle, stating only that the german government doesnt have any information on who shot the plane down - that it can make public. We only learn that the AWACS planes were out of range to monitor the events. No "systemic bias", but a lot stuff that doesnt bring us anywhere. Disinformation. Alexpl (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good spotting. Both of those additions are either a mischaracterisation of the source, or a bad source to begin with. If Germany has nothing to offer, why included it? Should we included the fact that the Queen, the Pope and the Dalai Lama have no intelligence to share as well?

Secondly there's the issues of the titles. Just because other crap exists on other language Wikipedias (with different policies) isn't a reason to have it here. Stickee (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Other crap exists in THIS article, such as reporting that Tony Abbott declared within hours of the crash that the Russians did it. But you keep defending the presence of that politically motivated (in more ways than you realise), propaganda driven, POV bullshit. It matches your POV. Funny. Hmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Just because other crap exists on other language Wikipedias" is a flagrant expression of systemic bias. It is noteworthy that you do not make any substantive arguments as to why it is impossible to contemplate that Kiev might have shot the plane down, when you have no trouble believing that Russia and/or the rebels are responsible, even though the independent Ukraine has a track record of shooting down airliners with Buks. – Herzen (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

We dont know who shot that plane down. And maybe we never will. That is the current consensus - afaik. But it is not helpful to counter every statement in the article with a contradictory statement - if that means to take that statement from unreliable sources. Like the systematic use of russian state media, or formus, blogs and dubious youtube videos. Maybe you conduct some private net-research on the most ludicrous stories from the russian state media of the past month to help demonstrate their uselessness for WP work. I understand its tempting to kill two birds with one stone here and try to whitewash the Russian Federation from conducting warfare in Ukraine - but that is a totally different article. Try to keep it MH 17. Alexpl (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

And that is a totally POV post, one that highlights the challenges faced by those of us trying to create an objective article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Great statement. If you want to dig though the russian state media publications of the past six month on the hunt for useful facts - go ahead. Maybe things are different here in the en.wp, and a source, which has disqualified itsself by transmitting fake news on a regular basis, can still deliver some useful info. I have no idea how to implement something like that in an article, but I look foward to find out. Alexpl (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The bullshit came when you wrote the text "...try to whitewash the Russian Federation from conducting warfare in Ukraine." That is a blatantly POV position. Once you fly your colours so clearly, your credibility is questionable everywhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the bullshit came ealier. Never mind. Alexpl (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources, reliable sources, or it doesn't matter. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You have not made a substantive reply to any of my points. The source I cited is a trade publication; do you imagine that trade publications dealing with the US defense industry aren't "heavily patriotic"? The point is that an officer from the Russian military was interviewed about Buks, and nobody understands Buks more than the Russian military. I should not have to repeat this painfully obvious point. Clearly, your objection to vpk-news.ru is that you don't like Russian sources. Clearly, Russian military hardware works, so there is no reason to suppose that Russian trade publications for the defense industry are not WP:RS.

As for the Spiegel article, your claim that the German government has information on who shot down MH17 is WP:OR. The German government said it cannot reveal information about satellite imagery or radio intercepts for reasons of state secrecy, but it most definitely did not say that it cannot reveal information about military radar monitoring MH17. The German government said that NATO AWACS stopped tracking MH17 half an hour before it crashed. That is notable, because until this document was released, everybody assumed that NATO's military radar could tell us about how MH17 was downed. The German government has now directly contradicted that assumption. – Herzen (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources, reliable sources, or it doesn't matter. Volunteer Marek 00:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

really looks like merkel trusts every word he speaks, herzen ! - - 'even though the independent Ukraine has a track record of shooting down airliners with Buks.' - but I thought that was in kuchmas time - and he was moscows man – so maybe it tells something different to what you want to infer. " Leonid Kuchma. Remember him? He was widely regarded for improving Russian-Ukrainian ties in the aftermath of Ukrainian independence. He won office in 1994, mostly on the basis of strong support from the Russian-speaking East of the country. His prime minister was Viktor Yanukovych. Sayerslle (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Even after the Ukraine became an independent country, everything it does wrong is still all Russia's fault! – Herzen (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

the point was also after the event they said it couldn't have happened -'the Kremlin and its stooge’s tendency to dig in their heels when involved with such gross displays of incompetence' - Russian officials said a missile could not have been involved - Sayerslle (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Gen. Mikhail Krushs assertions are incompatible with the well-documented findings of the DSB, which indicate that the cockpit section of the plane was hit from above. See the DSB report, pages 24–25. Therefore his statement at least partially looks like bogus and is not a reliable source for the article. --PM3 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"from above the level of the cockpit floor" which the DAB report states, does not mean "from above", which the report doesnt say, if I read correctly. No personal interpretation please. Alexpl (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unprecise. The contradiction lies in "from above the level of the cockpit floor" (DSB) and "below the bottom side" (Krushs). If the warhead exploded below the plane's bottom, it's very unlikely that it's fragments/"shrapnell" hit the cockpit floor from above. --PM3 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: Here is the only sentence in which the word "above" appears on the pages you mentioned: "Puncture holes identified in images of the cockpit floor suggested that small objects entered from above the level of the cockpit floor (figure 10)." "Above the level of the cockpit floor" does not imply "above the plane". Also, the report says "suggested", so it does not state that the plane was hit from above the level of the cockpit floor as fact. Finally, the report says, "The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside." Whenever the report mentions the aircraft being damaged by numerous "high-energy objects", it always uses the phrase "the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft". This signifies that only the front of the plane was hit, which implies that the plane was shot from its front, not from above it. That is inconsistent with how a Buk missile functions, but is consistent with cannon fire from a fighter jet.

Thus your claim that "Krushs assertions are incompatible with the well-documented findings of the DSB" is false, and your attempt to smear him with your statement "his statement at least partially looks bogus and is not a reliable source for the article" fails. Also you ignore the most significant point that Krush made, which is that no witness observed a Buk contrail, a fact that makes the whole theory that a Buk hit MH17 a non-starter to any objective observer. But at least your making this comment indicates that some kind of argument for why Krush is not an expert whose opinion should be noted is required. Volunteer Marek is not even willing to concede that. – Herzen (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The report also says that objects penetrated from outside the cockpit roof. I believe that that would be "from above the aircraft" for whatever purpose here. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Will you please. Quit it. With the original research. And jeez, talk about "lawyering". Volunteer Marek 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ukrainian secret service claims that a trail has been witnessed: [2]. This may be forged, but though "no witness observed a Buk contrail" is disputed. Actually, Krush (and we) cannot know that noone witnessed a contrail, we can only know that we are not aware of such witness. --PM3 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In this section, the reliability of the Russian trade weekly the Military-Industrial Courier has been discussed. Claims that this publication is not a reliable source were made, but I rebutted them. Also, the issue of whether a senior officer in the Russian military can be considered to be an expert when it comes to Russian weapons systems was discussed, without anyone being able to show why he should not be. Thus, I see no reason why the views of Maj. Gen. Mikhail Krush on the likelihood of a Buk missile having shot down MH17 should not be included in this article, given that the article reports the views of two Western experts who have an opposing view to that of Krush. I don't see how anyone can deny that NPOV requires that Krush's observations shoud be mentioned in the article, especially since they echo what was said at the press briefing that the Russian defense ministry gave, which received significant coverage in the Western press. – Herzen (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV of the article should match the POV of reliable sources. This doesn't include obscure, cherry picked sources out to glorify the Russian motherland. This denialism of who shot the plane down is only an issue inside of Russia. There should not be efforts to pretend this isn't so by creating false balance. Geogene (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The article should have a neutral POV. The only way to guarantee that is to use ONLY the official report. All else is speculation and/or propaganda. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, what I just described is the definition of a neutral point of view: one that assigns every viewpoint the same weight as seen in the bulk of the reliable sources. Your concept of "neutral" is clearly different from that, that's why I don't agree with your suggestions for the article. In this case, you want to create a "neutral" viewpoint by pretending that most of the sources out there don't exist. What happened to the plane? Who knows! Here are some cat pictures or something. Others have advocated magnifying the Kremlin viewpoint far out of proportion: this is also wrong. I find both unacceptable, and both are certainly non-neutral. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. An article is "neutral" if the content matches what the bulk of the reliable sources are saying. Stickee (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not the case that "this denialism of who shot the plane down is only an issue inside of Russia." In the American blogosphere that is critical of America's empire of bases, it is taken for granted and as self-evident that Kiev shot MH17 down. Attempting to marginalize this point of view as engaging in conspiracy theorizing does not change the fact that Americans on both the left and right who regret the course that America has taken since 9/11 tend to believe that the downing of MH17 was a Ukrainian false flag operation.

Furthermore, consider what German Wikipedia says about the possibility that Kiev was responsible for this atrocity:

The Russian military announced on 21 July 2014 that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been present during the Malaysia Airlines crash. [143] As evidence, a radar image was shown on the order 13:21:35 UTC another, unmoved and unmarked radar echo near the emerged from MH17. [3] the Ukraine has denied that its own fighter planes were in the air at this time. [143] [12] The former commander of the Russian Air Force Peter Deinekin later explained, the radar images were of fragments of the disintegrated Boeing.[144]

The Malaysian newspaper New Straits Times (NST) took up the Russian assertion of a fighter jet being present and published several articles that talked about a shooting by Ukrainian warplanes. And relying on an article by Robert Parry, a study of a former Lufthansa pilots and - following Parry - a quote from Michael Bociurkiw, spokesman for the OSCE observer mission [12]. Bociurkiw - who is according to his own words, "not an expert on such things" [145] - had said, two or three aircraft parts were pockmarked," looking almost as holes produced by (very strong) machine gun fire", [146] which had been interpreted by Parry as fire by warplanes. In particular, the uniformly round shape of some holes in the aircraft parts, according to the NST sources, point to that. [12]

The theory published by the New Straits Times theory was also reproduced in the Russian, Iranian and Slovenian press [13] and was spread on various Internet sites away from the mass media. The Süddeutsche Zeitung spoke of "wild conspiracy theories" on the Internet. [104]

This is what NPOV on MH17 is like. German Wikipedia can do it, but English Wikipedia fails utterly. – Herzen (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that German Wikipedia uses a secondary source to introduce the idea that the idea that Kiev shot MH17 down may be a conspiracy theory. In contrast, what happens in English Wikipedia is that aggressive editors take for granted that the belief that Kiev shot down MH17 is a crazy conspiracy theory. This is even though the current Kiev story about why MH17 was shot down is an even more crazy conspiracy theory: according to the head of the SBU, the rebels shot down MH17 by mistake; their intended target was a Russian airliner, in order to give Russia a pretext for invading Ukraine. The article in its present state completely ignores that Kiev has changed its story, so that all those reports from social media about the rebels thinking that they had shot down a Ukrainian military plane are now invalidated by the head of the SBU himself. – Herzen (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be uncivil but I can state my position very briefly: I can't reconcile a POV shift of the article with my understanding of the neutrality policy. Therefore, I won't agree to a POV shift. Geogene (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand what I am trying to do. I am not proposing "shifting" the POV of the article. I am proposing making an effort to make this article minimally NPOV by giving two sides of the story, instead of just the Ukrainian/NATO side.

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

As the article stands, it represents only the Ukrainian point of view. The way to make the article NPOV is to represent the other significant view: the Russian/Novorossian one. But every edit that I have made doing that has been reverted. – Herzen (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The article in its present state completely ignores that Kiev has changed its story... - except, nothing of the sort is actually true. Or relevant. I believe the Argument Clinic is couple doors down. Volunteer Marek 00:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. Here is what the SBU chief says

The head of Ukraine’s secret service has claimed rebels intended to down a Russian airliner to give Vladimir Putin a pretext for invasion – but blasted Flight MH17 out of the sky by mistake.

Valentyn Nalyvaichenko said that Russian-backed fighters were supposed to take their BUK rocket launcher – which had been transported across the Russian border – to a village called Pervomaiskoe in Ukrainian-held territory west of Donetsk.

Instead, they mistakenly positioned it in a rebel-controlled village of the same name to the east of the city.

If they had gone where they had been ordered, he said, they would have hit an Aeroflot flight carrying civilians travelling from Moscow to Larnaca in Cyprus.

Crucially, the crash site would have been in Ukrainian-held territory.

The mass killing of Russian tourists could then have been blamed on the Ukrainian army, giving Moscow a justification for invasion, said Mr Nalyvaichenko, head of the Ukrainian intelligence service, the SBU.

This cynical terrorist act was intended to justify an immediate military invasion by the Russian Federation,’ he said.

Aeroflot flight AFL2074 was close to Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 when it was blown out of the sky on July 17, killing all 298 on board, he said.

‘It is incredibly cynical that the act of terrorism was planned against peaceful innocent Russian citizens who were on the way to their holidays with children,’ added Mr Nalyvaichenko.

He claimed this was a significant conclusion of Kiev’s probe into MH17’s downing.

The WP article has a link to the Kyiv Post story about this. You can also find plenty of Russian language stories about this from Ukrainian sources by googling "Валентин Наливайченко боинг".

Contrast that story with the lede from the Wikipedia article:

Immediately after the crash, a post appeared on the VKontakte social media attributed to Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, claiming responsibility for shooting down a military aircraft,[6][7][8] but after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement

Why would Strelkov (Girkin) make a post on social media saying that the rebels had downed a military aircraft, when, according to the head of the SBU, the plan all along was to down a passenger jet? Can you not see the contradiction here? The Ukrainian government can't keep its story straight. – Herzen (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed contradictions between differend theories published by the SBU, also regarding the launching spots: In the phone call recordings it was Chernukhino, in all other SBU publications it was near Snizhne. This is an interesting point, however to include it into the article, we need a notable source which comes to this conclusion – we MUST NOT pubish own conclusions (WP:OR) there. So if you could find such a source which outlines the condradictions within SBU statements, please let me know. The same is true for the contradictions within the Russian military statments as well as within the Russian Union of Engineers theory. They all have flaws, and notable sources which analyse this and point out the flaws are needed.

Even the DSB report has flaws, e.g. they give a wrong aircraft type for AI113 on the aispace map on page 12 (A330 instead of the B787 which virtually all other sources say) and probably wrong last A-Check date for the Malaysia B777 on page 16 (Malaysia Airlines published another date on their website, 11 July 2014, which looks more plausible to me when taking into account that - as to the DSB report - an A check es done each 550 flight hours). We are dealing with lots of flawed material here, but unfortunately we cannot fix this in the articles as long as there are no reliable sources which fix it. --PM3 (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Herzen added the SBU statement with this edit, and now he's complaining about it's presence? Stickee (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess he included that to enable the readers to see the contradictions between different SBU theories. So far that's fine. --PM3 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're gonna do original research: with regard to this false flag theory. First note that there is the factual question of who downed the plane and then there is the speculative question of why they did so. As far as I know Ukrainian officials have always maintained that it was the separatists who shot down the plane with a Russian supplied BUK, most likely with Russian help (crew, training etc). Period. No contradiction. Consistent story. Now, some Ukrainian officials might believe the *reason* the rebels shot it down was because the rebels are a bunch of incompetents, others may believe the *reason* they shot it down was because it was a false flag operation and yet others may believe that it was shot down as part of a false flag operation by Russians, which the rebels, being incompetents, were not clued in on (hence Girkin bragging about it). But who cares? Establishing someone's motives is always speculative and just because there are different theories as to *motives* that doesn't mean the theories about *what happened* are contradictory. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest rhetorical tricks.

On the other hand note that the Russian government theories *about what happened* are all over the place. Ukrainians shot it down with a jet. Wait, no! They had a BUK in an area and shot it down with a BUK! Except photos clearly show machine gun fire on the cockpit so it must've been a jet! Wait no! The plane actually had the dead bodies from the other Malaysian flight that disappeared earlier and was blown up mid air as part of a cover up! Wait no! The Ukrainian had a BUK!

See what I mean? There's a fundamental difference between disagreeing about what someone's *motive* was but telling a consistent story about *what happened* and just telling all sorts of bullshit stories, each of which contradicts all others in order to just create doubt and confusion. And that's how we get this chorus of "we don't really know for sure what happened so we shouldn't actually say what reliable sources say" nonsense.

Also, with regard to Chernukhino - as far as I know that comes just from the recordings of the rebels. It's what one of the rebels said. Who knows if they knew what they were talking about. Or maybe it was code. Or maybe he meant the units stationed in Chernukhino but operating in Snizhne. Or maybe he just had some gripe with the dudes from Chernukhino. Or maybe he got confused with the geography of a... foreign land. Or maybe something else. Who knows? Ukrainian officials themselves, and other sources have been pretty consistent in saying that it was Snizhne and that's what evidence supports. So again, there's no contradiction or mutually inconsistent theories here.

Now can we quit it with the original research? Volunteer Marek 03:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It´s difficult to classify sources from russia. Despite the state controlled media, some stuff seems just like an amateurish attempt by "a fan" to help the government out, while the official statements from government sources seem quite cautious. All these new attempts to manipulate the facts, so that they match with the DSB findings, should be taken with caution - no matter if they come from Ukraine or the Federation. Alexpl (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And the American Government has no fans? Looked at Tony Abbott lately? He had no interest in facts when he made his statement that the Russians did it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Did he say the Federation is responsible, which could refer to the greater context of the war - or did he say "the Russians did it"? Sure there are supporters and military hardliners, but "The West" has this confusing free-press-thing and you´ll find contradictory statements and comments almost everywhere. For example, we had a former East German Colonel to offer, in the western press, who said, iirc, that it wasnt a BUK because there were no traces of fire on the wreck. The high energetic fragments tend to set everthing they touch on fire. Alexpl (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The last transponder transmission recorded by Flightradar24 was at 13:21 UTC

What is that, there is no official source? The aircraft is still 85 seconds remained on track after the failure of the flight recorder ??? 84.118.81.7 (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to be able to make heads or tales out of what you are trying to say. If you can't make a comprehensible argument in

English, you should not distract Wikipedia editors by starting new sections in Talk pages. – Herzen (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

IP84 is referring to the third paragraph of the "Crash" section in which Flightradar24 reports the last transponder transmission at 13:21:28 UTC, while the FDR/CVR has a last recording at 13:20:03 UTC: a disparity of 85 seconds.

To address IP84's question: I personally can't answer why the disparity exists but it's likely just a timing issue on FR24's part (FR24 only takes a reading once every minute). The most we can do is just report what they're saying. Stickee (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 14#Suggestions regarding the last Flightradar24 record. It may have been extrapolated. I removed this 13:21 FR24 data from de:Malaysia-Airlines-Flug 17 months ago because it is implausible and contradicts all other sources. This has been underpinned by the DSB report, which says that all data recordings and ATC communication stopped at 13:20. I suggest to remove this 13:21 information here, too, both the time and the coordinate contradict all other sources. Compare the coordinate to the last FDR position in the DSB report on page 21: It's west of Hrabove and Roszypne, not east of Snizhne where FR24 put the last ADS-B position. --PM3 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the last FR24 record shows a 10 second delay to the 60s recording interval, while all the previous records only show a 2-4 second delay [3]. I read in some internet forum that FR24 will wait up to 10 seconds before the next data is recorded. This very much looks like after the 10 second timeout they recorded extrapolated data, to fill an assumed data gap. From the last FR24 coordinate given here in the article, the plane would have needed to do a U-turn and fly some 20 kilometers back to the West and then crash there. This terribly contradicts all what the DSB report sais about the crash sequence:

plane flies in eastern direction
at 13:20 all systems stop working a few km west of Roszypne
cockpit section falls straightly down near Roszypne
rest of the plane following a downwards trajectory to the east and comes down near Hrabove.

--PM3 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I support the proposal. Flightradar's data seems to be less accurate than the DSB report and appears to contradict it. (The precision of FR24's data may be causing readers to overestimate its accuracy). Geogene (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no disparity or course deviation. According to the data of Flightradar24 MH17 simply continues to fly on course Kuala Lumpur after the failure of the flight recorder and cockpit voice recorder at 13:20:03 UTC as before and did not crash until 13:21:28 UTC. But Russian sources speak of a course deviation at 13:20 UTC. 84.118.81.7 (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As was said above, the Flightradar24 data is probably wrong. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Primary Russian source, on which all other Russian sources on this issue are based, shows that at 13:21:28 UTC the plane is already crashing, dramatically losing speed and moving to the northeast instead to Kuala Lumpur. Hear to the comment of the Russian video at ~20:50: The commentator is explicitly talking of 13:21:30 UTC, and MH17 on the radar screen has a speed of ~350 km/h at this moment, compared to 890 km/h which FlightRadar24 gives for the same time. One of both must be wrong. --PM3 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So it seems the FR24 data is different from all the other data. As you and Geogene have suggested already, it's probably best to remove the FR24 info. Stickee (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Geogene (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Banner

It has been pointed out on numerous occasions that this article lacks neutrality. It is highly biased towards the Ukraine/US version and gives little credit to other versions of the event. The other Wiki pages on this topic (see French, German and Russian versions) describe all possible versions, like a proper Wiki page should. Editors like Volunteer Marek, are very reluctant to acknowledge this and prevent changes to the article. These editors call all the other theories as Fringe, Original Research or Russian propaganda for no real reason, other than they don't like them. Clearly this argument can go on forever without any party being satisfied with the results. So here is what I suggest. Let's add a NPOV at the top of the article to tell the reader that the neutrality of the article is hotly debated. What do people think? 118.210.139.81 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the intention of the NPOV banner is to flag the article for the sake of other editors, not necessarily the readership. It's also to be used only when there is an active discussion that is making progress, and not for an unlimited time. When the discussion stops for any reason, the banner is supposed to come down. So to use it indefinitely during a protracted debate in order to "punish" the article is not a valid use. And I should add that this article is approximately neutral per the actual WP:NPOV policy, which says that article POV should reflect that of the bulk of the reliable sources. The arguments that it is not neutral not only disregard policy but are, frankly, ridiculous, and becoming sillier all the time, with them most recently being based on the moral superiority of certain editors here. This "debate" does not merit a banner. The thing is, these things you complain about, that we call other viewpoints "Fringe", "Original Research", and "propaganda" (I don't recall that one being used, but many of these sources are not RS) are excellent reasons to exclude these things from the article. There is no reason for anyone to complain editors using these legitimate arguments, and that they do shows they're not able to respond in kind. Those that support alternative POVs have not made an effort to justify their proposals or refute these characterizations with policy. I will not support use of the banner to try to give undeserved legitimacy to the arguments of editors that apparently have no concern for the actual NPOV policy. Note that I think I was the editor that most recently added the NPOV banner to the article. I've since become convinced that there is no material benefit to the current discussion. Geogene (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of template messages is "to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made." WP guidelines say nothing about "there [being] an active discussion that is making progress". You are right that this discussion is not making progress, but that is only because some editors continue to deny that there is grave systemic bias in this article, and relentlessly undo edits which attempt to establish a minimally NPOV in the article. You and some other editors continue to denounce the idea that somebody other than the rebels might have been responsible for shooting down MH17 as fringe. But we live in a globalized world. The Anglosphere, France, Germany, and Russia are all part of the same global Internet community. As the IP who started this Talk section pointed out, the French, German, and Russian Wikipedias all consider this possibility. And yesterday I added some of the dialog from a German TV program which satirized how Western news media confidently blame the rebels for downing MH17, when no one has been able to provide any credible evidence to that effect. To quote from the blog post I just linked to, the TV network that that satirical program was broadcast on was "ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen), the second German public broadcast organisation, absolute MSM, like NBC in the US or BBC2 in the UK." If the German equivalent of NBC and BBC2 emphatically presents a given POV, then the only reason why English Wikipedia editors would consider that POV to be Fringe is Systemic Bias.

Rather than admitting that this TV program demonstrates that considering the possibility that the rebels might not have been the ones who shot the plane down is an idea that is mainstream and not fringe, you and Volunteer Marek deleted my comment which quoted from the program, thus doing exactly what the program satirized: "delete, delete!" Volunteer Marek deleted my comment on the grounds that it was "disruptive"; you deleted it under the pretext that it was a copyright violation, even though quoting two minutes of dialog from a one hour TV program clearly falls under fair use. The only way the editors who are determined to preserve the Systemic Bias in this article can do so is by using lawyering and civil POV pushing to prevent other editors from fixing the article. – Herzen (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment was nothing more than soapboxing about how "unfair" the media has been on this issue. We're not a forum, and its place is not here. Stickee (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

IDONTHEAR becomes less effective once editors gain experience with how some editors use various stratagems to game Wikipedia policy. The idea that if a major Western TV network takes a possibility seriously, then that possibility cannot be fringe, so that NPOV requires that Wikipedia discusses that possibility, is not hard to understand. It is highly regrettable that many editors working on Ukraine-related articles appear to behave as if they are NOTHERE. – Herzen (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spurious tagging of articles based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is disruptive (whether done by sock puppeting IPs or not). And let's remind everyone about WP:NOTAFORUM. And I'm sorry Herzen, but if there's a single editor on this talk page who personifies both WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE, that's you. All the way. Volunteer Marek 05:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The suggested tag is NPOV and has nothing to do with IDONLIKEIT. This is an official WP tag. Let me remind you this is not a forum. We are just following WP rules, sorry if you don't like them.14.2.17.35 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, this is just so tedious. As Geogene said, this article reflects the preponderance of reliable sources, including reliably sourced and duly weighted mentions of the alternative, ahem, theories that the Russian government and its various mouthpieces prefer to propagate. Doing anything else with the article would be an abrogation of about half a dozen Wikipedia policies that I have brought up here before, including but not limited to WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, WP:DUE, and WP:VER. So no. No shame tags. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes and you are one of those making it tedious. Please explain why this article has been written with all theories in at least 3 other languages (French, German and Russian)? There could be more, I haven't checked. They are using the same Wikipedia with the same rules. Why are the same theories considered Fringe and OR here, but not over there? Is it double standards? Going by majority, it looks like THIS article is inconsistent rather than those. I am really looking forward to your answer to these questions.118.210.139.81 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because other crap exists on other languages isn't an argument. This article already gives the fringe theories a generous amount of air time. More than is due by policy. Stickee (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you labelling it crap? It exists in other languages for a good reason. This article is crap because it is pushing just one point of view. Why are you calling all Russian media unreliable? How is it less reliable than US backed media? US has interest in this conflict so US media will report the view that US government holds. This does not make it reliable. The only truly reliable media in this event is Malaysian.118.210.139.81 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the WP policy article you link to suggests that if the Wikipedias of the four major European languages other than English treat a subject significantly differently than English Wikipedia does, English Wikipedia editors can just blithely assume that all those other Wikipedias are just crap, so there can't possibly be any problem with English Wikipedia. So you are just grasping at straws. – Herzen (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia also considers the scenario that Ukraine shot down the plane, and has subsection headings for the scenario that the rebels shot down the plane and for the scenario that the Ukrainian military shot down the plane.

You raise a good point when you note that Wikipedias of different languages have the same rules. I haven't checked the rules of non-English Wikipedias, but I don't see why they should have different basic rules than English Wikipedia. In fact, it has been in discussions of this article that I first ran across the claim that English Wikipedia has its own rules, different from those of other Wikipedias. Of course since this is English Wikipedia we are talking about, editors blithely assume that English Wikipedia applies the rules correctly when it comes to MH17, whereas French, Spanish, German, and Russian Wikipedias do it wrong. – Herzen (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A "good point" from this IP editor that you yourself have brought up elsewhere on this Talk page, I might note. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The "good point" I was referring to was that Wikipedias of different languages have basically the same rules. I had not made that point, although it is true that the IP editor mentioned the same non-English Wikipedias that I did. Also, the IP editor wrote in his initial post in this Talk section that Russian Wikipedia "describe[s] all possible versions", whereas I had written earlier that Russian Wikipedia does not consider the fighter jet using cannon fire scenario. – Herzen (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does have the same rules, but it also has vastly more traffic than any other version. This means that on English Wikipedia it is less likely a biased point of view remains unchallenged. (first half of edit by me: Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC) broken up by anon editor)

Now you are just clasping at straws. What does traffic have to do with anything? China has the biggest population, so are you suggesting that their version should be favoured more than others? Of course not, this would just be ridiculous. The bias in this article has been challenged on many occasions, unfortunately nothing has been done about it, because certain individuals are controlling the article. By the way, this is illegal according to WP rules.14.2.17.35 (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Traffic means active people means more points of view, so less likely that few editors can control the debate (as I clearly explain). Traffic has little to do with inhabitants but with visits and edits. Indeed I agree that cutting up edits of editors on talk pages like you did with mine is at best considered extremely bad form, and probably illegal indeed. Arnoutf (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry didn't mean to cut up your edit like that. Here we have many different points of view, so please explain why the article presents just one of them? Or do you suggest I invite more people with my point of view to edit the article to get some balance. This would lead to edit wars, which again is illegal. I am trying to reach a diplomatic solution here. Adding a NPOV banner is such a little thing and even that has been strongly rejected by you guys... 14.2.56.81 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit continud) What strikes me in the discussions here is that the editors defending the Russian POV, casually collapse Asian (Malaysian), Eastern (Polish, Baltic, Ukranian) and those of many "western" countries into a single "western" POV; disregarding the number of different countries, and not even considering that there is truly free press exists in many of these countries, meaning that the press in many individual western countries maybe voicing opposing views even within a single country. These arguments would in my view lend more weight to reports in these presses (more countries, more diverse press for alsmost each individual country). But of course I will be accused of Russia bashing by stating this; as it is always easier to ridicule those you disagree with than reconsider your own assumptions. Arnoutf (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're just a hater. YOLO! -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that of all the different language Wikipedias I have looked at, the line of the Dutch Wikipedia is most like that of English Wikipedia, in almost completely ignoring the possibility that the rebels did not shoot down the plane. Could that be because after England, the Netherlands are the most enthusiastic ally of the US, of any Western European country? – Herzen (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, as the article notes, "the liberal Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta published a bold headline in Dutch that read "Vergeef ons, Nederland" ("Forgive Us, Netherlands")." This indicates that there is a "more diverse press" (to use your phrase) in Russia than there is in the Netherlands. If you are able to provide an example from the mainstream Dutch press considering the possibility that the Ukrainian government shot MH17 down, please do so. – Herzen (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting that those arguing that other language Wikipedias give more credit to the Ukraine shot down MH17 theories ignore the Dutch language version that does not. This strongly suggests that the selection of Wiki's used as argument above may not be representative of all Wiki's indeed, but a handpicked collection with as only purpose to make a point. Arnoutf (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Who cares? What other Wikipedias write has absolutely zero influence on what we do here. Volunteer Marek 18:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it has nor should have influence, mentioned cherry-picking is just one of the reasons why this is the case and why it should indeed be so. Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why what other Wikipedias do matters has been explained to you any number of times. Your IDONTHEAR has become very tiresome. But of course, IDONTHEAR is one of the essential tactics employed in order to OWN an article. – Herzen (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC) At the very least, please have the decency to stop making blanket assertions without making the least effort to back them up with some kind of argument. – Herzen (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, we HEARD you alright. And we've explained to you why it doesn't matter and why you're wrong; simply put it would violate the policies of THIS Wikipedia. "I keep saying the same wrong thing over and over again and nobody's convinced" /= "they didn't hear me". Volunteer Marek 00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The above edit does not explain anything, and is a clear case of WP:POT. PS As arguments go. We should not use Wikipedia articles as sources per WP:RS. That logically also extends to other language wikipedias. Even if we look at other languages for inspiration, we should give a fair and balanced overview of what is happening there (ie at all other Wikipedias) and not just the few that do things you happen to like. The listed wikipedias are just one selection. Arnoutf (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for itself. Stickee (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not suggesting to use other Wikipedia articles as a source for this article. We are questioning why other theories have been mentioned in 4 other languages, but they cannot be mentioned here. Same event, same sources, same Wikipedia with the same editing rules. I am yet to see an explanation to this. Oh and please stop yelling and throwing out derogatory remarks - it is unprofessional and unnecessary. If you continue in this fashion we will ask senior management to ban your account. 14.2.34.249 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who this "we" is. Anyway, like pointed out above numerous times this is completely irrelevant and unimportant. And pleeeeeeaaaaassssseeeee go ask "senior management" to "ban your accounts". A bit of scrutiny on this talk page to put an end to these endless and tedious arguments (as well as probable socking and other forms of disruption) would be most welcome. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We is me, Herzen, HiLo and many others. I don't know where you got the idea of socking. If you think that I am Herzen then you are mistaken. Our writing styles are completely different. Once again you can't answer my questions or have a mature discussion so you start dropping false accusations and derogatory comments. I will not hesitate to contact senior management to ban YOUR account on violation of WP rules.14.2.34.249 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit of friendly advice: if you want to report someone, I suggest that you get a named Wikipedia account, instead of making contributions using an IP address. As I've observed before, I think that getting an account actually increases your privacy.

As for who "we" are: at least two editors who tried to get some NPOV into these articles dropped out after they were reported for administrative action, even though no permanent action was taken against them. One of those requests for administrative action was made by Volunteer Marek. – Herzen (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of final report

According to the secondary sources which I put into the introduction, the DSB said that the final report will be published "hopefully by the summer of 2015", and according to the government of Netherlands it "could be published in the summer of 2015". This has been globalized to "mid 2015", but this is misleading - mid 2015 would be June/July, but northern summer is from late July to late September, and the DSB and government statments look more like "not before summer 2015".

What about "in the third quarter of 2015" to fix this? --PM3 (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. To me, the word "by" in their statement kind of indicates that it will be before summer of 2015. Another possibility is to say "The Dutch Safety Board is now leading an investigation into the incident and a final report is expected within one year of the crash." (taken from the quote starting with "The Board aims to publish..." from [4]). But the "third quarter" also sounds okay. Stickee (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a small collection of quotes I found on the matter:

"A final report by the board is not expected until mid 2015." Reuters, 9 Sept
"The final ICAO report will likely be released in the second quarter of 2015." Aus Govt, 9 Sept
"The final report will be published later, hopefully by the summer of 2015" DSB Spokesperson, 3 Sept
"The Board aims to publish this report within one year of the date of the crash." DSB Spokesperson, 9 Sept

Overall they say the same thing, but the specifics are a little different. Stickee (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Australian, so I don't have a problem with the regionalism in the use of the word "summer" (can't we just assume that when European officials use the word "summer", they are talking about the northern hemisphere?), but I think that "mid 2015" is a vague term that can be stretched as far as April-September (the middle half of the year). By the way, when Stickee says "by" means "before", he is just wrong: OED defines "by" as "indicating the end of a time period". In this case, the time period is summer. – Herzen (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to put in my experience -- in the Netherlands we usually consider 1 July- 31 August summer. Schools end around July 1st and start around September 1st (universities always start in the week of September 1st). We do sometimes include June (but usually call that late spring) and September (but usually call that early fall) into summer. So your interpretation of late July - late September as summer may not be relevant everywhere. Arnoutf (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm that evil person who removed "summer of 2015". I'm Australian. Here, summer is December, January and February. So "summer of 2015", said in the voice of a global encyclopaedia, in an article of major interest to Australians, makes no sense. If the expression is to be included, it must be as a precise quotation from whoever said it, with full attribution and sourcing. It may even require a global translation to what it really means. If we can't do that because we can't agree on what "summer of 2015" means, then there is not much gained by including it at all as an indication of when the report is expected, is there? HiLo48 (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course this is an indication of when the report is expected, and it's a valuable information for the readers. There is no doubt that they talked of northern hemisphere summer, because another statement said "within a year" - leaving open if this refered to 17 July 2014, 9 September 2014 or the date of the statement). Also there is no doubt that northern hemisphere summer starts in the middle of the year and lasts for a few month. If we can't agree on a handy description of this, I suggest to quote the sources

... is expected in "summer 2015"^[6][7]

and add a comment to the footnotes that this refers to nothern hemisphere summer, which begins in the middle of the year. --PM3 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If it needs clarification (and it will for many of the people likely to be interested in this article), that clarification needs to be with the text, not buried in footnotes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I might also draw attention to the second bullet point of MOS:SEASON. Stickee (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we believe the statement made by the Dutch Safety Board that it "expects to publish the final report within a year of the crash" [5]? Was that the last official statement or has it been superseded? If it hasn't we just have to wait until 17 July 2015? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, Wikipdia has no deadline. HiLo48 (talk)

That's no official statement. The WSJ does not say how it came to the assesment of "within a year of the crash on July 17", this may be based on an older DSB statement or on some third source. I think that this Dutch government statment of 20 September, which is already referenced in the article, is much more official an up to date. --PM3 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources beside WSJ, of course. One would expect an official estimate to get progressively more accurate and nearer. So what is the latest "official statement"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, am skeptical. The Dutch P.M. just said that the investigation is unlikely to resume before winter (in Dutch). This is for purely political reasons: "Rutte said that he had sought no contact with the separatists. 'The Netherlands do not recognize the separatists. Contact with the Netherlands would have brought us into an impossible relationship with Ukraine and Russia. We are a NATO country, it is inconceivable that we had sought contact.'" So because the Netherlands are a NATO country, they hamper the investigation into who murdered almost 200 of their citizens. (This is odd, by the way, since the Ukraine itself is in contact with the separatists, since it reached an accord with them in Minsk.)

Would anyone mind if I added something like "The Dutch P.M. said that the investigation is unlikely to resume before winter [another season!], because the Netherlands, being a NATO country, will not enter into contact with the separatists"? – Herzen (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

They tried to resume the on-site investigation during this month, and as to the Malaysian PM gave up twice because "shooting warnings were issued by unidentified parties". Malaysia has a pretty neutral position in the Ukaine conflict, therefore I think this statement ist trustworthy. You won't tell now that the NATO has troops at the crash site that threaten to shoot the investigators, will you?
The final report may be completed without futher on-site investigation. The have also much off-site investigation work to do, see the DSB report on page 32.
The last official statement I know of is the one of the Dutch foregin minister of 20 September that I already mentioned three times, here is the fourth: [6]
I don't expect the date to become more accurate before mid 2015.

--PM3 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Malaysians are still saying that they intend to do further on-site investigation: “The focus is on entering the crash site to recover remains that are possibly still there and personal belongings of the victims. We would also be gathering evidence which shows any possible criminal act on the aircraft.”

I am not claiming that NATO has troops at the crash site, but Kiev is claiming that the rebels laid landmines to impede the investigation, thus impeding the investigation with that claim. The article you linked to states:

On Thursday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak met Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk at the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, but even Yatsenyuk remained non-committal on when investigators could re-enter eastern Ukraine before winter.

I am unaware of the Kiev regime ever honoring a promise that it has made. – Herzen (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The article that I linked starts with "Malaysia has expressed disappointment in Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels in the eastern city of Donetsk for not fulfilling their promise ...". Now please stop spamming each section in this talk page with offtopic and skewed information. This won't help at all in finding the right words for "summer 2015". --PM3 (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Going back on topic. Mid 2015 seems ok to me. In my view mid can be vague enough to cover April-September as mentioned above, and creates no summer or winter differences in the hemispheres. Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's misleading, as the sources indicate that the report will not be published before July. Why not "third quarter of 2015"? That would fit the sources and be more precise. --PM3 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm there is some thing to that. However, 3rd quarter is more precise than summer which can be stretched from end of may till end of September, while 3rd quarter is July-August-Sept. So I am not sure that does not overinterpret. But a phrase like "by summer" can be construed as by (or even before -- cf. the assignment is to be finished by 2 june at the latest) the first day of summer (which may again be as early as 1 June) or before the end of summer (which may be as late as 30 Sept).

Perhaps phrase more like: It will take to well into 2015 before the final report is to be published or something like that. Arnoutf (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, because the quotes Stickee got from the sources say the same thing, but specifies different variations on the date of the anticipated report. So I would recommend what you said because it's more time neutral. Sam.gov (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

My favourite is still "third quarter", but "well into 2015" looks ok, too (after consulting the dictionary – as non-native speaker, I was not sure what exactly it means). --PM3 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Archives of Tjibbe Joustra presentation on MH17 original report

These archives were made so that the source materials are preserved. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812

Why does this article contain 0 mention of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812? This incident was alluded to heavily in Russian language media following the incident. Not having any mention of it, in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of NPOV. How can we best integrate this incident into the article? (I was thinking the Russian media coverage section)

In the interim I have added it to the See Also Section

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 - an incident that Russian language media alluded to in order to discredit the Ukrainian government

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment immediately below your edit says "Please do not add other airliner shootdown incidents. These are already covered in the list wikilink". I believe there was a decision in the past somewhere on this talk not to include any similar incidents. If it was to be included, I agree "Russian media coverage" would be the most appropriate section. Stickee (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this edit before seeing the discussion here. I agree that this thing should go into the "Russian media coverage" section, and there it should be written more NPOV. Indeed there were Siberia-1812 comparisons in the Russian media, e.g. this theory published on 25 July by RIA Novosti and by Kommersant [7].

Generally, putting Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 into the "See also" section creates an undesirable bias, as the Siberia-1812 comparison is just one of many theories on the cause of this crash. --PM3 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

MH17 would be the second downing of a civilian aircraft by a Surface to Air Missile fired from Ukrainian territory. The other one being when Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (a commercial flight) was shot down by the Ukrainian military over the Black Sea on 4 October 2001. Ukraine banned the testing of Buk, S-300 and similar missile systems for a period of 7 years following this incident. Ukraine’s acting Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh described the combat readiness of the country’s armed forces as “unsatisfactory” in his 12 March 2014 report to the acting president. Tenyukh said recent exercises demonstrated a “dismal degree of preparedness among servicemen and lack of military specialists, equipment and weapons” in the Ground Forces, the Air Force and the Navy. The country’s air defense troops had received little training because of the 2001 ban on missile launches imposed after the crash of a Russian Tu-154 passenger jet. The ban was lifted in 2008, but so far only 10 percent of Air Defense Forces servicemen “have mastered the required level of theory and practice,” the report said. The Ukrainian military had several batteries of Buk surface-to-air missile systems with at least 27 launchers, capable of bringing down high-flying jets, in the Donetsk region where the Malaysian passenger plane crashed, Russian Defense Ministry said.[8][9] --82.198.102.128 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@PM3: I disagree. Having 0 mention of this incident is evidence of clear and present bias. It should remain in the See Also section until it is expanded upon in the article. Relying on the link to other aircraft incidents is insufficient as it ignores the importance of the Siberia Airlines incident with regards to MH17's aftermath. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no significance. Volunteer Marek 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, to you there is no significance that the last country to accidentally shoot down an airliner was the Ukraine. Also, that the Ukrainian military shot down that airliner with a Buk missile is insignificant, too. This article mentioning the downing of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 would bring the idea into readers minds that the Ukraine is capable of shooting down airliners, a possibility which would require the article to consider the scenario that Kiev deliberately shot down MH17, a scenario which German and French Wikipedia consider, but which English Wikipedia does not, a clear case of systemic bias. – Herzen (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no significance to it because only wacky conspiracy theorists or battleground warriors obsessed with correcting great historical wrongs or fighting irredentist war with their keyboards think that there is any significance to it. Reliable sources don't... Come on, this is getting ridiculous. I could just as easily say "Russia is the one country which has *purposefully* shot down civilian airliners before" and "hell, they even gave the pilot a medal for killing innocent people on one" and "and they suppressed evidence just like they're doing with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17" and insist on a link to Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and then just repeat ad nauseum "this is significant, this is significant, this is significant, this is significant...". But it won't be. No more than this is. That is the essence, the freakin' dictionary definition, the Platonic archetype of POV pushing which is exactly what you're trying to do here. No. Volunteer Marek 20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Technical point: it wasn't a BUK but another SAM, but the principle of incompetence is the same --82.198.102.128 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Siberia Airlines References has nothing to do with consipiracy theories. it reflects RS. Russian language media drew links between the two incidents to discredit the claims of the Ukrainian government. Your ad nauseam argument holds no water. in THIS case RS drew the link. We don't need to engage in original research because RS and GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS drew the link. Also, aside from RS, other language wikis report on the RS that drew this link. Having 0 mention is clear evidence of POV pushing. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Should we attempt to document everything that the Russian government (and its numerous media outlets) has said to try to discredit Ukraine? That would be a very long article. How much coverage has this gotten in RS outside of Russia? Geogene (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Zip. In RSs. I've seen Korean Air Lines Flight 007 mentioned more often in this context. Volunteer Marek 15:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't seen any of this either. If it's demonstrated that this is a major (and continuing) object of discussion in Russia, then I wouldn't oppose a sourced mention in the Russian media coverage section. But please don't use a See Also as a place for unsourced commentary on this. Geogene (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What are thoughts of including mention of Siberia Airlines in the Russian Media section? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Would not object, provided it was brief. Far better than in See also. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)